***************************************************************** 09/06/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.228 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 British Energy's darkest hour 2 Nuclear firm seeks government bail-out 3 British Energy facing insolvency 4 Green campaigners say Torness should remain closed because of design 5 UK: Nuclear Group Faces Meltdown 6 Unions demand talks over British Energy crisis 7 Background: The state of the Nuclear power industry 8 *British Energy debt ratings cut to Ba3; further downgrade seen - Mo 9 UK: Country's biggest electricity generator seeks bailout to avoid 10 US: NRC to Host Open House September 17 in Nevada 11 UK: JOB AXE FEAR FOR 5200 NUCLEAR WORKERS 12 British Energy pleads for state bailout 13 BNFL MAY LOSE MAJOR CUSTOMER 14 British Energy Likely to Receive Government Aid, Analysts Say* 15 US: "Nuclear generation is more affordable now than ever," says 16 UK plans nuclear power initiative - sources 17 British Energy seeks bailout - 18 Authorities raid Japan's top power company over alleged 19 US: Agency Seeks to Keep Energy Plant Info Secret 20 Japan: Niigata town votes against TEPCO pluthermal plan NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 US: NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Robinson Nuclear Plant License 22 US: Nuclear Security Enhancements 23 US: Davis-Besse did nothing criminal, firm reports 24 US: 'No design flaw' at nuclear plant 25 US: Town takes another look at nuclear neighbor NUCLEAR SAFETY 26 63 survivors file for radiation illness recognition 27 US helps Russia move uranium to safer sites 28 US: Quake study set to attract test plant - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 29 US: NFS seeks dismissal of lawsuit 30 US: NRC Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel to Meet 31 US: Expanding nuke storage unsafe, lawyer says 32 US: State approves contract to continue Yucca legal fight 33 US: Bush pursues boost in Yucca funding 34 US: Virginia law firm gets OK to take on Yucca fight 35 US: Tougher Yucca rules requested 36 US: Letter: Yucca counsel is a waste of our $4 million 37 US: Bush wants more for Yucca 38 US: RPI prof. appointed to nuke waste review board - 39 US: Jabiluka decision welcomed by ALP. 40 Aust's dubious honour as 'best place for nuclear waste dump'. 41 Labor opposes Australian nuclear waste dump. NUCLEAR WEAPONS 42 FOXNews.com 43 US: Not grasping the signals on Iraq -- 44 Pasko nominated for 2002 Sakharov prize 45 Satellite photography shows construction at Iraqi nuclear sites 46 US: Bush's best course 47 Sowing confusion on Iraq 48 No Current Danger Posed to US from Iraq: Jimmy Carter 49 US: Feinstein blasts Bush's talk of war / Senator says attack on Ira 50 US: 'Saddam dangerously close to nuclear bomb' 51 US: Sources: No new evidence of Iraq nuclear threat US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 Incubator attendees see example 53 Design plans can begin for new Y-12 facility 54 Gene Joyce: Why aren't our leaders raising a ruckus? 55 DOE Makes First Delivery of Refurbished Radiological Detection OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 British Energy's darkest hour This is Money /by Richard Inder, Daily Mail/ BRITISH ENERGY shares were suspended last night as the nuclear power generator warned that it may face insolvency if rescue talks with the Government fail. BE said there were reasonable grounds for believing the talks, which began on Wednesday, would succeed but added ominously: 'There can be no certainty that this will preserve value for investors.' The suspension, which could last longer than a year, will infuriate BE's 237,000 shareholders, who are now locked into the stricken company. The board, led by executive chairman Robin Jeffrey, broke off from a crisis meeting in early afternoon, but there was no statement concerning BE's dire state until after the market closed. More than 26m shares were traded in heavy dealing. They closed down 2 3/4p at 80 3/4p and are likely to plummet in grey market trading today. For some time the generator has been lobbying the Government for £100m in tax breaks, including an £80m exemption from a tax on the gases that cause global warming. BE does not produce any of these 'greenhouse gases'. Weak electricity prices have left BE's plants, such as Sizewell B in Suffolk, losing money. Technical problems have also hurt and without a cash injection, BE runs the risk of not being able to cover loans worth hundreds of millions due to be repaid next year. It had hoped to run British Nuclear Fuels' ageing Magnox nuclear reactors, but revealed last night that it had been unable to agree terms with the State owned company. BE is also looking to sell its 50% stake in the US nuclear power generator AmerGen. BE's partner in AmerGen, Exelon, is mulling over a sale and BE hopes to bundle its stake, worth some £250m, as a job lot. BE was privatised by John Major's Government in 1996, the same year as the collapsed rail operator Railtrack. © Associated Newspapers Ltd., 06 September 2002 Terms and ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear firm seeks government bail-out Independent.co.uk By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 06 September 2002 British Energy, the country's biggest nuclear electricity generator, warned last night it was likely to go bust unless the Government agreed to an immediate cash injection. The shock announcement means that ministers may have another Railtrack on their hands and could be forced to take the privatised company back into public ownership, with its huge nuclear liabilities. A government statement, issued after 24 hours of talks, confirmed that it had initiated discussions with British Energy about "immediate financial support" and the possibility of long-term restructuring. Both the Government and British Energy, which supplies about a fifth of the country's electricity, stressed that safety and security of supply would be paramount. The announcement came after British Energy requested a suspension of its shares and told the Stock Exchange that without a cash injection it "may be unable to meet its financial obligations ... and therefore may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings". The company said it had grounds for believing the discussions would be successful, but warned there was no guarantee that this would "preserve value for investors". British Energy has £1bn in borrowings and nuclear liabilities of £14.1bn, of which £3.2bn has been accrued in its accounts. The crunch appears to have come after British Nuclear Fuels refused to agree a new deal for reprocessing British Energy's spent fuel, which is currently costing it £300m a year. The company was privatised in 1996 by the Conservatives for £1.3bn. At its peak, the business was worth £4.6bn, but it has lost 90 per cent of its value and is now worth £496m. Last year it lost £518m. ***************************************************************** 3 British Energy facing insolvency Independent.co.uk Nuclear generator needs 'immediate' cash aid; no guarantee rescue will 'preserve value for investors' By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 06 September 2002 British Energy was facing financial disaster last night after admitting that without an immediate cash injection from the Government it may have to file for insolvency. Even if the emergency discussions now taking place with ministers stave off bankruptcy, the loss-making nuclear generator may have to be taken back into public ownership effectively, leaving shareholders with nothing. The beleaguered company went to the Government and its financial advisers CSFB on Wednesday morning warning that without immediate financial support it would not be able to meet its financial obligations and might therefore "have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings". It has just over £1bn in borrowings of which £408m are in the form of bonds. Of these bonds, £110m are repayable in 2003 but interest payments fall due shortly. It has a further £508m in project finance loans and a £104m loan to finance its operations in Canada. Neither the Government nor the company would indicate how much emergency support was needed although industry insiders said it was likely to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. A government source said that although it had begun rescue talks with British Energy, "there is no question of it receiving a blank cheque". The crisis appears to have been triggered by the failure of British Energy to negotiate a new deal with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to cut the costs of reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel. The contracts cost British Energy £300m a year but it believes this figure could be cut to £50m if BNFL would agree to storage rather than reprocessing of the fuel. BNFL delivered its formal offer to British Energy on Wednesday morning. "The terms offered by BNFL fell short of those which British Energy requires," the company said. The rescue talks with the Government then began. Ministers have been drawing up contingency plans for some weeks in the event that British Energy failed. It lost £518m last year, including an operating loss of £41m in the UK where it operates eight nuclear reactors, including the Sizewell PWR, and one coal-fired station. British Energy cautioned that the discussions over a longer-term restructuring would be complex and lengthy. Any rescue package would also need to be approved by the European Commission under its state aid rules. Among the options being considered are exempting British Energy from the climate change levy, giving it the management contract to run BNFL's Magnox stations and cutting its rates bill. Ministers are also examining changes to the new electricity trading arrangements which have cut wholesale prices to less than British Energy's cost of production, making it impossible for the company to make a profit in the UK. The company's only profit-making operations are in the US and Canada. But last night British Energy disclosed that it was exploring the sale of its 50 per cent stake in Amergen, a joint-venture company which took over part of the Three Mile Island plant in the US, the scene of a near-disastrous meltdown in the mid-1970s. Amergen contributed £30m to £40m of profit last year. The owner of the other 50 per cent share, Exelon, is selling its stake. British Energy's shock announcement came after the chief executive of BNFL said the crisis at the company had made it more difficult to promote the case for a new generation of reactors. Norman Askew said British Energy's predicament made it more difficult to foster public confidence in the industry and convince ministers of the need for a £10bn programme to construct 10 new stations to replace the country's ageing Magnox and AGR reactors. ***************************************************************** 4 Green campaigners say Torness should remain closed because of design faults. Scotsman.com Fri 6 Sep 2002 British Energy in plea for cash to avert crisis /BILL JACOBS Westminster Editor/ THE Government was poised to bail out a second major privatised utility today as nuclear power generator British Energy entered urgent talks with officials over a financial crisis. Ministers admitted that only massive Westminster support could prevent the UK?s biggest electricity supplier going bust. But they promised there would be no "blank cheque" to shareholders and claimed it was not a repeat of the Railtrack fiasco. But shareholders insisted the two cases were similar and were demanding Government compensation. And a senior figure within the industry warned that British Energy could be only the first UK electricity generator to require Government aid as the wholesale price of power continues to drop. Meanwhile, environmental campaigners demanded that the Government should refuse to bail out the company with Scottish Greens, saying the Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian should remain closed for good because of possible "design flaws". British Energy started urgent talks with the Government today after warning that it faced insolvency without immediate financial help. The company runs eight nuclear power stations in the UK and said the collapse in the price of electricity meant it now cost more to generate power than it could get for selling it. The firm?s managers said they believed the discussions would be successful but warned shareholders: "There can be no certainty that this will preserve value for investors." They said if the talks failed, the company might be unable to meet its financial obligations and would have to take the "appropriate insolvency proceedings". Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said: "There is no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British Energy and its shareholders." She said the main reason for getting involved with the company was because of the Government?s responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear power. In the latest financial year, British Energy lost £518 million and is already heavily in debt. Executive chairman Robin Jeffreys said: "We had no alternative other than to seek government support. Over the past several months, we have worked hard to negotiate improved arrangements for waste management services and to lobby Government for a level playing field. It is now clear there will be no prompt resolution to these issues." But shareholders groups are furious and claimed that, just as with Railtrack, the Government changed the rules for energy production and forced the company into financial trouble. They want compensation. As the crisis deepened and share trading in British Energy was suspended, union leaders sought urgent talks with the company and the Government over fears that jobs could be lost among the 5200-strong workforce. Dougie Rooney, national official at AMICUS, said: "Our immediate concern is the need to get reassurance for the workers that the company is going to continue. The business is too important to the infrastructure of the country for it to go under." David Porter, of the Association of Electricity Producers, said British Energy was not the only company in difficulty. "We have an extremely competitive wholesale electricity market and this is a market that now leaves us with blood on the carpet," he said. Scottish Executive Enterprise Minister Iain Gray said: "While energy policy is reserved and the question of support for British Energy is a matter for the UK government, I fully recognise that the company is both a major employer and generator of electricity here in Scotland." He said he and his department were being kept fully informed of developments and he had already met with Mrs Hewitt and Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell. SNP shadow environment minister Bruce Crawford called for any Government bail-out of the company to be a prelude to "a structured phasing out" of nuclear power. "British Energy finds itself on the brink of insolvency, proving beyond any doubt that nuclear power is not only dangerous but also uneconomic," he said. ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 5 UK: Nuclear Group Faces Meltdown Sky News - [http://www.sky.com Troubled nuclear group British Energy has begun talks with the Government over its financial crisis as the Conservatives urged Downing Street to "stop dithering". With green groups urging ministers not to bail out the company, British Energy warned that it may have to take "appropriate insolvency proceedings" if talks were not successful. The Government said "no blank cheques" would be handed out to the firm, whose shares have slumped over the past month. Shares The Tories said the Government should halt its hesitation over the issue of where the UK's electricity supply should come from and act quickly. Tim Yeo, shadow trade and industry secretary, said: "The Government must stop dithering and start deciding whether they want nuclear energy to play a significant part in providing Britain's electricity needs." British Energy has been hit by the sharp drop in electricity prices and technical problems at its power stations. Discussion The Department of Trade and Industry said the company's board had initiated discussions with Government "with a view both to seeking immediate financial support and to enable discussions about a possible longer term restructuring to take place". British Energy is the UK's largest generator and produces one fifth of its electricity. The group, which was privatised in 1996, employs 5,200 staff in the UK, where it has eight nuclear power stations - Torness, Heysham, Dungeness in Kent, Hunterston in Scotland, Hartlepool, Sizewell in Suffolk, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Eggborough in Yorkshire. Earlier this year the group reported full-year losses of nearly £500m. Last Updated: 08:49 UK, Friday September 06, 2002 © 2002 BSkyB | Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions ***************************************************************** 6 Unions demand talks over British Energy crisis Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Special report: the nuclear industry Staff and agencies Friday September 6, 2002 The Conservatives joined unions in criticising government energy policy today amid concern that British Energy, the owner of 15 nuclear reactors in the UK and Canada, may be closed because of mounting losses. Union leaders demanded urgent talks with British Energy and the government and sought assurances that there would be no job losses among the company's 5,200 staff. The loss-making group last night warned the government it could face insolvency if it did not receive immediate financial aid. Company shares were immediately suspended. Dougie Rooney of the Amicus union said: "Our immediate concern is the need to get reassurance for the workers that the company is going to continue. "We need to work with the company and the government to get together a package to reconstruct British Energy so that it can compete in the marketplace. "That will require the government to listen to the difficulties being faced in the electricity industry." He said that recent regulation of the industry had been too "punitive" and said something had to give because of the pressure on companies. Key government energy legislation, known as new electricity trading arrangements (Neta), has sought to reduce the price paid by consumers for electricity. The policy has been one factor in the decline of BE, which last year lost £500m. The government argues that there is an excess of power-generating capacity in Britain. The Department of Trade and Industry, while insisting that there would be no "blank cheques" written to save the company, has not ruled out paying state aid that does not breach European competition rules. The Conservatives believe that the company can be saved by exempting it from climate change levies. Tim Yeo, the shadow trade and industry secretary, said: "The government must stop dithering and start deciding whether they want nuclear energy to play a significant part in providing Britain's electricity needs. "Immediate relief for British Energy could come in the form of exemption from the climate change levy, particularly because the nuclear industry produces no CO2 emissions." A nuclear energy expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Malcolm Grimston, said: "Market reforms a year or so ago have made it very difficult for anybody to make money out of power generation. "There's a real question as to whether, as older stations come to the end of the lives, this market can actually encourage anybody to invest in new ones. "At the moment electricity is too cheap to be sustainable. Somebody has to make money out of generating power or ultimately people won't do it." Environmental groups say that no more public money should be spent subsidising the nuclear sector. Greenpeace said: "The government should resist the temptation to bail out this company because Britain would be better without British Energy's creaking nuclear power stations. "Any money the government has should go to support renewable energy not nuclear power, which has failed despite 50 years of government support." Roger Higman, nuclear campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "British Energy's troubles show yet again that nuclear power is unreliable and uneconomic - as well as being a threat to the environment. "Ministers must not throw good money after bad with further subsidies to the failed nuclear industry. They must invest instead in clean, green renewable sources of power." British Energy is now pursuing talks with government, hoping to win millions of pounds' worth of aid. The company warned last night that if talks were not successful it may have to take "appropriate insolvency proceedings". British Energy has suffered a number of technical breakdowns that have knocked out four of its eight UK reactors in the past year. Useful links British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 7 Background: The state of the Nuclear power industry Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Without aid, the renaissance is off Nuclear power David Gow and Terry Macalister Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Last night's dramatic plea from British Energy, the privatised nuclear power operator, for an immediate government cash bailout to prevent its insolvency is proof that Britain's entire atomic power industry is in deep crisis. Coming after British Nuclear Fuel's losses of more than £2bn last year, the plea for hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money from BE underlines how far from reality the chairmen of both firms have been in hailing a nuclear renaissance. There are at least six causes of BE's near-insolvency. First and above all, the wholesale price of electricity has fallen 40% in four years - 20% of which was in the last 18 months. The reasons are clear: there is 30% over-capacity in the generation market, well above the 20% needed to keep the lights on in a national emergency. Other power firms have mothballed or switched off plants; BE cannot, because its eight modern stations need to be working constantly for safety reasons. Prices have also fallen because new electricity trading arrangements, known as Neta and introduced in March last year, have brought much needed flexibility into the market. BE, which provides baseload power it has to sell whatever the demand, has benefited not a jot. On the contrary: to make any money it needs prices to be well above the present £16 per megawatt-hour when its own target costs are £16.50. Last year its UK nuclear operations lost £41m, but the losses this year are bound to be substantially higher - and analysts insist that prices will remain low or be forced even lower for several years ahead. The result is that BE, which exacerbated its problems by overpaying for the Eggborough coal-fired power station and selling its retail business, leaving it unable to offset generating losses, is unable to meet its medium to long term liabilities of £14bn - decommissioning reactors as they are gradually closed between now and 2030. This basic trading problem has been exaggerated by four other problems. BE has been unable to persuade ministers, let alone Ofgem, to reform trading arrangements in its favour. Moreover, it has had to shut down four of its 15 reactors this year, leaving its output short of target and costing up to £250,000 a day. Robin Jeffrey, BE's chairman and a nuclear veteran, has been trying for more than two years to persuade BNFL to renegotiate the terms of its reprocessing contract under which Sellafield takes BE's radioactive waste. This costs BE £300m a year in cash and is index-linked; north American-style arrangements would save it £200m. BE has also failed to get a deal with BNFL over taking over the daily operation and management of some, if not all, of BNFL's six Magnox power stations. Mr Jeffrey, a proponent of the case that nuclear is the greenest power as it emits no greenhouse gases, has also been negotiating unsuccessfully with ministers to exempt it from the climate change levy. This costs it £80m a year. Finally, BE insists it should pay the same level of business rates on its plants as those applied to gas and coal fired stations. At present it pays about £20m a year more. But the basic problem is that BE's costs, despite years of cuts, are uneconomic, and will remain so without state aid. