***************************************************************** 03/08/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.59 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: What's At Stake In The Energy Debate? 2 US: Some GOP Senators Rethink Energy Bill 3 Chief scientist says UK needs more nuclear power sites 4 UK: Nuclear power 'vital' to meet emission target 5 UK: Put Nimbys in charge to improve planning 6 New Kazakh national nuclear company head to tackle "new" 7 US: Bill aims for N-plant owners to fund anti-terror 8 US: Senate Approval of Taxpayer-Backed Insurance Scheme for New 9 UK 'needs more nuclear stations' 10 New Pro-Nuclear Voice Heard in Britain 11 UK: Call to expand nuclear power 12 Uk: 'Nuclear key' to creating green energy NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: NRC to Meet with Entergy to Discuss Indian Point 2 Performance 14 US: Worst Nuke Plant in U.S.: Indian Point 2 last on NRC list 15 Japan: Water leaks at Miyagi nuclear plant 16 Lithuania's nuclear plant closure to cost 3bn euros - study 17 Fault shuts down Russian nuclear power unit 18 US: Propane leak puts Point Beach on higher state of alert 19 US: Vermont: Flaking For Vermont Yankee NUCLEAR SAFETY 20 Data shows world awash in stolen nuclear material 21 NZ: Database to track nuclear material 22 Home News: Leaflet outlines State plan on nuclear fall-out 23 US: Officials testing air, dust (Beryllium) from building 24 US: NRC looks at sleeping inspector in Paducah - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 25 US: Nuclear reaction: Dump stirs up Nevada 26 Official laments another broken promise (from USEC) 27 US: Time runs out for anti-Yucca resolution in Utah 28 US: Senate OKs Chu as Yucca project chief 29 UK: Fears over missing nuclear material 30 Row erupts over Sellafield security 31 Chinese Scientists Developed Technology on Spent Nuclear Fuel Separa 32 US: Yucca: Federal plan draws council's ire - 33 US: Moving nuclear waste 34 US: Connecticut Nuclear waste suit blocked 35 US: NRC finds probe into missing rods was adequate NUCLEAR WEAPONS 36 US: Preparing for nuclear or biological attack proves nearly impossi 37 Nuclear sub readied for dry-dock exhibition US DEPT. OF ENERGY 38 Labs run nuclear tests via computer 39 Scientist exhausted, elated with response to fusion research 40 Hanford budget to get $433 million boost for cleanup 41 CH2M Hill names new president Wednesday 42 Hanford Plutonium Waste Cleanup Accelerated 43 SNS is topic of Altrusa meeting 44 Pact accelerates cleanup at Hanford OTHER NUCLEAR 45 MIT nuclear professor dies at 66 46 'Bubble fusion' Fact or fiction? 47 Q on 'bubble fusion' experiment ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 What's At Stake In The Energy Debate? TOMPAINE.com - Laura Ephraim is an assistant editor of TomPaine.com As the Senate begins debate on the lightning-rod issue of energy legislation this week, the mood in the capital is electric. Fiercely contentious political questions about energy -- how much does our economy need; where should it come from? -- are linked to virtually every issue on the national agenda: economic stimulus, national security, job creation and environmental protection. Enron's collapse set off a cascade of political sparks, highlighting the power lines between policy-makers and the energy industry. Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, persists in keeping the public in the dark about high-level policy meetings between his energy policy taskforce and industry cronies from his days in the oil biz. Just where does the public interest plug into this energy debate? Since Bush first announced his energy plan a year ago, TomPaine.com has been shining a bright light on energy issues. What follows is a public interest primer drawing together what we've learned. * Energy is one of the essential inputs to our economy; literally and figuratively the fuel that keeps our economy's engine running. A sustainable energy policy would eliminate imbalance between supply and demand, while protecting the environment, reducing vulnerability to terrorist attacks, providing good jobs for Americans, helping the economy grow, and promoting peaceful cooperation with the international community. No small feat, yet each of these challenges can be met with a dual strategy aimed at reducing our reliance on polluting fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power: First, improve energy efficiency to reduce energy demand. Second, invest in renewable, locally-produced energy supplies. They're Called "Fossil" Fuels for Good Reason America currently burns fossil fuels for the lion's share of our energy supplies. The predominance of carbon-based, coal and oil energy in our energy economy is by design, not accident, and certainly not by neutral, survival-of-the-fittest market mechanisms. It's the product of decades of taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and government permissiveness with an industry that "externalizes" the medical, social and economic costs of its pollution, foisting them on everyday citizens and other businesses. As Myers and Kent explain in "The Perverse Subsidies Of Fossil Fuels," these costs are astronomical. Pollution from fossil fuels exacerbates lung disease and other health problems, and causes up to 60,000 premature deaths each year. Businesses suffer from reduced productivity when pollution makes workers ill. The particles and chemicals spewed into the air by fossil fuel-burning plants are no better for plant health, hurting the crop yields that farmers and consumers need to survive. more>> But global warming will be by far the greatest -- and gravest -- externalized cost of relying on fossil fuels. Conservative estimates put the international cost at $1 trillion each year. Agricultural damage, human lives lost, property damage, forced resettlement, and other consequences of climate change "could eventually cost the United States at least 1 to 2 percentage points of GDP" according to Myers and Kent.