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 8 *British Energy debt ratings cut to Ba3; further downgrade seen - Moody's* Ananova Moody's Investors Service reduced its credit ratings for British Energy PLC to Ba3 from Baa2 as the ailing nuclear energy generator runs out of cash to sustain its business. The ratings remain under review for further downgrade as Moody's warned of possible insolvency should talks with government for adequate funding support fail. "Even if negotiations with the government on both replacement liquidity and longer term prospects prove successful, the credit no longer displays investment grade characteristics," it said. Should talks fail, Moody's expects the company to become insolvent "rapidly." "In such an event, the recovery prospects for bondholders may be slim and the bond ratings may be downgraded to the lowest categories," it said. The rating agency said it believes that the company's liquidity position is expected to worsen due to the requirement to post collateral for the benefit of various parties, including trading counterparties in the UK and North America. "Whilst the company is still evaluating this, Moody's believes that the additional liquidity requirement is of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds," it noted. Further, it thinks discussions with government may take some time as it may involve the latter taking some fundamental decisions about the structure of the UK electricity trading arrangements, security of supply, environmental considerations and the overall future of nuclear power. The government, it pointed out, is unlikely to feel obliged to pay particular regard to the interests of the company's existing funders as its primary considerations are focused on ensuring securing of supply and the safe operation of the nuclear power stations. © AFX News Story filed: 11:48 Friday 6th September 2002 ***************************************************************** 9 UK: Country's biggest electricity generator seeks bailout to avoid collapse Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Terry Macalister Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The government was faced last night with demands of up to £1bn and possible power blackouts as the country's biggest electricity generator asked for an immediate financial bailout. The near collapse of British Energy (BE) is a huge blow to the nuclear industry, which has been lobbying hard to be allowed to build a new generation of atomic power plants. BE, which was privatised in 1996 and owns 15 nuclear reactors, said it could face insolvency unless it was given public money. Some believe it could need as much as £1bn. The government said it was in emergency talks with the company with "paramount objectives _ to ensure the safe operation of BE's nuclear stations and security of supply." The near collapse of a group that provides a fifth of the country's electricity is a serious embarrassment to Labour because new electricity trading arrangements, known as Neta, have helped to bring the company to its knees. A Department of Trade and Industry spokeswoman denied its policies had precipitated the crisis, arguing that the biggest problem was an excess of rival power generating capacity. "It would be wrong to focus on Neta," she argued. The BE board said it had "reasonable grounds" for believing the government would help it out but warned that "there can be no certainty that this will preserve value for investors". In the past the company continued to pay dividends even when business conditions were tough. In 1999 it paid out £432m in a special dividend saying it did not need the cash because there were no immediate acquisitions to be made. But yesterday BE said that if talks with the government were not successful it "may be unable to meet its financial obligations as they fall due and therefore the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings". The chairman, Robin Jeffrey, said he had lobbied the government "for a level playing field" in the energy market but this had failed to bear fruit. He was believed to be referring to the Neta arrangements, which have contributed to a 30% fall in wholesale prices. The company has brought some of its problems on itself. It has been plagued by technical breakdowns which have knocked out four of its reactors this year and caused losses of£500m last year. Environmental groups urged ministers not to throw money at BE. "The government should resist the temptation to bail out this company," said Matthew Spencer, a Greenpeace spokesman. "It is not another Railtrack. Britain would be better off without BE's creaking nuclear power stations, which are still not profitable after 50 years of subsidies." Before the crisis blew last night, the owner of Sellafield and other nuclear plants, BNFL, was launching a report to back up its argument that it be allowed to construct a new generation of facilities. "Nuclear power is the way to a low-carbon fuel economy and is the only credible solution to ensure a large-scale, secure, reliable and environmentally friendly energy supply," BNFL's chief executive, Norman Askew, said. BNFL had earlier offered to hand some of its Magnox power stations to BE management but had failed to agree terms. "BNFL yesterday delivered its formal proposals to BE and the terms offered by BNFL fell short of those which BE requires," said BE. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 10 NRC to Host Open House September 17 in Nevada NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 104 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-104 September 4, 2002 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff representatives in Nevada will host an informal open house September 17 in Las Vegas to discuss their role in regulating the safety of the proposed high-level nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, with citizens of the local community. The session will be from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Clark Country Transportation Building, 4701 W. Russell Road, Las Vegas. Members of the public are encouraged to attend, meet NRC staff representatives, provide comments and ask questions. The NRCs on-site representatives in Nevada are Robert M. Latta and Jack D. Parrott. NRC nuclear waste management and transportation officials from Rockville, Maryland, will also be present and available for one-on-one discussions. ***************************************************************** 11 UK: JOB AXE FEAR FOR 5200 NUCLEAR WORKERS Sep 6 2002 John Mceachran A CRISIS at nuclear power giant British Energy last night put 5200 highly skilled workers' jobs at risk - 1000 in Scotland. The electricity generator warned the company could collapse unless it is thrown a multi- million pound cash lifeline by the Government. A British Energy spokesman said: "The company may be unable to meet its financial obligations as they fall due and, therefore, the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings." British Energy employs about 1000 people at its three Scots operations - the nuclear power stations at Hunterston in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian, and an HQ office at East Kilbride. It has a eight nuclear stations in the UK with a total workforce of 5200. The group was set up and privatised in 1996 to run Britain's nuclear generating programme. But it has total debts of about £450million - and the price it gets for its electricity has fallen by a quarter in the last 18 months after a new trading agreement led to price cuts. Last night, a spokesman at the Department of Trade and Industry confirmed rescue talks had already taken place but warned the Goverment may be unable to intervene. He said: "Any support provided by Government would need to be within the scope of the EC rules on state aid." The news comes a month after £160million was wiped off the group's share value in one day when it was disclosed that Torness needed major repairs after problems had forced it to be shut down. ***************************************************************** 12 British Energy pleads for state bailout BBC NEWS | Business | Friday, 6 September, 2002, 12:21 GMT 13:21 British Energy, the UK's biggest electricity generator, is locked in talks with the government aimed at staving off the collapse of its business. On Thursday night, the company - which runs eight nuclear power stations in the UK - warned that it faced insolvency unless immediate financial help was found. There's no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque Patricia Hewitt Trade &Industry Secretary It is thought that the talks will continue over the next few days and, in a statement, the company said it had reasonable grounds for believing the discussions would be successful. But it warned shareholders: "There can be no certainty that this will preserve value for investors." The company said that if the talks failed, British Energy might be unable to meet its financial obligations and could face insolvency. "We had no alternative other than to seek government support," said executive chairman Robin Jeffrey. 'No alternative' The Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt told BBC News: "There's no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British Energy and its shareholders." She said the only reason she was getting involved in discussions with British Energy was because the government had a responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear power. The government's stance has been criticised by British Energy shareholders. [Electricity price graph] Wholesale electricity prices have dropped sharply "It is not the power company that is to blame here. It's obviously the government," said one shareholder, Malcolm Stacey, in an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "They changed the rules in March last year," he said. "That resulted in a 20% drop in power prices. You don't have to be Socrates, you don't have to be Plato, to realise that that is going to spell trouble." Industry problem British Energy has recently experienced financial problems because of falling wholesale electricity prices. It made a loss of £518m in its latest financial year and it is heavily in debt. David Porter of the Association of Electricity Producers said British Energy was not the only company in difficulty. "We have an extremely competitive wholesale electricity market and this is a market that now leaves us with blood on the carpet," Mr Porter told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "British Energy has responded to this quite magnificently by cutting its costs over the last few years," he said. "But it's reached a point, as have many generators, where the prices it receives are below the cost of production. "This is not the only generating company which is in difficulty, there are quite a few, and one has already gone into receivership." Exemption plea The company has been lobbying for exemptions from the climate change levy or business rates to try to cut its costs. The move was backed on Thursday by the shadow trade and industry secretary Tim Yeo. "Immediate relief for British Energy could come in the form of exemption from the climate change levy, particularly because the nuclear industry produces no CO2 emissions," he said. Trading in British Energy's shares was temporarily suspended shortly before it announced that it was seeking financial help from the government. The shares are currently worth 80.75 pence. Three years ago they were trading at more than 700p. British Energy was privatised in 1996 and employs about 8,200 people. In addition to operating eight nuclear power stations in the UK, the company has a joint venture in the US - Amergen - with energy group Exelon. British Energy is seeking a buyer for its share of Amergen, and analysts say this could raise between £200m-£300m. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 13 BNFL MAY LOSE MAJOR CUSTOMER [The Whitehaven News] BNFL is investigating claims that a key Japanese customer for Mox is threatening to withdraw. Nuclear power utility TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) said on Friday that Japan's Mox (pluthermal) programme has been delayed for the foreseeable future. The announcement came at an emergency press conference in Tokyo. The meeting followed renewed calls by local residents around the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power station for last year's referendum - which voted against the use of Mox fuel at the power station - to be honoured. Since the referendum, an orchestrated effort had been made by the industry and local mayor to overturn the result, but a recent Electorate Intent Inquiry at Kariwa showed 80 per cent of voters demanded that the referendum be honoured. TEPCO president Nobuya Minami told the meeting: "We personally hurt the public's trust in us. We cannot ask for understanding to continue the Mox fuel project." Citizens' concerns have been heightened by TEPCO's further admission of the deliberate falsification of safety inspections of the company's reactors in the 1980s and 90s. Cracks have also recently been discovered in the reactor shroud at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa's Unit 3. The unit's first loading of Mox fuel, scheduled for late September, has been postponed indefinitely. The Mox fuel for Unit 3 was fabricated in Europe using plutonium recovered in France's La Hague reprocessing plant under contract to TEPCO, who are also a major customer for Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant. Mr Minami confirmed on Tuesday he will step down as president of Tokyo Electric Power following the disclosures about Japan's largest power utility. Five reactors will be shut down by the company for safety checks. BNFL spokesman Jamie Reed said on Monday: "We are aware of reports in the national press but it would be inappropriate to comment. "It is too early to say what effects, if any, this would have on the Pluthermal Programme. "They would be customers for us and we found out about this on Friday.'' Anti-nuclear campaigners, CORE, said today: "BNFL is desperately relying on major Mox orders from TEPCO and other Japanese utilities to reduce its losses on SMP. "The indefinite delay to Japan's Mox programme now makes SMP's already dodgy case virtually dead in the water. "With falsification again in the air, BNFL and TEPCO deserve each other." According to CORE, TEPCO is BNFL's largest Japanese customer, with more than 1,200 tonnes of spent fuel contracted to be reprocessed at Thorp ***************************************************************** 14 British Energy Likely to Receive Government Aid, Analysts Say* Bloomberg.com *09/06 03:10 By Mathieu Robbins London, Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- British Energy Plc, which lights a fifth of all U.K. homes, will probably be bailed out by the government to protect the nuclear operator from bankruptcy court, analysts said. The government may underwrite some of British Energy's 859 million pounds ($1.4 billion) of debt or assume responsibility for recycling its nuclear waste to make British Energy's eight reactors more attractive to buyers or lenders, analysts said. European Union law limits the U.K.'s options for cash payments. The utility, which lost 527 million pounds in the year through March, yesterday warned of a potential bankruptcy unless the government intervened. The U.K. allowed Railtrack Plc, owner of the railways and train stations, to become insolvent last October before a nonprofit group took over the assets to keep the trains rolling. ``The government can't afford another Railtrack,'' said Jens Jantzen, a credit analyst at Bear Stearns in London. ``I don't see a bankruptcy of the group, but definitely do not exclude forced asset sales and bank discussions.'' The U.K.'s biggest power generator faced trouble after it sold its last retail supply operations less than a year before the power market was opened, leading to a 40 percent drop in the price of wholesale power. Generators can produce 30 percent more supply than is needed. The U.K. introduced trading rules in March of last year. ``If British Energy has reached this point it's largely the result of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements that the government was so keen to pursue,'' said Philip Hollobone, an analyst at SG Securities in London who rates the stock a ``sell.'' Retail power suppliers such as Centrica Plc and Innogy Holdings Plc saw wider margins selling to their household customers while generators saw returns dwindle. Shutting Plants The drop in U.K. prices forced rivals such as TXU Corp. and International Power Plc to idle power plants. AES Corp.'s Fifoots Point power station in Wales went into receivership in April after defaulting on loans. Receiver KPMG has yet to find a buyer for the plant. British Energy couldn't switch on and off its nuclear reactors, instead had to run them at a loss. British Energy sold a unit that sells power and gas to almost a million households in southwest England in August 2000 to Scottish & Southern Energy Plc. That move left it vulnerable to the declining wholesale power price. ``It's no surprise,'' said Jantzen. ``British Energy definitely needs a lifeline.'' The company needs to refinance almost 500 million pounds of debt, analysts said. It may sell assets such as its stake in Amergen, the profitable U.S. joint venture with Exelon Corp. that owns the Three Mile Island nuclear power station to raise cash. British Energy has sought exemptions from the climate-change levy, which costs about 80 million pounds a year. The company has also said it spends 20 million pounds more on tax for its power plant sites than non-nuclear rivals. The company and state-owned British Nuclear Fuels were in talks to cooperate on ``a wide range of issues'' as they tried to cut costs. Those discussions, which involved British Energy possibly operating BNFL's Magnox model nuclear stations, as well as fuel service arrangements and transportation, ``fell short'' of British Energy's needs, the company said yesterday. ©2002 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service ***************************************************************** 15 "Nuclear generation is more affordable now than ever," says BNFL's Chief Executive Norman Askew Thursday September 5, 12:01 PM BNFL today published a report to Government which confirms that electricity generation from its state of the art reactor design, the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000), makes nuclear power more affordable now than ever before. The report, submitted as part of BNFL's submission to the UK Energy Policy Consultation, reveals robust and competitive costs which have been externally reviewed and verified by a number of independent experts. The improvement in economics has been made possible by the significant evolution of existing proven technology that the AP1000 represents. Unveiling the submission Norman Askew, BNFL's Chief Executive said: "The time to act is now. BNFL is ready to meet the challenge and we have already taken concrete steps to deliver the AP1000 to the UK market by asking the Regulators to start a pre-licensing review. I want to start this work as soon as possible. The AP600, a smaller version of the AP1000 is already licensed in the US and the AP1000 is expected to achieve US design certification by 2004. "The AP1000 is ready for implementation now but to get electricity produced in 10 years time from the first of a new generation of nuclear reactors needs action today. Nuclear power is the way to a low-carbon fuel economy and is the only credible solution to ensure a large scale secure, reliable and environmentally friendly energy supply." Generating 1,000 MW of electricity from the AP1000 only requires 25 tonnes of nuclear fuel per year. To generate the equivalent amount of electricity in a coal fired power station would use around 3 million tonnes of coal. If the electricity provided by nuclear reactors worldwide were to be generated instead by gas-fired stations, CO2 emissions would increase by over 1 billion tonnes per year and this would double if coal stations were used. Replacing all the current UK nuclear capacity with AP1000 reactors would only add about 10% to the UK's nuclear waste inventory over their lifetime. Askew continued: "It is imperative that the nation adopts a long-term energy policy where all low carbon alternatives like nuclear and renewables are retained and encouraged and allowed to operate in a market that delivers the nations needs. Nuclear is currently discriminated against in a market that clearly sees the benefits of low carbon generation but is selective in how it recognises this. BNFL's believes that the following actions are required to ensure that the "nuclear option" is available: - Enable long term electricity contracts at prices which will encourage new baseload of whatever fuel source - Providing the same incentives to all low carbon sources - Implement quicker planning processes for all major UK infrastructure projects - Enable Government/Industry joint funding for early regulatory approvals of new designs - Provide certainty on used fuel and waste costs for potential investors - Play a leading role in ensuring that legacy issues do not cloud decision making in respect of new nuclear build Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 UK plans nuclear power initiative - sources Thursday September 5, 02:17 PM By Andrew Callus LONDON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Britain is expected to clarify on Thursday the future of crisis-hit nuclear power producer British Energy , industry sources said. The sources told Reuters the government initiative could help ensure the survival of the country's only listed nuclear power producer, financially stretched British Energy Plc, but would fall short of the privatised group's best hopes. British Energy, which provides more than a quarter of the nation's energy needs, faces losses stretching into the future because of persistently weak wholesale UK electricity prices. It is in talks with the government to try to get help without falling foul of European Union rules on state aid. Topics for discussion include exemptions for part of its output from the UK's climate change levy, which aims to favour renewable energy at the expense of polluting generators. A possible improvement in contract terms with state-owned fuel reprocessor BNFL is also on the table. British Energy declined to comment. BNFL said it was not aware of any announcement, and that talks with British Energy were "ongoing". A spokeswoman for Britain's Department of Trade and Industry also declined to comment. "It will cover all the issues but it may not make the company totally happy," said one source. NUCLEAR RAILTRACK? British Energy's status as a shareholder-owned business since the mid-1990s is unusual in Europe, where governments are very sensitive to the concerns of anti-nuclear environmental groups, and to safety issues. As its problems pile up, with a plant closure last month that sent its share price into a fresh downward spiral -- commentators have drawn uncomfortable parallels with Railtrack Plc, the failing privatised British railway network operator the government forced into administration last year. Investors are hoping that ministers will do what they can to avoid a "nuclear Railtrack estimates that full exemption for British Energy's from the climate change levy is worth about 300 million pounds ($470 million). But because of the complexities of British Energy's sales contracts and of the levy itself, he says British Energy is likely to get only 70 million pounds net benefit -- worth about 40 pence a share on top of British Energy's current 82-1/2 pence share price. Meanwhile British Energy has told MPs that a move to storing fuel rods instead of the 300 million pound BNFL contract to recycle them could reduce its costs by 200 million pounds. This could potentially add two pounds a share, Turner says, though he warned that BNFL is likely to require some compensation here. Other moneysaving ideas have also been raised by the companies involved and by analysts. These include the possibility of a contract to run BNFL's Magnox stations, a full scale merger with BNFL, renationalisation of British Energy, and a reduction in British Energy's local taxation bill, have also been raised. British Energy made 42 million pounds pretax profit before exceptional items last year but this was wiped out by 500 million pounds worth of exceptional writeoffs linked to a 30 percent slide in the price of the power it produces. It is due to provide a trading statement for investors at the end of September. The company suffers more from weak wholesale prices than other UK power companies because it has no retail customer base to offset the effect on its profits, and no ability to switch off its nuclear plant when prices become uneconomic. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 British Energy seeks bailout - CNN.com - September 6, 2002 LONDON, Sept 5 (Reuters) -- Britain's biggest electricity generator, nuclear power group British Energy Plc, sought an emergency government bailout on Thursday, saying it faced insolvency if talks failed. The company, which produces more than a quarter of Britain's energy needs, said it had "reasonable grounds" to believe government talks would be successful, but its appeal for immediate financial aid shocked investors. "The board anticipates that if these discussions are not successful, the company may be unable to meet its financial obligations as they fall due and therefore the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings," the company said. If British Energy collapses, it would be the second national utility to sink into insolvency after the government last year pulled the plug on UK rail network operator Railtrack. Privatised in 1996, the company faces losses stretching into the future because of persistently weak wholesale UK electricity prices. Its shares, worth a total of 525 million pounds, and its 410 million pounds in bonds have been suspended from trading. The company also has about 600 million pounds in other borrowings. British Energy and the government declined to say how money was being sought but an industry source said the company would need state aid in "the low hundreds of millions" of pounds to see it through until the end of the year. These people said British Energy was seeking a loan from the government to cover short-term cash needs, and a decision would be needed by next week. UK Industry Minister Patricia Hewitt told the BBC: "There's no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British energy and its shareholders." The government said it was entering talks with the company because it had responsibility for the safety of nuclear power. "We don't believe there is any threat to safety and security of supply," a government spokeswoman said. Some fears still linger in the UK about nuclear power safety after a 1957 fire at the Windscale plant, now known as Sellafield, on England's northwest coast released large amounts of radioactive energy. Surprise request Based in East Kilbride, Scotland, British Energy owns and operates 8 nuclear power stations in the UK. The company also has a U.S. joint venture with energy group Exelon (EXC) to buy and run nuclear plants and leases a nuclear generator in Ontario, Canada. Investors were already aware British Energy faced financial constraints, given the fall in electricity prices, but were taken aback by the sudden appeal for cash. In August, British Energy management said they faced no immediate financial crisis despite forced shutdowns at two plants during the month. "To be honest, I'm surprised that it happened so soon," said UBS Warburg analyst Andrew Wright. He said the government faced few options but to give cash. "The last thing the government wants is 25 percent of the nation's electricity disappearing overnight," Wright added. Analysts said the government could either provide an immediate loan to the company or allow it to fall into insolvency and go into administration. At that point a group would be appointed to run the company instead of its own management and get government funding, as was the case with Railtrack. Shareholder outlook bearish One source said that even if the government bailed out British Energy, shareholders would still suffer heavily. "If I was a shareholder, I wouldn't be expecting any amount back ... I would expect the bondholder to feel some pain as well," one industry source said, adding that he did not expect banks to be hit hard because of low exposure and preferential creditor status. Despite British Energy's financial plight, the company six weeks ago handed out the final portion of about 50 million pounds in dividends. British Energy stock, which closed ahead of the announcement, ended down 3.3 percent at 80-3/4 pence. It has fallen 65 percent so far this year. News Network LP, LLLP. An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights ***************************************************************** 18 Authorities raid Japan's top power company over alleged falsification of nuclear safety reports Fri Sep 6, 7:38 AM ET TOKYO - Authorities raided the Tokyo office of Japan's biggest utility Friday to determine if the company's head office had been involved in an alleged cover up of safety problems at its nuclear power plants, officials said. A group of 15 inspectors from the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency started the daylong inspection at Tokyo Electric Power Co. Friday morning, said agency spokesman Takayuki Motohashi. The raid at TEPCO's Tokyo headquarters comes just four days after its three top officials, including President Nobuya Minami, announced their resignations over a scandal involving the alleged cover up of structural problems at three of the company's nuclear plants. The company admitted last week that it misreported problems at the plants in the late 1980s and early '90s after a trade ministry probe revealed 29 cases of cracks or minor structural damage in their nuclear reactors. TEPCO later said the problems weren't serious enough to affect safety. "We are fully cooperating with the government's inspection," said TEPCO spokesman Takashi Kurita. Motohashi said the agency will decide whether TEPCO should be penalized based on the result of its investigation. The Japanese public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power since a 1999 radiation leak at a fuel-reprocessing plant killed two workers. Also on Friday, the Kashiwazaki city assembly in central Niigata prefecture (state) passed a resolution asking the government to terminate TEPCO's plans to use plutonium-based mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel at one of the three plants under investigation for alleged safety violations. TEPCO and the government had planned to introduce the program — long-opposed by residents because of the fuel's dangerously volatile nature — at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant by the end of the month. Japan depends on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its electricity. TEPCO's plants supply nearly half of the country's nuclear energy. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 Agency Seeks to Keep Energy Plant Info Secret The New York Times *September 5, 2002* *By REUTERS* *Filed at 4:06 p.m. ET* WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal energy regulators on Thursday proposed rules to prevent terror groups and the public from obtaining sensitive information about proposed U.S. power plants, large transmission lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines. The changes by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would expand the agency's policy after last year's Sept. 11 attacks to halt public access to certain documents on existing energy facilities, and also would keep secret information about proposed energy projects. ``As we approach the Sept. 11 anniversary, there still appears to be a need to protect critical information from getting into the hands of terrorists,'' FERC staff said in a presentation to the full commission on the proposed rules. Shortly after last year's attacks, FERC joined other agencies, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, in quickly withdrawing public information on critical energy facilities. But FERC says its proposal makes it the first government agency to develop formal rules and guidelines on how to handle such sensitive records. The type of information the agency would keep secret includes pipeline and electric grid flow diagrams that could reveal congested areas when moving energy supplies. Other sensitive information would include pipeline inspection reports, detailed layouts of power plants and other energy facilities, and the emergency action plans at energy plants. Under FERC's proposal, interested parties like landowners concerned about a pipeline project crossing their property could request access to the information. In what could be the most controversial part of the proposed rules, FERC would use new authority granted to itself to question why a person or group wants any restricted information. If the agency decided to make the information available, it could require recipients to sign a nondisclosure agreement or restrict how they share it. FERC could take action against somebody who violated such agreement, such as barring a lawyer -- who gave sensitive information to a news reporter for example -- from appearing before an agency judge in cases involving regulated energy companies that are clients. Currently, when companies, journalists, state officials or advocacy groups ask FERC for documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act, the agency said it was not allowed to consider what the parties will do with those documents or restrict who they can be showed to. Agency staff said they don't believe the new proposal would raise any freedom-of-the-press or other free-speech concerns, based on advice from the Justice Department. The FERC proposal will be published in the Federal Register, and the agency is expected to take public comments on its proposed rules though mid-October. Agency staff will then review the comments and possibly fine-tune the rules with suggested changes. The full commission could vote on the final regulations later this year. ***************************************************************** 20 Japan: Niigata town votes against TEPCO pluthermal plan Friday, September 6, 2002 at 17:30 JST NIIGATA Japan The municipal assembly of Kashiwazaki in Niigata Prefecture, where the world's largest nuclear plant is located, passed a resolution Friday asking Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) and the government to terminate their plan for pluthermal nuclear energy generation. "It has become impossible to acknowledge (the plan) as trust toward TEPCO and the government on the safety of nuclear energy has been swept away," the resolution said, referring to the recent scandals involving TEPCO's alleged cover-up of damage at its nuclear reactors. (Kyodo News) Japan Today Discussion ***************************************************************** 21 NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Robinson Nuclear Plant License Renewal NRC: Press Release Region II - 2002 - 44 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov No. II-02-044 September 5, 2002 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov [opa2@nrc.gov] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold public meetings on Wednesday, September 25, in Hartsville, South Carolina, on the environmental review related to the application of Progress Energy to renew the operating license for the nuclear unit at the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant near Hartsville. Members of the public are invited to attend and comment on environmental issues the NRC should consider in its review of the proposed license renewal. The meetings will be held in Davidson Hall on the campus of Coker College, 300 East College Avenue in Hartsville. Parking will be available in front of Davidson Hall. There will be two similar sessions, one in the afternoon at 1:30 and one in the evening at 7:00. In addition, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to each meeting. NRC staff members will be available to answer questions and provide additional information about the process during those informal sessions, but no comment submittals on environmental issues will be accepted then. For planning purposes, those who wish to attend or present oral comments at the meetings may register by contacting Richard Emch of the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension 1590, or by e-mail at RobinsonEIS@nrc.gov [RobinsonEIS@nrc.gov] no later than September 20. Interested persons may also register to speak before the start of each session. Individual comment time may be limited by the time available. The meetings will include an overview and NRC staff presentation on the environmental process related to license renewal, after which members of the public will be given the opportunity to present their comments on what environmental issues the NRC should consider during its review. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating license for the Robinson plant will expire on July 31, 2010. Progress Energy submitted its application for license renewal in June. As part of its application, Progress Energy submitted an environmental report. That report is available for public review in the NRC Public Document Room at NRC headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. In addition, the Hartsville Memorial Library, located at 147 West College Avenue in Hartsville, has agreed to make the ER available for public inspection. The application and environmental report are available on the NRC Web page at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/robinson.html. An existing NRC document, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," (NUREG-1437), assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. The NRC staff is gathering information at these meetings for a supplement to the generic environmental impact statement that will be specific to the Robinson plant. It will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of conclusions and significant issues and will send a copy to interested persons who participated in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for public review at the Hartsville Memorial Library and will be accessible electronically through the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room found at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The NRC staff will then prepare a draft environmental impact statement supplement for public comment and will hold a public meeting to solicit comments. After consideration of comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final EIS supplement. Members of the public may also submit written comments on the scope of the Robinson-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement. Comments should be submitted by October 25, either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T-6-D-59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or by Internet to: RobinsonEIS@nrc.gov [RobinsonEIS@nrc.gov] . b ***************************************************************** 22 Nuclear Security Enhancements NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 106 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-106 September 5, 2002 NOTE TO EDITORS: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received a number of calls from reporters working on stories marking the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of last September 11. The attached fact sheet provides a summary of the measures NRC has mandated to increase the security of the 103 operational nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. Also described are enhancements of security at NRC facilities. FACT SHEET Nuclear Security Enhancements Since Sept. 11, 2001 Licensee Security -- The NRC took security seriously well before the September 11 terrorist attacks and has made additional enhancements since then in light of the increased threat. Enhancements of security at NRC-licensed facilities are being continually implemented notwithstanding that facilities such as nuclear power plants already had a number of security and safeguards measures in place, making them among the most robust and well protected civilian facilities in the country. -- Following the September 11 attacks, the NRC immediately advised all major licensees of nuclear facilities to go to the highest level of security. A series of Advisories, Orders and Regulatory Issue Summaries have since been issued to further strengthen security of NRC-licensed facilities and control of nuclear materials. -- The specific actions are sensitive, but generally include requirements for increased patrols, augmentation of the number and capabilities of security guards, additional security posts, installation of additional physical barriers, vehicle checks at greater stand-off distances, enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities, and more restrictive site access controls for personnel. -- The NRC has underway a comprehensive review of the agencys entire safeguards and security program, regulations and procedures. The review is ongoing and has resulted in numerous security improvements. -- The NRC has studies underway to investigate potential vulnerabilities of facilities to deliberate aircraft crashes. The work in this area is ongoing. In the interim, the Commission has directed nuclear power plant licensees to develop specific plans and strategies to respond to an event that could potentially result in damage to large areas of their plants from explosions or fire. In addition, licensees must provide assurance that their emergency planning resources are sufficient to respond to such an event. -- The NRC has worked with the Federal Aviation Administration on a Notice to Airmen to prohibit planes from circling or loitering above nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. -- Additional measures have been put in place to provide additional protection against land attacks, including the use of a substantial vehicle bomb, and against water-borne attacks. -- The Commission is working closely with other Federal agencies to revise the design basis threat that provides the foundation for the security programs of nuclear power plant licensees. The Commissions Orders to these licensees in February 2002 effectively provide enhanced security in the interim while this work in underway. -- The NRC has expanded involvement and enhanced liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, NRC licensees, and military, State and local authorities. -- The NRC has established an ongoing dialogue through frequent communications with the Office of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies. -- Following the 9/11 attacks, NRC-evaluated security exercises were temporarily suspended to allow licensees to focus on putting increased security measures into place. NRC has reinitiated these drills by initially exercising the table top component of the exercises that for the first time involve a wide array of Federal, State and local law enforcement and emergency planning officials. The NRC expects to expand the exercises to include a force-on-force component at the beginning of next year. -- Full security performance reviews, including force-on-force exercises, will be carried out at each nuclear power plant on a three-year cycle instead of the eight-year cycle that had been used prior to September 11, 2001. -- The NRC has developed an inter-agency response procedure involving the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among others, to cope with the threat of a radiological dispersal device. In this role, the NRC would provide technical advice to local authorities responsible for emergency response, including suggestions for protective measures, and evaluation of the radiological hazards. -- The NRC is evaluating approaches for cradle-to-grave control of radioactive sources which might be used in a radiological dispersal devise.  