>> Despite the hemming and hawing about the cause of climate change among political cronies of the fossil fuel industry, "hundreds of scientists involved in the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agreed that the earth is warming and that much of this warming is due to humans," geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck explained in "Spinning The Facts." Unfortunately, the media often give one nay saying scientist "as much weight as the hundreds he or she is disagreeing with" in misguided attempts at 'balanced' reporting.>> America's hunger for oil and coal also drives destructive drilling and mining in national wilderness areas. Fossil fuel extraction threatens species survival; contaminates water; ruins natural beauty; and often threatens indigenous peoples' ways of life. As Debbie Miller reported in her compelling dispatch from arctic Alaska, "there is a dramatic change in the scenery" as you fly from the as-yet unspoiled Arctic Refuge to the Badami oil and gas field. "Gone is the real wilderness. Welcome to the oil patch." Her profile of an Eskimo village on the fringe of Badami is an unsettling preview of what could happen in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) if this last Alaskan preserve is opened to drilling.>> Bush has pitched his allegiance to fossil fuel subsidies as a commitment to supplying our economy with the energy it needs to grow. But his supply-side posturing ignores the hard reality: domestic supplies of these fuels are not sufficient to supply America's energy needs. The Natural Resource Defense Counsel explains, "the United States cannot drill its way out of energy problems" anymore because we've already extracted most of our available oil. Even if Bush gave ANWR to oil industry for drilling, they'd only find a six-month supply of fuel.>> And Connie Harvey reports in "Dinosaur Dancing," that we'll have 10 years to wait before even that fuel is available.>> Collateral Damage Of The Fossil Fuel Economy Because America can never meet its energy needs with made-in-America fossil fuels, continued use of these fuels will require imports -- with major ramifications for national security. David Case explained why in "Oil Aid: After The Attack": "By not taking meaningful steps to establish an alternative to petroleum, the White House energy plan makes us more vulnerable to terrorists over the decades to come. More than half of our oil comes from abroad, and the oil trade is an inherently destabilizing force in the world." Imported oil is unpredictable in price and availability, and puts money in the coffers of oil-rich nations with unsavory, or even terrorist-supporting, governing regimes. Hardly a sound idea for a nation at war with terrorism.>> The threat to security from oil and coal power doesn't stop there. As premier energy expert Amory Lovins explains in "The 800-Mile Long Chapstik And Other Tales Of Domestic Energy Insecurity," centralized power production and distribution "invite and reward devastating attack" on American soil. A Pentagon study found that a handful of ill-wishers could shut down oil and gas supplies to the East Coast, cut the power to any major city, or kill millions by destroying a nuclear power plant. With Alaskan drilling temporarily making the Trans-Alaska Pipeline into our nation's energy jugular vein, we'll offer up another tempting target for terrorists.>> Nuclear energy, Bush's other favored energy industry, opens more security vulnerabilities. As David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, testified for Congress last year, 47 percent of plants tested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed significant security weaknesses.>> And it doesn't take an act of terrorism for nuclear power to threaten American's safety. As Karen Charman explains in her expose of nuclear fallibility, "as part of their normal operations, nuclear reactors routinely emit radioactivity into the air and water with largely unmeasured consequences to human health and the environment." With Bush's enthusiasm for nuclear power subsidies reviving the beleaguered industry, Americans can expect to continue their role as guinea pigs in our national nuclear experiment.>> Nuclear power also exposes Americans to risk of catastrophic accidents. To add insult to potential injury, American taxpayers bear the cost of insuring the industry's financial liability for catastrophic incidents, as well as the expense of storing its growing stockpile of radioactive nuclear waste (a cost that we'll bequeath to hundreds of generations to come). According to the Safe Energy Communication Council, 60 percent of Americans are taken enough by these facts to oppose building new nuclear plants.>> Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney are not among those Americans. As the Nuclear Information and Resource Service explains, the administration's energy plan would shut the public out of relicensing of nuclear plants, renew taxpayers' liability for nuclear accidents, and ignore environmental and health dangers of routine nuclear power plant operation.>> Show Me The Energy Bush's continued adherence to the energy old-guard of polluting carbon power, nuclear experiments, and wilderness drilling is not for lack of viable alternatives. Programs to improve energy efficiency in businesses and homes could use readily-available technology to immediately bring energy demand in line with supply, while stimulating our economy, creating jobs, reducing openings for terrorist attacks, and improving the environment and public health. As Joseph Romm puts it in "Energy Czar For A Day," "the 'supply side' approach -- drilling for more oil and gas in environmentally sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or building large new electricity generating stations -- is typically the slowest, most costly, and most environmentally damaging way to generate more power.">> That's why Amory Lovins calls energy efficiency "the rapid-deployment energy resource" -- exactly the kind of energy America needs to quickly reduce dependence on foreign oil in a time of war. Efficiency is not about doing without -- for industry or consumers -- but about "using less energy far more efficiently to do the same tasks," allowing the economy to grow with less wasted energy. That means fewer new power plants -- and therefore less air pollution and nuclear radiation.>> The Safe Energy Communication Council shows that energy efficiency could supply all the energy currently produced by nuclear plants, and save the money sunk in maintaining costly reactors.>> Overall, modern efficiency programs "can put another $300 billion a year back in Americans' pockets," according to Lovins -- the only source of energy with net savings for everyday Americans. That's a stimulus for consumers that doesn't require blowing a hole in the budget with irresponsible tax cuts. Efficiency is a "stimulus that keeps on stimulating" for business, too. Joseph Romm shows that initial investments in energy efficient technologies generate billions of dollars in energy savings each subsequent year, to be reinvested in other enterprises. Jobs are created in the initial stages of implementing efficient technology, and through the following waves of economic stimulus.>> As Jennifer Bauduy reported in "Looking For Jobs In All The Wrong Places," improving efficiency "could create 10 times more jobs than drilling in ANWR.">> The Department of Energy's efficiency programs are among the most effective, and cost-effective, in the agency -- reducing industrial energy use by over 1.6 quadrillion BTUs in the past 20 years and saving the nation $30 billion dollars (at an expense of only $712 million a year). (For more, read "The Case For Energy Efficiency R&D.") You'd think these results would impress our MBA president, who wants to direct government funding to proven programs. Instead, Bush follows the fossil-fuel line, dismissing energy efficiency as anti-progress or, as Dick Cheney put it, a personal virtue the government has no role in encouraging -- his 2002 budget proposed whacking the Federal Energy Management Program's budget in half and cutting millions from other efficiency R&D programs.>> The Bush administration is similarly dismissive of renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, and biomass -- which could replace fossil fuel and nuclear energy supplies. Exercising willful blindness to the subsidies that prop up oil, coal, and nuclear energy's market shares, Bush opposes renewable energy subsidies on supposed "free market" grounds ("The Perverse Subsidies Of Fossil Fuels" opens with an infuriating example of his selective market logic).>> European governments have been very successful at improving renewable energy supplies ("Cleaner Than Cows" tells Germany's wind-power success-story), and states like California are leading a domestic renewable energy revolution.>> And as the TomPaine.com op ad "Revolution In The Air" reported, wind power brings all kinds of collateral benefits: reduced air pollution, extra income for farmers who build windmills among their fields (check out "A New Crop For Farmers" >>),and new jobs>>. Compared to massive job losses in the coal and oil industries, writes Worldwatch's Michael Renner, wind power is poised to create 3 million skilled, well-paying jobs by 2020.>> Renewable energy sources, along with energy efficiency, can also improve national security by dispersing energy production and eliminating vulnerable energy delivery systems. Local-control visionary David Morris explains in "Our Decentralized Energy Future" that empowering Americans to produce their own power, with solar panels on their roofs and wind turbines in their communities, could be part of a "Manhattan Project level effort to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and our reliance on imported fuels.">> Industry Influence What keeps our president and elected representatives from enacting a visionary energy program; a plan to make our industry more efficient, our air safe to breathe, and our nation more secure? None of the plans on Capitol Hill meet our dire need for an "All-American Energy Plan," not least that put forward by our president.>> "Not since the 1950s ... has the fossil fuel industry been this cozy with an administration," wrote James C. Williams in "An Energy Policy For You." Bush and Cheney were colleagues and friends with fossil fuel industry executives before moving into the White House, but their cozy friendship was sealed with gigantic campaign contributions.>> In "The United States Of Oil," Marty Jezer says the Bush energy plan "should be viewed as a payback to Bush and Cheney's campaign contributors and, more personally, to their cronies in the energy industry." Bush pulled in $2.6 million from these cronies, he reports.>> In "Pretty Please With Incentives On Top," David Case shows that the Bush global warming plan is similarly industry-friendly. Using fancy accounting footwork, Bush takes credit for the slower rate of increase in carbon emissions already in evidence, and hands out tax breaks to industry. Yet, even Bush doesn't claim his plan will reduce carbon emissions -- the only trend that matters in stopping climate change.