With regard to the shipment of radioactive materials and spent fuel, NRC has augmented security measures, including increased communications and additional escort and monitoring provisions. -- The NRC has increased staffing of its Headquarters Emergency Operations Center to provide a cadre of experts on call to respond to emergencies around the clock, 7 days a week. The additional staff aids in the prompt dissemination of pertinent information to all concerned, including licensees, Federal and State officials. -- The NRC established the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) in April of this year to consolidate security, safeguards and incident response responsibilities and resources and improve communication and coordination both internal and external to the agency. -- The creation of NSIR streamlines decision-making, improves the timeliness and consistency of information, and provides a more visible point of contact and effective counterpart to the Office of Homeland Security, as well as other Federal agencies. -- The NRC has developed a new Threat Advisory and Protective Measures System to communicate and respond to threats affecting NRC licensees and NRC facilities in response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The system corresponds to the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System which provides a consistent national framework for allowing government officials to communicate the nature and degree of terrorist threats. The NRC system identifies specific actions to be taken by NRC licensees for each threat level to counter projected terrorist threats. The new Threat Advisory and Protective Measures System replaces the NRCs 1998 threat advisory system and covers additional classes of licensees not included in NRCs 1998 system. Security at NRC -- On September 11, Chairman Meserve will deliver remarks to NRC staff in tribute to those who died in the attacks, as well as to their bereaved families and friends. NRC staff will observe a one-minute period of silence at 8:45 a.m. that morning, the time of the first airplane strike at the World Trade Center. -- In addition, a host of enhanced security measures were put in place at NRC Headquarters, including the installation of concrete vehicle barriers, increased armed guards, more stringent access procedures and ongoing intra-agency communications to keep all NRC employees informed of the latest developments. Security was also bolstered at NRC regional offices. -- The NRC conducted a comprehensive review and revision of its web site to remove sensitive information which could be of interest to terrorists, while it continued to provide the public with appropriate material on the NRC and its activities. ***************************************************************** 23 Davis-Besse did nothing criminal, firm reports The Plain Dealer 09/06/02 John Mangels and John Funk Plain Dealer Reporters The staff and management of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant made poor decisions in operating the reactor and dealing with federal regulators, but did nothing to break the law, according to FirstEnergy Corp. Those findings were made by a law firm the company retained to review staff activities at the troubled plant during the past decade. "While they certainly found . . . decisions that we wish had been made differently, actions we wish had been done differently . . . our outside counsel has not found any activities . . . which would rise to criminal," said FirstEnergy vice president Terrance Howson. Howson made the comments yesterday to stock analysts attending a conference for energy companies in New York City. A FirstEnergy spokesman identified the law firm as Morgan Lewis, of Washington, D.C., but said the company would not release the firm's report. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting its own probe into whether actions at the Toledo-area plant were criminal and has not yet made a determination. That investigation and six others by the agency and Congress stem from the discovery in March of a large rust hole that had been growing undetected in the reactor's lid for up to eight years. The plant has been shut down since spring. It will not be restarted until the NRC is satisfied it can be operated safely and management reforms have been made. Howson told analysts who follow energy utilities that in spite of all of the scrutiny, the company still expects to have the reactor ready to operate before year's end. Because the NRC has the final say about the plant's readiness, FirstEnergy has bought replacement power into the spring - at an estimated cost of $10 million to $15 million a month - on the chance that Davis-Besse must remain idle, Howson said. To reach these Plain Dealer reporters: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. ***************************************************************** 24 'No design flaw' at nuclear plant BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Friday, 6 September, 2002, 21:03 GMT 22:03 UK [Inside Torness] Two reactors at Torness have been shut down The Torness nuclear power station should be producing electricity again before the end of the year, according to a local MP. Labour's John Home Robertson said he had also received assurances that there are no design faults at the East Lothian plant. The area's MP was speaking after a meeting with operators British Energy and the Torness local liaison committee. It seems the welds were not quite as good as they should have been on one or two of these impellers - that's certainly not the same as a design fault John Home Robertson The company, which made a loss of £500m in its latest financial year, is seeking government cash to save it from insolvency. British Energy runs the Hunterston plant in Ayrshire and Torness, which employs 450 people and produces 1,200 megawatts of electricity if both reactors are in use. The company has been hit by a sharp drop in electricity prices and by problems at some of its power stations - including Torness. Reactor 1 at the East Lothian plant was closed down automatically last month due to vibrations in the gas circulation system, which cools the reactors. A second reactor has been out of action since May because of a similar problem. Shut down British Energy said there was no "incident" in either case and no escape of radiation at the plant, which accounts for about 12% of its annual energy output. The Scottish Green Party has called for the station to be shut down indefinitely, claiming that it may have design flaws because of compromises during construction. The party said it had obtained information indicating that the big fans inside the reactor cooling system were made from forged metal rather than cast metal, which is apparently used in other nuclear stations. [Torness sign] The plant has been closed for several weeks It said this was because no supplier could reach the stringent safety requirements for the cast components. MSP Robin Harper said concerns that the new material used may be susceptible to vibrations were raised at the time even though it passed safety tests. "I am calling for Torness to stay shut down until the full report on these fans [is published] and then for them to be replaced," he declared. Mr Home Robertson said this was an "irresponsible" demand. Speaking after a special meeting of the local liaison committee, he said the recent problems were not related to the design. No further problems "It seems the welds were not quite as good as they should have been on one or two of these impellers - that's certainly not the same as a design fault," he said. Mr Home Robertson said no further problems had been found during checks on more than half of the 16 impellers used in the two reactors. In any restructuring, we want to make sure our members are not casualties Danny Carrigan Amicus "They are continuing to check the remaining impellers, and while safety remains the watchword, I'm hopeful that a case can be made for Torness to re-open sooner rather than later," he said. He predicted that the power station should be up and running again by Christmas. It has been suggested that it could cost British Energy at least £25m to repair the problems. Meanwhile, unions are calling for the jobs of nuclear workers in Scotland to be protected as efforts continue to save British Energy from collapse. Amicus is seeking an urgent meeting with the company's Scottish management to discuss the company's future. Public control "We want reassurances that workers' terms and conditions of employment prospects will not be weakened in any way," said the union's regional secretary Danny Carrigan. "In any restructuring, we want to make sure our members are not casualties." Scottish National Party MSP Alex Neil urged the UK Government to bring British Energy back under public control. [Robin Harper] Robin Harper: "Stay shut" Mr Neil said it was vital that government ensures the safety of all nuclear stations, but said that it must be done on the condition that British Energy be renationalised. Scottish Enterprise Minister Iain Gray said that while energy policy was a matter for Westminster, the firm was a major employer and major generator in Scotland. "Officials from the Scottish Executive will remain in constant contact with officials from the DTI as the situation progresses," he said. "It is, however, important to recognise that the prime concern of government in intervening in this matter is one of maintaining security of supply and safety in production." © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 25 Town takes another look at nuclear neighbor [http://www.southofboston.net/weather/] By Brian Falk MPG Newspapers PLYMOUTH (Sept. 5) - If it could happen to New York and Washington, could it happen to Plymouth? The Sept. 11 terrorists attacked American symbols, looking to inflict physical, economic and emotional damage. Not long after realizing the full impact of Sept. 11, many people in Plymouth began to wonder if America's Hometown, often viewed as the nation's historical and spiritual birthplace, could be next on al Qaeda's list. Having the Pilgrim nuclear power plant just a few miles south of Plymouth Rock, Plimoth Plantation and the Mayflower II, helped fuel those post-Sept. 11 fears. Anti-nuclear activists have long claimed an accident at Pilgrim could release a radioactive plume that would render large portions of New England uninhabitable for decades. What if terrorists went after the plant with such a catastrophe in mind, some wondered. Over the past year, Pilgrim has been the subject of public forums, a town meeting article and increased attention from federal, state and local agencies. It has also undergone numerous security upgrades, both seen and unseen, disclosed and classified. While not everyone is convinced that plant owner Entergy Nuclear and the government have done enough to protect Pilgrim, many in Plymouth agree that after Sept 11, the town will never again view its nuclear plant in quite the same light. "For years, the town has practically denied its very existence, and paid very little attention to it," said Plymouth resident Alba Thompson. "Not any longer. Everyone knows now we have a plant and everyone knows the dangers." The next target? Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino said Sept. 11 started out like any other day at the plant. He was returning from a meeting when a coworker told him a plane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. "I don't think we really thought it was anything more than a weird accident until we heard about the other planes," Tarantino said. Soon after media reports indicated a deliberate attack on New York, Tarantino said the plant's own security force went to its highest level of alert: level three. Half an hour later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission made that alert level an official order. The plant has remained at level three ever since, and Tarantino said that will probably be the case at Pilgrim indefinitely. Tarantino said the first week after Sept. 11 was relatively quiet at Pilgrim. It was not until the second week that his office started getting inquiries from the news media and the general public. "That's when people caught their breath and started saying 'what else could happen?' " Tarantino said. Plymouth resident Ed Russell said it also took him a few days before he thought of Pilgrim as a possible target. "You have to imagine that terrorists smart enough to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks have considered attacking a nuclear plant," Russell said. Those suspicions were confirmed in President George W. Bush's January State of the Union Address, when he said U.S. intelligence found diagrams of American nuclear power plants in Afghanistan. "There has never been any credible threat against any particular nuclear power plant," Tarantino said, "but you can imagine these people (terrorists) must sit down and ask where can we hurt the Americans again?" Response With veiled threats against nuclear plants in mind, "major" steps have been taken this year to beef up Pilgrim's security, according to Tarantino. On Sept. 11, the plant closed its shorefront park and put additional guards at the gates. Soon after, state environmental police began patrolling the plant's perimeter woods, and the Coast Guard started daily waterfront patrols and flyovers. In October, Gov. Jane Swift stationed National Guard troops at the plant's exterior gates. The Coast Guard has imposed a permanent 500-yard coastal exclusionary zone around the plant's shoreline, now marked by buoys. New, boom-like barriers now block the plant's discharge and intake canals to boats and other floating objects. The plant has also increased the size of its private security force, upgraded surveillance, closed all but one entrance gate, installed more physical barriers and strengthened existing relationships with federal, state and local law enforcement and emergency agencies. Only authorized personnel with security badges can get past the plant's gate, and even longtime employees are now subject to random vehicle searches. All of those security measures became part of an official NRC order in February. Tarantino said that order also included some enhancements that cannot be discussed publicly. "We don't want to be putting information in the paper that could help the bad guys," Tarantino said. Pilgrim's security was always designed to thwart attacks from land, Tarantino said, and new protections added since Sept. 11 defend against attacks from the sea. But Sept. 11 introduced a new scenario: hijacked jets used as missiles. Although Pilgrim's reactor containment vessel and spent fuel rod storage pool were not specifically designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner, Tarantino has said the multiple layers of reinforced concrete and steel surrounding those structures at Pilgrim make a breach highly unlikely. A plane would also have trouble hitting such a small target dead on, Tarantino said. In June, the Electric Power Research Institute reported it had studied nuclear plant structural strength, at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and concluded that airplane attacks similar to those of Sept 11 "would not likely penetrate" reactor containment buildings. In addition to preventative security measures, the NRC agreed last fall to supply potassium iodide (KI) pills to anyone living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant. In the event of a nuclear accident, KI can help prevent thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine - one of many dangerous compounds that could be released in a nuclear accident. Questions Despite increased security at Pilgrim, many in town don't think the plant or the government has done enough. "Clearly, people view the plant as a potential hazard sitting right there," said Bill Abbott, a longtime Pilgrim critic. "It's always been vulnerable," Abbott added, calling recent improvements at Pilgrim "cosmetic," rather than real solutions. Pilgrim has dealt with plant safety questions since before it went online in 1972. The Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 and Pilgrim's subpar safety record under former owner Boston Edison brought on occasional waves of public scrutiny. Sept. 11 put Pilgrim back under the spotlight. And while many of the same questions and concerns about nuclear safety resurfaced this year, people on both sides of the issue have said the public's questions are more specific this time around. "They're much more sophisticated questions," Abbott said, "good, hard questions." Seeking answers to those questions, Abbott sponsored a town meeting petition in April, asking the state and federal government to temporarily shut Pilgrim down until its security against terrorist attacks was fully assessed. The petition was ruled out of order by town moderator Steven Triffletti and never debated at town meeting. However, scores of people from Plymouth and surrounding communities turned out for nuclear security forums in November and April, to vent their fears and quiz public officials and nuclear experts. In March, the NRC's annual Pilgrim safety assessment meeting drew a larger than usual crowd, which focused its questions on plant security. Unlike the crowds at Pilgrim protests years ago, Abbott pointed out that it was not just activists showing up at meetings this year. "Now we're seeing average citizens focusing on the plant," he said. Russell even wound up hosting a nuclear security summit of sorts in his Halfway Pond Road home one Sunday afternoon. Russell had invited Plymouth selectmen chairman Kenneth Tavares to meet with a group of citizens concerned about the plant. Tavares brought along U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, who in turn invited NRC officials and other federal nuclear exerts to answer citizen questions at Russell's house. New question: spent fuel storage In addition to security deployment, employee background screening and the potential impact of an airplane crash, Pilgrim's spent fuel storage pool has been a significant source of debate since Sept. 11. Pilgrim's reactor heats water by splitting atoms of uranium held inside 500-pound bundles of fuel rods. Every two years, the plant shuts down to replace the oldest third of the bundles, known as fuel assemblies. The spent assemblies - hot and dangerously radioactive - are then moved into a large cooling pool. The water in the pool prevents the rods from catching fire and releasing a radioactive plume. Over 2,000 assemblies have gone into the pool since since 1972, though it was never designed for long-term storage. The federal government is supposed to begin moving Pilgrim's spent fuel in 2010 to a newly-approved storage facility under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. There the rods will gradually lose their radioactivity over the next 10,000 years. Until then - or perhaps later, based on lawsuits expected to hold up shipments to Nevada - the rods will remain in Pilgrim's storage pool. That's a huge risk, according to some in town. Russell, who worked in the petrochemical industry, said he wasn't even aware of the danger posed by the spent rods until after Sept. 11. "Now that I recognize the risk of the spent rod pool," Russell said, "my personal industrial knowledge tells me it's an unacceptable risk." Russell and others want to see Pilgrim move its spent fuel from the pool to multiple dry cask storage bins, which do not rely on water to keep the rods from catching fire. While some American nuclear plants use dry casks, cooling pools are the most common storage method, and the NRC has said both systems are safe. "I don't think either is 100 percent safe," Russell said. "If someone flew an airplane into the plant, or some nut in the plant managed to clog the works, with the spent fuel pool, it's all or nothing. With the dry casks, one might leak a little, but that's a reduced risk." Tarantino has said the cooling pool's multiple backup systems make it very unlikely that it would ever lose water. And even if Pilgrim implemented dry cask storage, Tarantino said most of the plant's radioactive material will always be stored in the pool. Rods coming out of the reactor must stay in the pool for five years before they're cool enough for dry storage. Tarantino said if all the pre-1997 fuel rods were placed in casks, and the pool only contained rods that came out of the reactor less than five years ago, "you'd still have 99 percent of the radioactive material onsite in the pool." Answers Pilgrim and the NRC have received some criticism for not providing enough information about plant security following Sept. 11. Abbott said the public needs to stay vigilant in demanding answers about plant security. But he conceded it has become harder to keep people interested in Pilgrim as Sept. 11 fades from recent memory. "The NRC and Entergy want us to stop thinking about the threat," Abbott said. "When we let our guard down, that's when we're most at risk." Thompson agrees. "It's almost as though they want us to be numb, and not really care about what needs to be done," she said. While Tarantino said Pilgrim, and the federal government, can only reveal so much security information, he said the public is "absolutely" entitled to ask questions. "It's America," he said. "Thank God people have the right to ask questions, and the right to get answers, as far as we can provide." [http://oldcolony.southofboston.com/extras/contactmpg.shtml] MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: (508) 746-5555 ***************************************************************** 26 63 survivors file for radiation illness recognition Saturday, September 7, 2002 at 07:30 JST TOKYO ? Sixty-three Japanese survivors of the 1945 U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki filed applications with their respective local governments Friday for radiation illness recognition. The current move by the residents in 15 prefectures including Chiba and Kanagawa follows the July 9 application of 76 survivors from eight prefectures including Tokyo and Hokkaido. They are seeking recognition that their health had been affected by their exposure to radiation 57 years ago, and will be eligible for special medical benefits if successful. The series of mass applications reflect the efforts by the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations to encourage the government to improve the recognition system, which the survivors' group calls "too stringent." Of the 63 survivors, 13 live in Kanagawa Prefecture, 12 are from Nagasaki Prefecture, and six each are from Hiroshima and Kumamoto prefectures. The 11 other prefectures are Hokkaido, Miyagi, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Ishikawa, Nagano, Shizuoka, Aichi, Mie and Kagoshima. Hiroshi Nishi, 70, who filed the application at the Hiroshima city hall said he was willing to fight for his rights to the end, saying, "I was orphaned when I lost my family to the atomic bomb, but the state did not do anything." Regarding the July 9 applications, the group says more than 100 survivors, including the latest applicants, are expected to jointly file suits to seek recognition of their physical state, in the event their bids are turned down. There are also many other survivors that have applied on an individual basis and saw their bids rejected earlier, the group said. The group says the current certification method is too limited because it relies mostly on the statistical relationship between radiation and sickness based on the amount of radiation estimated from the distance from Ground Zero. As of the end of March, 285,620 people possessed A-bomb survivor booklets ? a certificate formally recognizing their exposure to radiation after the bombings ? according to Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry statistics. Of those, 2,169 people, or about 0.76%, are recognized as suffering from radiation sickness. "(The survivors) filed the applications today to make the government recognize that their 57 years of suffering have resulted from the bombings," the group said in a statement. "This is a historical movement aimed not just at drastically altering the way public administration has dealt with A-bomb survivors but at changing Japan's tolerance of nuclear weapons in hopes of eradicating nuclear arms," it said. The applicants will be eligible for special medical benefits worth 139,600 yen per month if the local governments recognize that their diseases were caused by exposure to radiation from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later. (Kyodo News) Japan Today Discussion ***************************************************************** 27 US helps Russia move uranium to safer sites Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] US and Russian nuclear security officers are planning a joint operation with Uzbek officials to remove a large amount of enriched uranium from a reactor site in Uzbekistan considered vulnerable because of its proximity to Afghanistan. An estimated 70kg - enough to make at least one bomb - is stored at the Institute of Nuclear Physics at Ulugbek, near Tashkent, close to porous borders with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Security at the site is considered very weak. Washington will pay up to $4m (£2.6m) towards the cost of the operation. Nikolai Shingariev, head of information at Minatom, the Russian civil nuclear authority, confirmed yesterday that the operation would go ahead within months, but declined to give any details. "Shipments like this go everywhere with heavily armed guards," he said . Both spent fuel and fresh nuclear fuel will be moved to a more secure location in Russia. "[The security at] most of these old reactors is pretty scary," said Matthew Bunn, senior research assistant at the Managing the Atom project at Harvard University. Security at the Ulugbek site was upgraded in the mid-90s by the installation of such essentials as hardened doors, and personnel access controls. A source at Minatom said the US and Russian authorities were trying to persuade the Uzbek authorities to close the reactor down rather than convert it to use uranium that is less enriched and harder to convert into weapons-grade material. Meanwhile it has become known that three tonnes of material with potential for use in a bomb has already been moved from the Aktau nuclear reactor in western Kazakhstan to a plant at Ust-Kamenogorsk, on the border between eastern Kazakhstan and Russia, considered more secure. Aktau is on the Kazakh coast of the Caspian Sea, which also borders Iran, a state keen to obtain nuclear technology. US officials were concerned about Iran's interest in the site in the late 90s and arranged to have spent fuel put into big metal drums difficult to move. The reactor was shut down in April 1999 because the Kazak authorities considered it too isolated, but a large amount of material remained at the site. "There were three tonnes of better than weapons-grade plutonium at this site that you could row a boat to," Mr Bunn said. Its removal a few months ago was carried out by local companies associated with the plant but the security costs were met by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which is funded by the American media billionaire Ted Turner. The material will be turned into a less enriched form of uranium. Mr Turner through the NTI also financed the removal of kilos of enriched uranium from a crumbling Belgrade reactor in former Yugoslavia. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 28 Quake study set to attract test plant - The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Friday, September 06, 2002 USEC's review of Paducah's proposal for a centrifuge plant may be affected by the existence of an earthquake zone. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 As USEC Inc. reviews Paducah's proposal to land a test gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment plant, local economic development leaders are trying to determine, once and for all, whether being in a major earthquake zone is a major hurdle. Ken Wheeler, chairman of a local nuclear energy task force, said the issue would be part of a proposed study by University of Kentucky and Kentucky Geological Survey experts on whether earthquake-related building codes should be changed statewide. The results could help Kentucky's recruitment of the test plant, which will use high-speed centrifuges that are very sensitive to shaking, he said. The issue is a concern to Wheeler and others because Paducah lies on the New Madrid Fault. Wheeler moderated an Aug. 29 teleconference at Paducah Community College attended by Dennis Langford, commissioner of the Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction. State and local officials agreed to resolve study funding and other issues before another meeting later this fall. "We had three action items — one authorizing the UK-proposed study that would help not just USEC, but the construction industry generally, to understand a little bit better the significance of the numbers," Wheeler said, referring to county-by-county maps on which seismic designs are based. "We're trying to get that study started now." Wheeler's task force helped the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development put together an initial recruitment proposal for the test plant, which USEC Inc. plans to build either in Paducah or Piketon, Ohio, starting in 2004 and have running in 2005. The test facility is a precursor to a $1.5 billion commercial plant in one of the two communities by the end of the decade. Energy-efficient centrifuge will eventually replace USEC's 1,500-employee Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, whose technology is outdated and uses as much electricity as a major city. USEC said Thursday that it is reviewing proposals from Kentucky and Ohio, and will provide feedback before the two states submit final proposals by Oct. 25. The firm will decide later this year where to put the plant, whose 240 centrifuges will provide updated cost, schedule and performance data for building the commercial plant. Dennis Spurgeon, USEC vice president and chief operating officer, said USEC will spend roughly $150 million during the next five years on the test plant. "We have tripled our centrifuge staff in the last year, and we expect to triple it again this year." The seismic question is key to local economic development. Spurgeon said the test facility will generate 50 jobs. About 1,000 contract workers will be needed to build the commercial plant and its centrifuges, and about 500 employees will be required to operate it, he said. Some question if state building codes apply to the centrifuge project. Both the test and commercial plants will be built on land owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. "In that case, Kentucky building codes might not have any effect because traditionally, federal projects are exempt from state and local codes," said Terry Slade, acting director of the Kentucky Division of Building Code Enforcement. Slade, who participated in the teleconference, said the state housing board in May softened its seismic codes, which had been toughened last year to meet the stringent International Building Code. Engineers and other professionals convinced state officials that the changes were too conservative and would have stymied construction statewide, he said. Depending on the findings of the UK study, Langford is willing to consider changes in the county maps used to make seismic designs if that will strike a better balance between safety and practicality, Slade said. Wheeler, along with USEC and state economic development officials, declined to provide specifics of the initial economic proposals, which they characterized as proprietary. "Both states have been offered the opportunity to put forth their best proposals to highlight incentives that would attract USEC to choose one site over the other," USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said. "We will look at all of these, plus a variety of other factors, in making our site selection." Although Economic Development Secretary Gene Strong was unavailable for comment Thursday, spokeswoman Terri Bradshaw said Strong is confident. "We obviously feel we've made a very strong proposal, but keep in mind this is only an initial proposal," she said. "We anticipate working with USEC between now and then (Oct. 25) to perfect the proposal we've made." ***************************************************************** 29 NFS seeks dismissal of lawsuit Story published in the Johnson City Press: 9/5/2002. By James Brooks Press Staff Writer GREENEVILLE ? Nuclear Fuel Services filed a motion in U.S. District Court to dismiss a lawsuit charging the company with contaminating the ground water under neighboring Impact Plastics Inc. NFS said the suit, filed by Gerald M. O?Connor Jr. on behalf of Impact Plastics and Preston Tool and Mold Inc., fails to state a claim upon which relief can be based under the Price Anderson Act. In a separate memo in support of the motion, NFS attorney Stephen E. Fox argues that Price Anderson is one of the pillars of the federal nuclear regulatory framework since it was enacted in 1957. In 1988, following litigation by Karen Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp, and the Three Mile Island incident, the act was amended so it is the ?only cause of action that exists for any loss of or damage to property or loss of use of property related to an alleged release of radioactive materials,? Fox wrote. Any public liability action under the act must show the amount of radiation released exceeds a radiation-related regulatory level above the normal background radiation, while Impact alleges only that the ground water under its plant contains detectable levels of uranium, plutonium and thorium and that these materials were allowed to leach into the ground water by NFS. Fox said actual damages must occur from the contamination that would surpass a statement that people were exposed to it. Impact also claims damages related to cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). NFS responded that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted. Fox argues that CERCLA claims must be based upon actual costs incurred in remediation or cleanup, not on projected costs. He said that Impact has not initiated a cleanup of the groundwater, nor even stated that it intends to do so. NFS also said that failure to state a cause of action under federal claims filed in federal court, where it has original jurisdiction, would prevent the court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. They ask that state claims also be dismissed. The damages claimed by Impact in its suit are based upon diminution of real property value due to contamination of the ground water, and that value will continue to be harmed in the future even if abatement of the contamination occurs, the lawsuit said. The company also seeks costs of moving its plants to another location. Fox argues that future business costs claims are moot because Impact has ?failed to allege that they incurred recoverable response costs,? making such a declaratory judgment unavailable. /(Contact James Brooks at jbrooks@johnsoncitypress.com )./ © 2001-02 Johnson City Press and Associated Press All Rights Reserved This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Johnson City Press 204 W.Main St. ? Johnson City, Tennessee 37605 423.929.3111 Got news? Send tips to newsroom@johnsoncitypress.com For problems with the Web site, please contact the Webmaster at webmaster@johnsoncitypress.com For all other inquiries, ***************************************************************** 30 NRC Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel to Meet September 18-19 in Las Vegas NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 105 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-105 September 5, 2002 A Nuclear Regulatory Commission advisory review panel will meet September 18 and 19 in Las Vegas to discuss an Internet-based system, known as the Licensing Support Network, that will contain information related to a potential hearing on a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The meeting is open to members of the public for observation, and time will be set aside at the end of each days session for the public to ask questions or make brief comments. The meeting of the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 18, and from 8:30 a.m. to the close of business on September 19, at the Alexis Park, 375 East Harmon Avenue. The Licensing Support Network is being developed so that all potential participants in the license application hearing process for a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain can make their discovery documents available electronically through the participants individual web sites to the network. The NRC chartered the advisory committee in 1989 to provide advice on network design, operation, maintenance, and compliance monitoring. Panel members are from the NRC; the Department of Energy; the State of Nevada; the Counties of Nye, Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka, Inyo, Lander, Lincoln, Mineral and White Pine; the National Congress of American Indians; the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force; the Nuclear Energy Institute; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Chairman of the panel is Andrew L. Bates of the NRCs Office of the Secretary of the Commission. For further information contact Dr. Bates at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Mail Stop O-16 C1, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by telephone at 301-415-1963 or by e-mail at ALB@NRC.GOV [ALB@NRC.GOV] ; or Jack G. Whetstine, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3 F23l, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by telephone at 301-415-7391; or by e-mail at JGW@NRC.GOV [JGW@NRC.GOV] . Interested persons may make oral presentations to the panel or file written statements. Oral presentation requests should be made as far in advance of the meeting as possible to one of the contacts listed so appropriate arrangements can be made. A copy of the preliminary meeting agenda is attached. Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel Meeting Wednesday, September 18 8:30 - 8:45 am LSNARP Chairmans Opening Remarks - Andrew Bates, NRC 8:45 - 9:30 am LSN Administrator Progress Report on Status of LSN; Panel Discussion; Questions and Answers - Dan Graser, NRC 9:30 - 10:00 am LSN Project Manager Report on Status of Integration Efforts and Results of System Security Risk Assessment Performed by NSA - Matt Schmit, NRC 10:00 - 10:15 am Break 10:15 - 10:45 am Experience of Local Government in Setting Up Web site to make documents available To LSN (Lincoln and White Pine Counties) - Jason Pitts, Lincoln County 10:45 - 11:15 am Plans for Making DOE Documents Available - Harry Leake, DOE 11:15 - 12:00 pm Identification of Participant Training Needs; Expectations for Use of the LSN; Training Strategies and Approaches; Points of Contact for Coordination of Training Efforts; Discussion - Dan Graser, NRC 12:00 - 1:15 pm Lunch 1:15 - 1:45 pm Summary of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3022, Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 3.69, Topical Guidelines for the Licensing Support Network - Jeff Ciocco, NRC 1:45 - 2:15 pm Review of Relevancy; Discussion (Introduced by Clark County) - Panel 2:15 - 2:45 pm Role of a Rural County in the Licensing; Distinction between Party with Standing, Interested Governmental Party, etc. (Introduced by White Pine County) - Panel 2:45 - 3:15 pm Explain the Importance of Participation in the Licensing Support Network as a Prerequisite for being a Participant in the Licensing Process (Introduced by White Pine County) - Panel 3:15 - 3:30 pm Break 3:30 - 3:50 pm Overview of NRC Information Systems Supporting Subpart J Requirements - Jim Schaeffer, NRC 3:50 - 4:20 pm Summary of June 25-26 NRC/DOE Technical Exchange on Electronic Submissions - Jeff Ciocco, NRC 4:20 - Open Discussion and Public Comments on Wednesday Topics - Panel/Public Adjourn Thursday, September 19, 2001 9:00 - 9:45 am Overview of NRC Plans for the Digital Courtroom Environment - Pat Smith, NRC 10:00 - 10:30 am Demonstration of Production Version 2.0 of the LSN - Matt Schmit, NRC 10:30 - 10:45 am Break 10:45 - 11:15 am Equipment and Software Products Useful for Small Collection Automation - Joseph Turner, NRC 10:45 - 11:15 am Public Access via NRC & DOE Reading Rooms and Nevada Libraries 11:15 -12:00 pm Public Access via NRC and DOE Reading Rooms and Nevada Libraries - Margie Janney, NRC and DOE Representative 12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch 1:00 - 1:20 pm System Upgrade Prior to License Application - Matt Schmit, NRC 1:20 - 1:35 pm Impact of Homeland Security Reviews on Document Access via the LSN - Dan Graser, NRC 1:35 - 2:30 pm Open Discussion and Public Comments on Thursday Topics - Panel/Public Adjourn ***************************************************************** 31 Expanding nuke storage unsafe, lawyer says Appeals court hears Harris case newsobserver.com : news [newsobserver.com, Raleigh, NC] Friday, September 6, 2002 3:07AM EDT By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent WASHINGTON - An attorney for Orange County argued to a federal appeals court Thursday that regulators did not fully examine the potential for a catastrophic fire at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant arising from the storage of high-level radioactive waste there. But appearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, lawyers for both CP, the plant's owner, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission countered that such an accident was highly unlikely to ever occur at the facility, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh. "It is remote and speculative in the extreme," said John H. O'Neill, a CP attorney. The case is part of an effort on behalf of Orange County to reverse a decision that federal regulators made in March 2001 allowing CP to expand storage of spent fuel from two to four cooling pools at the nuclear plant. The county would like to force the agency to hold a hearing that would ultimately lead to a new environmental impact study of the facility and its potential for danger. Diane Curran, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer representing Orange County commissioners, told the three-judge panel that regulators had not adequately studied the potential danger from the expansion. Curran described a potential deadly scenario in which water would partially drain from the cooling pools, triggering a massive fire that could contaminate an area the size of North Carolina. "The NRC has never taken the slightest look at this," Curran said. "There is an array of scenarios that need to be looked at." Charles Mullins, a lawyer representing the NRC, said his agency had in fact taken "a very hard look" at the scenario outlined by Curran and concluded it was not plausible enough to prevent the expansion. Mullins argued that the scenario would take several days to unfold before a fire would erupt. Given that, workers would have ample time to replace lost water in the cooling pools, preventing an accident, he said. Curran countered that situations such as an earthquake or terrorist attack could prevent workers from having access to the pools. The justices, who asked few questions during the half-hour of arguments, gave no indication of when they might rule on the case. Washington correspondent John Wagner can be reached at (202)-662-4380 or jwagner@mcclatchydc.com [jwagner@mcclatchydc.com] . © Copyright 2002, The News &Observer Publishing Company. All material found ***************************************************************** 32 State approves contract to continue Yucca legal fight Friday, September 06, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal $4 million pact retains Virginia law firm By SEAN WHALEY REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- The Board of Examiners on Thursday approved a $4 million contract with a Washington, D.C., legal firm to continue Nevada's fight against construction of a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The contract with Egan &Associates of Virginia runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, 2003, and was approved by Gov. Kenny Guinn, Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa and Secretary of State Dean Heller despite concerns over the state's financial health. Guinn said if the state's fiscal condition does not improve, the Legislature will have to examine closely what level of legal fight can be maintained in future years to stop the repository from being licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Guinn's main concern was whether the money for the contract was already in the state's Nevada Protection Fund. The fund, approved the Legislature last year, was not based on projections of private donations. "I just want to make sure the money is in the budget to carry us through 2003," Guinn said. "We'll know a lot more about where we stand by then. "It's well worth continuing this," he said. "It will be assessed as we go through the legislative process. If there is no change in revenue streams and things are still down, it's going to be very difficult for us to continue to fund something of this nature." Egan &Associates is the lead law firm in the state's nuclear waste battle. Two other law firms are also covered by the contract. The hourly rates in the contract range from $295 to $450. Bob Loux, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the hourly rates cover related expenses of the firms, including staff and overhead. The contract is a continuation of a deal first approved for $2.5 million in September 2001 by the Board of Examiners. Joseph Egan, chairman of the firm, is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained nuclear engineer who once worked at a nuclear power plant. There is a separate contract worth about $300,000 a year for one other law firm, based in San Francisco, for work on the Yucca Mountain legal fight, Loux said. The state's legal team met for two days in Reno last week, and in a news briefing after their strategy session, the attorneys said they were confident Nevada will prevail in its fight against the repository. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 33 Bush pursues boost in Yucca funding Friday, September 06, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Reid spokeswoman calls request 'ridiculous' By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- President Bush is asking Congress for an additional $66.1 million to spend on the Yucca Mountain Project next year but has failed so far to persuade lawmakers to go along. Bush requested the money on top of a $527 million Yucca Mountain budget request sent to Congress in February. The add-on was prepared after the Senate voted July 9 to finalize the president's choice of the Nevada site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for a nuclear waste repository. With the site selected, administration officials said additional money is needed to prepare a repository license application and to begin planning a railroad spur to move spent nuclear fuel within Nevada. Bush asked for the money in a letter sent to Congress on Aug. 2. He said it would be spent "to begin essential transportation-related activities and a long-term management and financing plan" for the nuclear waste project. "My administration is committed to ensuring the environmentally sound and safe disposal of the nation's radioactive waste," he said. An Office of Management and Budget document indicates money would be allocated to the Energy Department for an electronic licensing database and for the rail project. Some of the funds also would upgrade equipment at the Yucca site "to enhance worker safety," the agency said. An itemized breakdown was not available, and DOE officials did not respond to a request for more information. OMB Director Mitchell Daniels said the budget supplement is key to keeping the repository on schedule for a planned opening by 2010. He said delays beyond 2010 could cost $500 million a year in potential legal liabilities. "Without these additional funds, DOE would not be able to submit a license application to the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) by 2004," he said in a budget document. Bush received no extra money for Yucca Mountain on Thursday when the House Appropriations Committee met for the first time since receiving the request. Forming its energy and water spending bill for fiscal 2003, the committee approved $524.7 million for Yucca Mountain, just about equal to the February request. Rep. Sonny Callahan, chairman of the House energy and water subcommittee, said he supported the Bush request for the additional $66 million but did not grant it because OMB did not identify budget cuts in other programs to offset the extra spending. Callahan, R-Ala., said he was willing to working something out with Bush officials as the energy spending bill continues through Congress. "We will work with the administration to see that Yucca Mountain is adequately funded," Callahan said. But the Bush request will face decidedly tougher scrutiny in the Senate, where chief Yucca critic Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has influence over the program's budget as chairman of the energy and water subcommittee. Reid already has proposed deep cuts amounting to 36 percent of next year's Yucca Mountain Project budget "and will not be adding a dime," spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. "For them to ask for more money even after Senator Reid has cut their budget is ridiculous," Hafen said. Stephens Washington Bureau writer Samantha Young contributed to this report. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 34 Virginia law firm gets OK to take on Yucca fight Ray Hagar [rhagar@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 9/6/2002 12:53 am The state Board of Examiners approved $4 million Thursday for a Virginia law firm to lead the state’s legal battles against a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain. Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa praised the worked already done by Egan and Associates. Joe Egan, head of the suburban Washington, D.C., firm, is a former certified nuclear reactor engineer. Del Papa said the state’s legal team has a good chance of stopping the federal government from placing the waste in Nevada. The Yucca Mountain site, in Nye County, is about 90 miles north of Las Vegas. Congress, President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham have approved storage of as much as 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste as early as 2010. Yet the repository must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a series of hearings that could stretch into 2007, officials said. “The next year and a half is going to be tough,” Del Papa said. “But we are prepared to put up the best fight possible and I think it is possible to win this.” Gov. Kenny Guinn, chairman of the Board of Examiners, voted for the contracts only after being assured the money was available. Money to pay the law firm will come from the Nevada Protection Fund, Guinn’s press secretary Greg Bortolin said. The Nevada Protection Fund, a combination of state and private money amassed for the fight against the nuclear repository, grew to as much as $9 million last year. Yet $2 million was spent on a television ad campaign in Vermont, Utah and Wyoming before the congressional vote, hoping to sway federal lawmakers to vote against the Yucca Mountain project. “I just want to make sure we have the money sitting there because it is tough to collect money today unless you get somebody who has a special interest.” Guinn said. The state has filed five lawsuits with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, challenging a variety of alleged flaws in the process and environmental reviews. It is considering a sixth that would challenge the federal government’s authority to force the state to host the site. Nevada scored a major victory recently when that court rejected a federal motion to dismiss the state’s challenge of NRC rules for licensing a dump, Del Papa said. The state is objecting to the NRC allowing the federal Department of Energy to rely on man-made barriers to prevent radiation from escaping from the dump. Nevada argues the standard for blocking radiation should be a site’s natural geologic features, so Yucca Mountain doesn’t qualify. Nevada lawyers also argue current rules only require the DOE to contain wastes for 10,000 years, but nuclear wastes are dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Egan, who could not be reached for comment Thursday, has said he is confident Nevada can win its legal battle. “Our team includes the former solicitor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the former executive legal director of NRC, a nuclear engineer, the former head of the White House Office of Legal Counsel, one of the nation’s top constitutional litigators and two of the nation’s leading environmental litigators,” Egan has told the Associated Press. Egan’s rate for legal work is $395 an hour. Charles Cooper, a deputy assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, will get $450 an hour for his work on a constitutional challenge of the Yucca Mountain project. Bill Briggs, a former solicitor for the NRC, will be paid $350 an hour to help the state in its fight to stop the Energy Department from getting a license to build from the regulatory commission. Other attorneys involved are: Howard Shapar at $435 an hour; Charles Fitzpatrick, $370 an hour; Robert Cynkar, $340 an hour; Vincent Colatriano, $295 an hour; Michael Stine, $290 an hour; and Michael O’Mealia, $140 an hour. The nuclear projects office also has a contract with Antonio Rossmann, a San Francisco lawyer, for $300,000 a year. An additional $1 million for the legal team could be raised in a matching funds deal with the Nevada Legislature, said Bob Loux, Nevada’s director of the Office of Nuclear Projects. Brendan Riley of the AP contributed to this report. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 35 Tougher Yucca rules requested Las Vegas SUN September 05, 2002 Suit asks court to strengthen radiation standards on water By Mary Manning < [manning@lasvegassun.com] > Seven environmental and public interest groups suing the federal government over ground water radiation standards for a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository asked the court on Wednesday to strengthen a rule on how to measure contamination from the dump. The request was part of a reply brief filed jointly with the state of Nevada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The proposed high-level nuclear waste repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would sit atop an underground aquifer that area residents 12 to 20 miles away rely on for drinking water, the legal notice said. A primary issue is the distance from the proposed repository that the radiation standards would be enforced. The EPA can set a boundary within which there would be no limit on radiation contamination. In its final rule, the agency extended the boundary from three miles from the repository to more than 11 miles. In a response filed in August, the EPA said its congressional mandate to establish a standard for radiation protection that applied only to Yucca Mountain gave it the right to weaken the rule as it did. The groups replied that EPA's action undermines the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. While the EPA's Yucca Mountain rule assumes the repository would leak, it allows the Energy Department to rely on dilution of radiated ground water with unpolluted ground water to meet national standards, attorney Geoff Fettus of the Natural Resources Defense Council said. "The Yucca Mountain 'house of cards' rests on a regulatory structure that has been ridiculously weakened by the Bush administration," said Lisa Gue, senior energy analyst with Public Citizen, another petitioner. The Energy Department's plan to turn Yucca Mountain into the nation's nuclear waste repository was approved by Congress in July. The department must now apply for a license to build and operate a waste dump from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensing process will assess projected compliance with the EPA radiation limit. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 Letter: Yucca counsel is a waste of our $4 million Las Vegas SUN September 06, 2002 I think it's a little late to be fighting the Yucca Mountain project with legal battles. The repository project, a project that I used to be a part of, is moving forward. The next step is a licensing hearing by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where the project will be judged on its scientific merits, not legal merits. Joe Egan, the state's lead legal counsel, does have an impressive resume, I must admit. But in the David vs. Goliath fight the state is facing, this time Goliath wins. The secretary of energy and the president recommended the site, and the House and Senate overrode the governor's veto and moved the process forward. All those decisions were made in Washington, D.C., and Egan wants to fight the legal battles right there in Washington, D.C. The legal battles are being fought on the federal government's home turf. In the court of public opinion, I believe most of the public thinks the repository is inevitable and that we should look at some significant benefit package. Giving $4 million to Joe Egan to fight Yucca Mountain in the courts doesn't make much sense to me when we have a serious budget crisis in our state. Our education system and teachers need more money. That $4 million could be better spent in our state. REBECCA WAMSLEY All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 37 Bush wants more for Yucca Las Vegas SUN September 06, 2002 By Benjamin Grove [http://abc.net.au/] Thursday, September 5, 2002. Posted: 13:14:01 (AEDT) The Federal Opposition leader has welcomed Rio Tinto's decision to shelve the proposed Jabiluka uranium nine in Kakadu National Park. Simon Crean says the decision to put the mine on hold for 10 years, and to not proceed to develop Jabiluka without the traditional owners' consent, is a considerate response. "We've always argued that developments on Aboriginal lands should be done with the consent of the Aboriginal people. So those discussions, that consent, is still there to be developed," Mr Crean said. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 40 Aust's dubious honour as 'best place for nuclear waste dump'. 6/9/2002. ABC News Online alt="Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] The Federal Opposition has rejected claims from the international nuclear industry that Australia is the best place in the world to establish a nuclear waste dump. The Swiss-based nuclear association Arius says Australia should be proud to be considered trustworthy enough to store the world's nuclear waste. But Federal Opposition environment spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, says it is a dubious honour. "It's very nice of them to think of us but from our point of view - we have to be satisfied that there's no risk to Australians or risk to the health of the Australian environment as a result of these sorts of activities... I don't think that that's the case," Mr Thomson said. He says Australia should not agree to be the world's dumping ground. "We would see waste being transported from a whole range of countries or sites around the world to Australia and that whole process is fraught with risk," Mr Thomson said. "Labor would not be satisfied that you could accomplish something like that in a safe way and would not support it," he said. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 41 Labor opposes Australian nuclear waste dump. 6/9/2002. ABC News Online alt="Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] The Federal Opposition says it would not support the establishment of an international nuclear waste dump in Australia. The international nuclear industry association, Arius, says Australia is the best place in the world to establish such a dump. But Shadow Environment Minister Kelvin Thomson says Australia should not agree to be the world's dumping ground. "We would see waste being transported from a whole range of countries or sites around the world to Australia and that whole process is fraught with risk," he said. "Labor would not be satisfied that you could accomplish something like that in a safe way and would not support it." © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 42 FOXNews.com Arab States Declare Allegiance to Iraq Thursday, September 05, 2002 CAIRO, Egypt — Arab states solidly backed Iraq on Thursday in its showdown with the United States, which maintains Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is trying to build nuclear weapons. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said a U.S. attack against Saddam Hussein would "open the gates of hell in the Middle East." The League's final resolution did not call on Iraq to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors, but Moussa said Iraq could dispel allegations it had broken promises made at the end of the Gulf War. "We believe that the return of the inspectors ... would form an important step toward showing the world whether there is indeed a violation of the Security Council resolutions," Moussa told reporters. The resolution at the two-day Arab League foreign ministerial meeting registered "total rejection of the threat of aggression on Arab nations, especially Iraq, reaffirming that these threats and any threat to the security and safety of any Arab country are considered a threat to Arab national security." The unified Arab stance was a diplomatic coup for Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who told reporters that all the Arab governments had expressed their "total rejection of the aggressive intentions of the United States." The meeting, which ended Thursday, was held as the Bush administration continued threatening to attack Iraq to remove Saddam and wipe out his alleged program to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Saddam, at the end of the Gulf War, pledged to scrap the program. Several Arab states had earlier expressed solidarity with Iraq but also called on it to allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors as a way to defuse the crisis. The inspectors left in 1998 in advance of U.S. and British airstrikes against Iraq. Iraq says it is ready to discuss the inspectors' return, but only in a broader context of lifting sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The United Nations has said the return of inspectors must come first, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has declined to hold further negotiations until inspections resume. Trade sanctions against Iraq can only be lifted after the U.N. certifies the country has no weapons of mass destruction. The Arab League rarely censures one of its own, and on Thursday was perhaps reluctant to be seen as siding with America. Arab governments have argued a U.S. attack on Iraq would lead to destabilizing protests among ordinary Arabs already angry at a United States for its perceived bias in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian planning minister, told reporters an attack against Iraq would add to his problems, speculating Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would use the unrest as an excuse to crack down even harder on the Palestinians. The ministers also called for an end to U.N. trade sanctions imposed to punish Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was reversed with the 1991 Gulf War. Under U.N. resolutions, the sanctions cannot be lifted until Iraq satisfies the United Nations that it has destroyed or is not making nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United States, backed by Britain, has said it wants a "regime change" in Baghdad, but Washington says it has not yet decided whether to use military means to topple Saddam. In Washington on Thursday, Army Secretary Thomas White said the United States recently doubled the size of its war stocks in Kuwait to accommodate a little-noticed expansion of U.S. armored forces at a base near the Iraqi border. White said the Army is ready for whatever action President Bush chooses as he considers how to fulfill his administration's goal of removing Saddam from power. White said there were no orders to begin preparing for an invasion. News Channel comments write to comments@foxnews.com [comments@foxnews.com] ©Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Not grasping the signals on Iraq -- The Washington Times September 6, 2002 Linda Chavez If he were any other Cabinet member, he'd be sent packing, but the rules don't seem to apply to Colin L. Powell. The popular secretary of state said last week that the "first step" in dealing with Iraq was to send in U.N. inspectors to search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. "Let's see what the inspectors find," Mr. Powell urged in an interview with the BBC. It was a clear challenge to others in the administration who favor a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq. But more importantly, it was an effort to take public an internal administration dispute, giving ammunition to critics who say President Bush's Iraq policy is in disarray. Only days before Mr. Powell called for a return of U.N. inspectors, Vice President Richard B. Cheney gave the strongest and most well-reasoned argument yet in favor of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, without waiting for more international inspections or sanctions. "The risks of inaction are worse than the risks of action," Mr. Cheney declared, warning that U.N. inspectors might "provide false comfort" and that Saddam Hussein could have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Unlike Mr. Powell's, Mr. Cheney's remarks came in a scripted speech that had been thoroughly vetted within the White House. If anything, the vice president's speech was a signal to dissident voices in the administration that the debate was no longer whether the United States would hit Iraq, but how quickly troops and equipment could be in place to carry out the attack. But Mr. Powell seems not to have gotten the message — and appears to believe that he might still win the debate before the court of public opinion. It's not the first time Mr. Powell has taken his policy disputes public. Earlier this year, Mr. Powell was the lone administration voice arguing that the United States needed Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat as a partner in the Middle East peace process after others had concluded Mr. Arafat was more trouble than he was worth. Mr. Powell was also the chief proponent of a hard line against the Israelis when they moved into the West Bank following a series of deadly Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. "The consequences of Israel's military action are affecting Israel, the United States, and the interests of peace and the interests of the political process," warned Mr. Powell, adding that U.S. relationships with some Arab nations could be "damaged, perhaps irrevocably" if Israel did not withdraw. This Bush White House is famous for insisting on loyalty and solidarity within the ranks. So how does Mr. Powell get away with giving vent to his policy disputes in public? It stems from the president's early relationship to the popular and well-respected Mr. Powell. In most presidential campaigns, it's the aspiring appointees who try to curry favor with the nominee. Not so with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell. It was Mr. Bush who courted Mr. Powell from day one, and Mr. Powell seemed to be the one holding all the cards. When Mr. Bush named Mr. Powell secretary of state — his first act as the president-elect after the contentious Florida election debacle — he called Mr. Powell "an American hero." At the time, Mr. Powell's acceptance of the job was interpreted by many, especially in the media, as giving legitimacy and stature to a president who, they claimed, lacked both. Much has changed in the intervening two years. Mr. Bush now has the overwhelming support of the American public, especially in his conduct of foreign policy. He's won public approval by showing consistency and determination to defend the United States from its enemies. It's Mr. Bush, not Mr. Powell, who holds the cards now. With or without Colin Powell, President Bush is commander in chief, and he deserves the loyalty of all his lieutenants. Mr. Powell owes the president his best advice, even if it differs from others in the administration, including the vice president. But that advice should be given in private. If Mr. Powell feels it necessary to go public with his disagreements, maybe he should join the ranks of fellow dissidents James Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger as a former secretary of state. Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist ***************************************************************** 44 Pasko nominated for 2002 Sakharov prize Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. The Green Group of the European Parliament has nominated the imprisoned Russian journalist Grigory Pasko as its candidate for the prestigious Sakharov Prize for the Freedom of Thought. Jon Gauslaa, 2002-09-06 15:05 The European Parliament has since 1988 honoured an individual or organisation with its prize for freedom of thought. The prize is named after Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident, nuclear physicist and Nobel Peace Prize-winner. It is awarded to individuals or organisations for making significant contributions to the promotion of human rights and basic freedom, and for firmly opposing persecution and injustice. Prominent winners The list of former winners includes prominent names like South African President Nelson Mandela; Alexander Dubcek, father of the Praha Spring; and Burmese Nobel Peace Prize-winner, Aung San Suu Kyi. One of the nominees for this year's prize is journalist and environmental whistleblower Grigory Pasko. Pasko was first arrested in November 1997 after having published a number of critical articles focusing on the environmental situation in the Russian Far East. He spent 20 months in custody under appaling condition before he was aqcuitted on treason charges in July 1999 and released. The verdict was, however, cancelled in November 2000. After a second trial, a military Court in the Pacific Port of Vladivostok convicted Pasko to four years for alleged treason in December 2001. The sentence was confirmed by the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court on June 25, 2002. Retaliation Pasko's case has attracted huge international attention and the conviction has been strongly criticised both internationally and within Russia. Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of conscience in January 2002, saying that his punishment appears as a retaliation for his reports on the Russian Navy's environmental abuses. The organisation also expressed concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the independence of the Court. -- Grigory Pasko symbolises the current situation in Russia where civil liberties are still not respected when individuals reveal the unpleasant truth, said Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-chairman of the Green Group. -- Pasko exposed the shocking environmental situation in the Russian Far East. To award the Sakharov prize to him would stress that the problems of nuclear safety in Russia remain a major reason for concern for the European Union and the World, Cohn-Bendit said. The European Union's Conference of Presidents will select the winner on October 17, while the award ceremony will be held in Strasbourg at the parliamentary session in December 2002. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 45 Satellite photography shows construction at Iraqi nuclear sites AP World Politics Fri Sep 6, 7:57 AM ET By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Satellite imagery shows unexplained construction at several sites of interest to U.N. inspectors seeking entry into Iraq to look for possible evidence that Baghdad is developing nuclear weapons, the inspection team's leader said Friday. The last U.N. inspectors pulled out of Iraq in December 1998, ahead of bombing by the United States and Britain. But even though Baghdad has refused to let U.N. teams looking for nuclear or other prohibited weapons programs back in since then, monitoring has continued through satellite photography and other intelligence-gathering. French physicist Jacques Baute, the leader of the U.N. nuclear inspection team, said in a telephone interview that reviews of commercial satellite images since 1999 show "some buildings that have been reconstructed ... and some new buildings (that) have been erected," at sites his team had visited in the past. Without identifying them, Baute, based at the International Atomic Energy Organization in Vienna, described the sites as having potential "dual-use capabilities," meaning they could be locations for both civilian and military nuclear programs. He did not further specify what sort of facilities his team viewed from the photos. Baute said his team was ready to resume inspections within weeks of Iraqi authorities granting permission for renewed onsite U.N. monitoring. U.N. sanctions on Iraq, imposed in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, could be lifted within 12 months after the inspectors go in, should they find no evidence of illegal weapons programs, he said. The United States has accused Iraq of trying to rebuild its banned weapons programs and of supporting terrorism, and has called for the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In seeking to line up international support for a military strike on Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush's administration says that Saddam's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in defiance of its disarmament pledge after the Gulf War is a strong case for a regime change. Facing opposition from traditional allies to such an attack, Bush has scheduled consultations with heads of countries sitting on the U.N. Security Council to establish whether new U.N. pressure can be brought to bear that would force Baghdad to again allow weapons inspectors in. Bush was scheduled to meet Saturday with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, the only major U.S. ally supporting Saddam's ouster through military means. The administration is likely to ask the Security Council to adopt a resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to admit weapons inspectors or to risk punitive action. In a report made available to The Associated Press Friday, Hans Blix, chief inspector of the team assigned to look for chemical and biological weapons, said Iraq has not been reporting its "dual-use" imports — which can be used in peaceful and military nuclear programs — to the United Nations Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 46 Bush's best course Boston Globe Online / Editorials / Bush's best course 9/6/2002 [P] RESIDENT BUSH did the right and necessary thing Wednesday when he told congressional leaders that he would ask Congress to approve any military action against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. The Constitution unambiguously vests the power to declare war in the legislative branch, and it would be political folly for the administration to plunge ahead with a military effort to liberate Iraqis from Saddam's ''Republic of Fear'' without a mandate from the elected representatives of the sovereign American people. Bush also said he is planning to present the US case against the Iraqi dictator in a speech he is scheduled to deliver Thursday to the UN General Assembly. For the sake of both international legality and US national interests, the president ought to do more than merely state the general case against Saddam at the United Nations. Nearly every government represented there knows the blood-drenched history of Saddam's reign and knows about his pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. They know about the wars he launched against Iran and Kuwait, his genocidal slaughter of Iraqi Kurds, his use of nerve gas against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish citizens of Iraq, his torture chambers, and the systematic use of rape by his secret police as a method of terrorizing his own people. Saddam's viciousness, however, is not the issue before the international community. So it is not enough for Bush to reiterate what he has been saying about Saddam's evil regime. For most other countries, the central issue is whether the United States will act unilaterally against Saddam, ignoring the rest of the world, or whether Washington will seek international cooperation - at least from the UN Security Council. This is a crucial question. The precedent of a unilateral US action to remove from power even a criminal as odious as Saddam would set an example other nations could use to justify their own unilateral attacks on enemies or rivals. The most immediate dangers would be of an attack on Taiwan by the People's Republic of China or a unilateral first strike precipitating another war between India and Pakistan. The reality is that the United States, as the sole superpower, has the most to lose from any action that would expose international relations to a global disorder in which every nation felt at liberty to abandon the force of argument for the argument of force. Bush will best serve the ultimate interests of the United States by asking the Security Council for a resolution demanding that Saddam accept the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq by a date certain this fall or face an attack sanctioned by the United Nations. That would be the right way to end the world's unfinished war against Saddam. This story ran on page A18 of the Boston Globe on 9/6/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. [ Send this story to a ***************************************************************** 47 Sowing confusion on Iraq Chicago Sun-Times - Juan Andrade September 6, 2002 BY JUAN ANDRADE The Bush administration needs to really get its act together on Iraq. The president's indecisiveness is at the root of the problem. All we've heard from him for a month is his usual refrain: ''I've not made up my mind." I don't know the president well enough to know what he's up to, but one can speculate. Surely he must realize that his indecisiveness on the issue has opened a can of worms and has provoked considerable comment throughout the world, almost all of it negative, toward the United States. In the process, he has allowed a groundswell of opposition to the use of any offensive force against Iraq to gain popular support. Has he really not made up his mind, or does he not know what to do? The two people who do know what to do are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, albeit they have conflicting proposals. This is what happens when the two top guys in the administration on this issue are not getting their marching orders from the commander-in-chief. Instead of rallying support from our European and Middle Eastern allies around the president's position, they are out there shaping the debate around their own views. I find their actions quite puzzling--divisive, for that matter. Cheney is doing what he does best, articulating the worst-case scenario. Always the hawk, Cheney has laid claim to the voice of preemptive action, or what others may prefer to call naked aggression. Cheney's position has sent chills down the spine of the entire world, whose required standard of proof is that there be convincing evidence of Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons. Without that proof, and if Cheney prevails, the United States will most likely have to go it alone against Iraq, with the possible exception of the British. What troubles me about Cheney's position, besides the fact that he offers no exit strategy from yet a third concurrent military deployment that would be costly financially as well as in human life, is that Bush is well aware of what Cheney is proposing. Cheney has already said that anything short of a preemptive strike and an immediate regime change is ''wishful thinking.'' Sounds to me that Cheney has painted Bush into a corner, and Bush let him do it. The question is why, if Bush doesn't intend to attack? Powell's view is diametrically opposed to Cheney's. Despite press secretary Ari Fleischer's contention to the contrary, Powell and Cheney are espousing totally opposite views. As the dove in this debate, if not the voice of reason, Powell is saying we should send in the United Nations weapons inspectors first. And, if we don't like what they find, Powell says, then Bush II can reassemble Bush I's multinational coalition against Iraq. To the White House, it may sound like Cheney and Powell are saying the same thing, but to the rest of us, Cheney is saying shoot first and ask questions later. Powell is saying ask questions first, and if you don't like the results, create a multinational coalition, get Congress on board, and then take the guy out if you have to. Conservative columnist Robert Novak has called the administration's position ''scary'' for failing to get Congress on board. I call it reckless. By allowing Cheney and Powell to publicly argue two totally opposite positions both here and abroad, Bush has allowed his policy chiefs to divide the administration, divide the Congress, divide Americans, divide Europeans, divide Arabs, alienate our friends and appall the rest. We may soon learn whether Bush sides with Cheney or Powell, though we may need a dictionary. On Wednesday, Bush summoned congressional leaders to tell them that Saddam Hussein has ''crawfished'' his way around previous agreements, leaving him no choice but to invade Iraq, remove Saddam, and destroy his weapons. As a native Texan who is very familiar with colloquial expressions, ''crawfished'' has me plumb buffaloed. But if a president from Texas will overthrow you for crawfishing your way around, Saddam's colleagues in Libya, North Korea and Iran will probably be given until sundown to get out of town. E-mail: docandrade@ushli.com Copyright 2002, Digital Chicago Inc. ***************************************************************** 48 No Current Danger Posed to US from Iraq: Jimmy Carter Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Friday, September 06, 2002 Former US president Jimmy Carter has said that there is no current danger to the United States from Iraq, a country that US President George W. Bush has labeled as part of "axis of evil". "As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent office-holders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad," Cater said in a signed article published by the Washington Post on Thursday. He also expressed his disagreement with the US go-it-alone policy and stressed the need for the United Nations to force unrestricted inspection in Iraq. "We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer", Carter said. "There is an urgent need for UN action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq." Over the past months, the Bush administration has vowed to take military actions, even without support from its major allies, to topple the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whose country the United States says is developing lethal weapons that has posed threat to the America. The go-it-alone policy has not only courted strong opposition worldwide including its allies and Arab nations, but also triggered off fierce debates in the United States, especially in the Bush administration. In the article, Carter also criticized the administration for "disavowing US commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords". "These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism," he said. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 49 Feinstein blasts Bush's talk of war / Senator says attack on Iraq unwarranted Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau [eepstein@sfchronicle.com] Friday, September 6, 2002 --> Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein took to the Senate floor Thursday to argue that a pre-emptive attack to oust Saddam Hussein would be positively un-American unless President Bush produces evidence linking Hussein to terrorist attacks against the United States. "America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we were at Pearl Harbor and on Sept. 11, or our interests and our allies were attacked," Feinstein said. "We have never initiated a major invasion against another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a pre-emptive war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically right way for the United States to proceed." Feinstein's remarks came one day after Bush said he will ask Congress for a resolution permitting him to take action, including a possible invasion, to oust Hussein. The president has denounced the Iraqi leader for trying to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The moderate California Democrat's comments signal that the president may have a more difficult time convincing the Senate of his argument than previously thought. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., also said he hasn't heard any new arguments that would lead him to support an invasion of Iraq. Other senators, including some who support the administration, suggested that the president has a long way to go before winning approval of his plans. "We're not getting enough to make an informed decision," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and a strong supporter of military action against Iraq, said the Bush administration botched the issue over the summer and is scrambling to make up for past sins on both Capitol Hill and at the United Nations. "The Bush administration has not handled this well," Lieberman said, adding that over the summer "they rattled the sabers . . . without explaining why." CHENEY, TENET ON DUTY As part of his effort to persuade Congress to support his plans, Bush sent Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet to brief top congressional leaders. The president also pledged to disclose more information to Congress about why he is pressing to oust Hussein. Feinstein warned that the United States must have international support for its action or an attack on Iraq could destabilize the Middle East, lead to missile attacks on Israel, undermine the effort to battle the terrorists responsible for last September's attacks and reinforce the image of the United States as an "arrogant and unilateral" superpower. California's other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, wrote a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell saying the administration should seek a new U. N. mandate for inspectors to ensure that Iraq is complying with 1991 resolutions banning it from developing weapons of mass destruction. "In that way, we can build the type of coalitions that have been built in the past," Boxer wrote. "Going it essentially alone will be very costly in many ways: in loss of life, in dollars and in continuing our alliances that have been built around stopping international terrorism." INVASION CALLED FOLLY And Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, wrote the president that "it would be folly to send American troops into harm's way without completing our humanitarian efforts in the region, without gaining the support of our European, Arab and world allies and without knowing for sure that the regime that replaces Hussein is better than the one that exists today." Thompson, a Purple Heart Army veteran of the Vietnam War, said it "would be wrong for this or any administration to invade another nation without first presenting compelling evidence that an imminent danger exists." Feinstein warned that a new war against Iraq, unlike the rout in which Hussein's forces were ousted from Kuwait in 1991, could be a morass for American forces. "This will not be another Desert Storm. . . . This war will be waged . . . from house to house and palace to palace, from street to street and school to school and hospital to hospital," she said. IRAQ WEAKENED But experts say Iraq's military, clobbered in Desert Storm and subjected to international sanctions that have prevented modernization, is a shadow of its former self. "Iraq's inability to modernize its forces means that much of its large order of battle is obsolete, has uncertain combat readiness and will be difficult to sustain in combat," said Anthony Cordesman, military analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It also raises serious questions about the ability of its forces to conduct long-range movements and then sustain coherent operations," Cordesman added in a recent analysis of Hussein's military. Bush, campaigning for Republican candidates in Louisville, Ky., again said he intends to convince Congress and foreign leaders that the time has come to topple Hussein. "I take the threat very seriously," Bush said. E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com [eepstein@sfchronicle.com] . ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 1 ***************************************************************** 50 'Saddam dangerously close to nuclear bomb' /by Jeremy Campbell in Washington/ (06 Sep 2002) Members of Congress have been told "just how dangerously close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear bomb," according to those present at a secret briefing by US vice president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA director George Tenet. They were given new intelligence about Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction and systems to deliver them, and an outline of Iraq's progress in building unmanned drone aircraft capable of spraying chemicals on urban areas. Most disturbing of all, the politicians were given evidence that both before and after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September, members of the al Qaeda terror network were in Iraq and talking to figures in Saddam's regime. The White House has told reporters that Mr Bush's national security team is looking into a proposal that would use as many as 50,000 troops to back up UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to make sure they would be able to go anywhere at any time, without prior notice, and to enter mosques and palaces, including that of Saddam himself. Leaders of Congress are insisting on as much information as possible to guide them as they consider approving a possible war against Iraq. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle is also asking for President Bush to go to the UN and seek a resolution enabling military action to go ahead. Mr Daschle said: "I would think the US would want to be in the same position it was at the point when we went to the UN in the early 1990s for the Persian Gulf War. "If the international community supports it, if we can get the information we have been seeking, then I think we can move to a resolution. But short of that, I think it would be difficult for us to move until that information is provided and some indication of the level of international support is also evident." But even after the secret briefing, Senator Bob Graham, head of the intelligence committee, still wanted evidence of an "imminent threat" before giving Mr Bush war powers. © Associated Newspapers Ltd., 06 September 2002 ***************************************************************** 51 Sources: No new evidence of Iraq nuclear threat September 5, 2002 Posted: 2:52 PM EDT (1852 GMT) Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau *WASHINGTON (CNN) --* *U.S. sources with knowledge of Iraq's military capabilities said they are unaware of new information about the Baghdad government's efforts to develop nuclear weapons but added that United States intelligence may be reassessing that threat.* President Bush hinted Wednesday that the urgency behind recent calls for a "regime change" in Iraq are based on signs that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has not made good on promises to disarm and disavow weapons of mass destruction -- assurances dating back to the end of the Persian Gulf War. Bush summoned top lawmakers to the White House on Wednesday and told them that he would "seek approval" from Congress "at the appropriate time" on what to do about Saddam. The Bush administration has accused the Iraqi leader of amassing weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions ending the Gulf War. Sources said they would not rule out the possibility that the White House may ask for a new assessment of any Iraqi nuclear threat. The Bush administration has suggested that Iraq may soon develop a nuclear bomb. But multiple sources in the U.S. government said they believe Iraq is years away from having a nuclear device unless the country receives outside help. Most of these sources also said they know of no specific intelligence that would lead to a new timetable assessment. Sources said the intelligence community is struggling with the question of whether Iraq has hidden fissile material that could be used in a weapon, or hidden uranium enrichment technology that could be used to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel. There also is concern that Iraq's nuclear weapons design team may have made progress in refining its weapons design. But again, sources said substantial progress would have required outside help. Report refers to pilotless planes The latest published assessment from the CIA is believed to be the freshest analysis of Iraq's military resources. Initially distributed to the White House and members of Congress and released publicly in January, the report refers to several weapons systems and equipment considered a threat -- including Iraqi drones, or pilotless planes, that could be used to deliver biological or chemical agents. The CIA described them as "refurbished trainer aircraft [that] are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents." But U.S. officials in January said that the drones would not be particularly effective because of problems delivering such agents. One source suggested Saddam is "kidding himself" if he expects to kill large numbers of people using the planes for chemical or biological warfare. Nonetheless, officials acknowledged that Iraq is likely to have such planes, and that it is serious that they should even try to deploy them in such a manner. ***************************************************************** 52 Incubator attendees see example KnoxNews: Business News-Sentinel photo by Michael Patrick Rick Seymour, left, president and CEO of NUCSAFE, demonstrates his company's portable radiation briefcase monitor to TVA Chairman Glenn McCullough Jr., center, arms folded, and others gathered at the company Thursday. Firm on display By Rebecca Ferrar, News-Sentinel business staff September 6, 2002 Rick Seymour's business of tracking "dirty bombs" and other radioactive materials got its start in a business incubator that helped his company grow to become self-supporting. Today, Nucsafe is close to preparing its nuclear detection devices completely on site at its Oak Ridge office rather than ordering needed glass fiber from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington state. Seymour expects to begin the tricky and dangerous work in about a month. The company's growth illustrates the way incubators should work, and Seymour led a tour Thursday for state, federal and incubator officials connected with a two-day incubator conference being hosted in Knoxville by TVA and the Appalachian Regional Commission. Some 250 public officials and incubator managers from around the country are attending the conference, which concludes today at the Radisson Summit Hill. The incubator that launched Nucsafe is the Fairview Technology Center of Solway. Like other incubators, Fairview provides not only leased space for small companies, but also numerous other services including marketing, accounting, banking and engineering, said Jennifer Flatford, administrative assistant at the Development Corporation of Knox County, which manages it. Fairview currently has seven businesses and room for more. Nucsafe was part of the incubator from August 2000 to May 2002. "We'll be a $750,000 facility when it's all said and done," Seymour said during Thursday's tour. "To bring this facility here, we needed to get a lot of support." He said incubators "make businesses considerably more profitable and will help us pay back our loans and hold our heads high in the community." NUCSAFE makes nuclear detection devices in the form of briefcases sold to the Department of Energy (though not Oak Ridge), Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, U.S. Customs and the Great Britain's Ministry of Defense. They're sensitive enough to detect everything from nuclear medicine to a "dirty bomb,'' a portable, crudely made nuclear bomb. An alarm sounds when the NUCSAFE device is near radioactive material. Seymour said his business has "increased almost by a factor of 10" since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Dr. Carter Hull, NUCSAFE's director of technology, showed tour participants the neutron-sensitive glass fiber, similar to fiber optic cable, used to detect atomic neutrons. He said making the product at the Oak Ridge company will produce "dangerous gases" but produces almost no waste. The company now is a client of Technology 2020, an Oak Ridge incubator that offers counseling, strategic planning and financing to start-up companies. Technology 2020 has received $1 million over six years from the ARC in operating funds, $1 million over five years from UT-Battelle and $50,000 from TVA to make facilities improvements, said Tom Rogers, the agency's president and CEO. Jesse L. White, ARC co-chairman, said, "We can reduce the mortality of small businesses'' with technical assistance from incubators. He noted that ARC and TVA "collaborate" in the incubator business. The ARC serves 13 states. TVA supports a "network of 22 business incubators" serving 1,100 new businesses, and Chairman Glenn L. McCullough Jr. said, "This great economy is fueled by small businesses. All great corporations began as small businesses." The conference also drew Gov. Don Sundquist and his commissioner of economic and community development, Tony Grande. Grande applauded the "vital role" incubators play in developing small businesses. "The economy is in transition right now," Grande said. "As we think about where we're going, we have to think about small businesses. Many of us think about the big fish." Sundquist told the conference he wants to "get back to small entrepreneurship" when he leaves office in January. "Profit is a good word," he said. "We believe business should be rewarded. We want to make sure small businesses are rewarded." The conference also was sponsored by the state Department of Economic and Community Development, the Development District Association of Appalachia, the National Business Incubation Association and the National Association of Regional Councils. Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357 or ferrarr@knews.com. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 Design plans can begin for new Y-12 facility The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- Friday, September 6, 2002 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff The anchor tenant of Y-12 modernization program received the go-ahead Thursday to start design plans. The Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility is projected to be about the size of four football fields, and construction should begin in early 2005, with the project being completed by early 2008. Cost is estimated between $220 million and $250 million. The facility, which will reside at the west end of the Y-12 plant is touted as eventually becoming the nation's repository for highly enriched uranium, As part of the modernization plan, the current storage facilities at Y-12 will eventually be decommissioned, decontaminated and torn down or used for other mission activities. Modernization at the Y-12 National Security Complex got the green light from Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in March. The plan also calls for a special materials complex which will be used for the production of unspecified "special materials." BWXT Y-12 got the OK from the National Nuclear Security Administration to begin design work on the uranium storage facility after completing a series of studies and analyses of the project including execution and acquisition plans, environmental safety and health, security and quality plans and conceptual design, preliminary hazards analysis and risk analysis reports, according to a Department of Energy press release. The Y-12 National Security Complex is operated by BWXT Y-12 for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Y-12 is responsible for the refurbishment of nuclear weapons components, the storage and protection of special nuclear materials, surveillance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the dismantling of nuclear weapons components. BWXT Y-12 -- an alliance between Bechtel National Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc. -- was awarded a five-year, $2.5 billion contract Aug. 31, 2000, for management and operation of the plant. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] . [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 54 Gene Joyce: Why aren't our leaders raising a ruckus? The Oak Ridger Online - Thursday, September 5, 2002 From the embers of our referendum fiasco has emerged three insightful columns by Cathey Daniels, Jim Campbell, and Dick Smyser. They have inspired me to emerge from a year hiatus and weigh in on some of the issues. Smyser, the aging dean of our word merchants, summed it up beautifully. I will paraphrase and extend his remarks in reviewing our problems: i.e., high property taxes, affordable housing, vacant Oak Ridge Mall, the fact that only about 18 percent of new hires are now living in Oak Ridge, etc. Smyser suggested what the community needed was some exciting and enthusiastic community action to solve its long, lingering problems. He clearly was referring to the old Oak Ridge formation days of aggressive citizen participation and innovation. It thrills me to respond to this clarion call of action. I have (as you might have already guessed) a few ideas and analysis to throw into the pot. The core problem is the lack of money. Although we have the highest tax rate in the state, we are still woefully short of sufficient funds to meet our urgent municipal needs. We also know (but fail to act upon) the following facts: the privately operated federal industry here pays about $1 million in city payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). We also know many things: Kingsport pays its city $4 million in industrial taxes annually; Los Alamos, through recent intervention of their senator, is getting about $8 million for schools alone. Yucca Mountain, Nev., just last week was awarded about $5 million "fees" to the Indian tribes in and around the mountain where a new repository is being built. Also, the state of South Carolina is paid about $65 million "fees" or "rent" per year for a landfill that includes radioactive and toxic waste at Savannah River Depot. Right now in Bear Creek Valley a multi-hundred-million-dollar toxic waste storage landfill is under construction (it gets millions of dollars larger with every news release, but no one is even discussing "fees" for the city!) In about 1988, local Department of Energy agreed to pay the city of Oak Ridge about a million dollars or more for fees on the storage of waste in Oak Ridge Monitored Retrievable Storage toxic repository, which was about to be built at the time (but it was later canceled for national and state political reasons). A rather important distinction is that many of the above monies involve "storage fees," not technically "taxes." In modern times, the word "fees" and "rent" have substituted for federal government's local tax payments (PIBT). They are similar to taxes on inventory of a private production plant. The distinction lies in the fact that PILT suggests a constitutional immunity violation, whereas "fees" and "rent" are a normal government expense in storage of toxic waste or any other commodity; it has become a recent phenomenon in this decade. We have more toxic and radioactive waste stored within the city limits of Oak Ridge than any other federal installation (source, Munger and Brisha). These goals can be accomplished by engaging our congressional delegation to require DOE to assume its fair and full financial responsibility to Oak Ridge, as they are now doing to other communities. Fairness and equality is all we ask, by asking our congressional delegates to "connect the dots," and adopt other fair precedents in other communities in our situation. It is interesting to note that the Congress ordered DOE to pay up to $2.3 million yearly back in the '5Os (with the dollar value at that time). However, through the years, when the community's vigilance waned, the payments dropped to about $990,000 in the '90s. It halved, rather than doubled! Its about a million now. To further emphasize, it should be pointed out that the pollution/glowing image, health problems have emerged only in the last 10 years. But rather than increasing because of these added burdens, DOE halved our PILT subsidy. At some time, they were increasing in other DOE areas that had toxic storage problems by paying millions in fees. In the practice of law, I found that problems requiring the rearranging of legal chairs was mundane. But taking an idea in the form of a misty cloud and reducing it by precedent and "connecting dots" to implement a concrete change or bending of federal regulations to solve a community need, was indeed a satisfying experience. This is such an occasion. I am not guaranteeing that the facts outlined here are completely accurate. They are only facts that I have gleaned from reading materials that come to my den. I know that they are substantive enough to form a nucleus of a fair precedent that can be packaged by younger and wiser heads to accomplish the goal of a new and renewed future and financial soundness for Oak Ridge. It's just a matter of converting our past disadvantages to cash -- using DOE's own past precedents. What could be more reasonable and fair? It's all so blatantly clear. We are financially being disregarded and bypassed by DOE. But the more poignant question: Why in the hell aren't our local leaders raising hell about it -- NOW? Gene Joyce, a longtime civic activist in Oak Ridge, is semi-retired from the law firm of Joyce, Meredith, Flitcroft &Normand. [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 55 DOE Makes First Delivery of Refurbished Radiological Detection Equipment to Washington, D.C. Emergency Management Officials New Pilot Program Uses Surplus Radiological Detection Equipment To Enhance the Domestic Preparedness Capabilities of Emergency First Responders energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: September 5, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - At a press conference held at Washington, D.C., Fire Engine Company #3 today, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, joined by representatives from Congress and officials with the D.C. Office of Emergency Management, formally transferred the first shipment of refurbished radiological detection equipment to Washington, D.C., first responders under a new Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Justice (DOJ) pilot project called the Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse (HDER) Program. The HDER Programs goal is to provide surplus radiological detection instrumentation and other equipment to state and local emergency first responder agencies nationwide to enhance their domestic preparedness capabilities. The agreement is part of the larger federal effort to enhance the equipment and training available to our nation's emergency first responders. "We are proud to help ensure that our law enforcement and emergency personnel have the necessary equipment and training to prepare them to respond effectively and thoroughly to any emergency," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. "And, we are pleased to provide DOE resources to help ensure America's homeland defense." A variety of equipment to measure the presence of radiation will be made available through the HDER Program. The equipment, which comes from Energy Department sites across the nation, will be evaluated and refurbished by radiation equipment specialists at DOE's Office of Assets Utilization, National Center of Excellence for Materials Recycle in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) will then work with established contacts in each state to identify appropriate users in their local emergency responder communities, and DOE will deliver the equipment to these jurisdictions at no cost. Training on the use of the equipment will be available to the emergency responders through ODP's Domestic Preparedness Equipment Technical Assistance Program (DPETAP). If requested, DPETAP will provide detailed technical information and hands-on equipment operation and maintenance training. Local support for the equipment, including calibration, maintenance and follow-on refresher training, will also be available through a partnership with the Health Physics Society, a 6,000 member national organization of radiation safety professionals. A pilot phase for the HDER Program began on July 1, 2002. This pilot phase will be coordinated with the states containing the nation's 10 largest metropolitan areas, which include: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington D.C. Additional information on the HDER program can be obtained at the DOE's website at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov [http://www.oakridge.doe.gov] or the DOJ's website http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/] . Media Contact: Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806 Joseph Davis, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-181 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************