>> David Corn calls it "George W. Bush's new global warming plan.... And, no, that shouldn't read 'anti'-global warming plan, for his proposal will literally add fuel to the fire.">> If Bush let the polluters write his energy and climate policies, it wouldn't be the first time. Case reported in "Putting The Fox In Charge Of The Hen House" that, as governor of Texas, Bush's administration "met at least ten times (sometime on the same day) with representatives from ... the states top 100 grandfathered polluters" -- possibly violating a Texas open government law.>> Energy at the Grassroots If there is hope for our energy future, it rests at the grassroots, where citizens are coming together to change energy use, production, and distribution in their communities and states, and advocating together for national reforms. In "Powering Up From The Grassroots," Jane Holtz Kay describes how local proponents of solar energy are "rising up against the Bush energy agenda town by town. Although Bush has no interest in complying with the Kyoto global warming treaty, hundreds of towns and cities have signed up to meet or beat Kyoto emissions standards through Cities for Climate Protection.>> And America's faith communities are taking a stand for a public-interest energy future, as Rebecca Williams reported in "An Energy-Saving Mission For U.S. Churches," installing solar panels on church roofs and writing letters to Congress to provoke national reform.>> National environmental citizen's groups have submitted energy policies in the public interest to policy makers and the public. The Union of Concerned Scientists' "Clean Energy Blueprint" is an rousingly affirmative energy plan, asserting that America can "develop an energy system that will save consumers money, provide security and jobs, and leave a heritage of clean air, clean water, and pristine wilderness." Their blueprint would meet 20 percent of U.S. energy needs with renewables by 2020, save consumers $440 billion, and reduce coal use by 60 percent and carbon emissions by two-thirds.>> The National Resources Defense Council has also put forward "A Responsible Energy Policy For The 21st Century.">> "Americans must choose an energy future," read a TomPaine.com op ad from last year; "Which way will we go?" Those who would reaffirm our national allegiance to fossil fuels are leading us down the wrong path. It's time to stop foisting the economic, social, and health burdens of old-guard energy -- oil, coal, and nuclear power -- onto the public, and follow grassroots leadership down the path of the public interest: a sustainable, efficient, and secure energy future.>> Published: Mar 05 2002 ***************************************************************** 2 Some GOP Senators Rethink Energy Bill Yahoo! News - Fri Mar 8, 2:48 AM ET By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican support for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites) will erode if the issue begins to seriously threaten Senate passage of broader energy legislation, some GOP lawmakers say. While supporters of such drilling may be able to muster a narrow majority, they have been unable to get close to the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by Democrats who have vowed to protect the refuge. Along with a largely Democratic proposal to require automakers to significantly improve fuel economy, drilling in ANWR, as the refuge is known, is by far the most contentious issue facing senators as they try to craft legislation to direct the nation's energy policy. Both issues are expected to come to a head next week while the Senate for now focuses on less divisive parts of the bill. Sen. Frank Murkowski (news), R-Alaska, who has led the pro-drilling forces, signaled his frustration Thursday when he vowed to launch his own filibuster against the energy bill if opponents prevent him from offering an amendment to open the refuge to oil companies. "We can talk and talk and talk," warned Murkowski, promising to use parliamentary procedures to tie up the entire legislation if necessary. Such an impasse could force Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., to withdraw the bill, senators acknowledge. "If he (Murkowski) wants to stop an energy bill for the nation because he can't get ANWR, so be it," said Sen. John Kerry (news), D-Mass. Kerry is among Democrats who promise to filibuster any drilling proposal. President Bush (news - web sites) favors drilling in ANWR, arguing that it is necessary to meet rising U.S. energy demands and that it can be carried out without harming the refuge's delicate ecosystem. But a growing number of Republicans acknowledge that ANWR's oil may be too big a price to pay if it means abandoning altogether a bill that has other valuable, hard-fought provisions. For example, a bipartisan agreement was to be announced Friday that would triple the use of corn-based ethanol and phase out a gas additive, MTBE, which pollutes drinking water. It soon will be part of the bill. Senators also were expected to approve new safety measures for natural gas pipelines. They already have approved incentives to spur construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska, and approved a measure to assure the nuclear industry continues to have limits to its liabilities in case of a major nuclear accident. These all are measures that have broad support from powerful interests and would fall victims to the impasse over the Arctic refuge. Asked Thursday if an energy bill without ANWR drilling might be acceptable, Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., replied: "There are many areas that are important in this bill. ... It's not just about drilling there, but you'll have to look at the whole picture." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news), R-Texas, also a strong pro-drilling voice, said she would vote for a bill without ANWR "if in the end we have an energy bill that has greater balance" and more for production. Sen. Craig Thomas (news), R-Wyo., said a Senate bill without ANWR will not end the fight since the House already has approved drilling in the Alaska refuge and the two bills will have to be reconciled. It will be an opportunity "for another go-round," said Thomas in an interview. While most of the Senate's 49 Republicans favor drilling, six are firmly opposed: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois. Five Democrats favor opening the refuge: Sens. John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana; Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia. On the other highly divisive issue, automobile fuel economy, Democrats on Thursday offered some changes in hopes of attracting wider support. Kerry and Sen. John McCain (news), R-Ariz., reached agreement on an amendment that would requirement automakers to achieve a fleet average of 36 miles per gallon by 2015. But Kerry also said he would consider exempting pickup trucks and proposed allowing automakers to meet lower mileage requirements if they buy "greenhouse" credits from other industries. The bill also calls for: _$16 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, much of it to develop renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass as well as energy conservation. The House bill would spent twice as much, more of it for energy production. _Tougher efficiency requirements for air conditioners. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Chief scientist says UK needs more nuclear power sites © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor 08 March 2002 Nuclear power requires a renaissance in the next decade to allow Britain to combat global warming, the government's chief scientist argued yesterday. "The key new driver is climate change," said Professor David King. "It seems clear to me that our dependence on fossil fuels would be unchanged unless there is a new nuclear build at least to replace existing nuclear power stations." Those stations currently produce 27 per cent of Britain's electricity – but all are in line to be shut down and decommissioned in the next 30 years. His comments won a cautious welcome from Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment. She said that while more nuclear power stations are not needed to cut Britain's carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, as required under the international Kyoto Protocol to fight climate change, "there is an issue beyond that, because our emissions are forecast to begin rising again after 2012 if we don't take further action". Professor King has argued that at the very least, decommissioned nuclear power plants must be replaced if the UK is to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. At the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Mrs Beckett said: "Professor King rightly identifies that there's an issue. "In the end though it would be up to the nuclear industry to come forward with new proposals for stations, and they have not done that yet." Under the Kyoto Protocol Britain has to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 5 per cent below their 1990 levels by 2010. That requires a 12.5 per cent cut from today's levels. The Protocol will become legally binding once it is signed into British law in 21 days, after being laid before Parliament yesterday by Mrs Beckett. She insisted its targets would be met, despite independent analysis from the Cambridge Econometrics Group, which suggests emissions will overshoot due to the increased level of coal being burnt because of rising oil and gas prices. But the suggestion that nuclear power should stage a return angered environmental groups. Roger Higman, senior energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Nuclear power is uneconomic, unsafe and unpopular. What is more it produces highly radioactive waste which no one yet knows how to store safely." ***************************************************************** 4 UK: Nuclear power 'vital' to meet emission target By Matthew Jones and John Mason Published: March 7 2002 21:03 | Last Updated: March 7 2002 21:30 The UK government's chief scientific adviser warned on Thursday that Britain had no choice but to build nuclear power stations if it were to meet targets on greenhouse gas emissions, placing him at odds with the government's more cautious approach to nuclear energy. A review of energy policy by Downing Street's performance and innovation unit last month said there should be no specific policy of developing nuclear power, though the option should be left open. But Professor David King, who had previously been sceptical of atomic energy, said the scientific case for building nuclear plants was irrefutable. "Dependence on fossil fuels would be unchanged unless there is new nuclear build at least to replace existing nuclear power stations," he said in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The nuclear industry has warned it would need government aid to build plants because power prices of about £18 a megawatt-hour are below the £25-£30 needed for schemes to be economic. The energy review fell short of recommending the incentives the industry says it needs. However, it said renewable energy, such as wind and wave power, should be boosted to a fifth of Britain's needs by 2020. Prof King said this would leave an energy gap that could not be filled without producing carbon dioxide. The comments were echoed by Jack Cunningham, the Labour former minister, in the House of Commons. He said: "We are simply not going to be able to provide the electricity for an advanced industrial economy without a contribution from nuclear power." Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, played down Prof King's comments, saying it was too early to come to conclusions. Environmental groups accused Prof King of "straying outside his scientific remit to try and soften up the public". ***************************************************************** 5 UK: Put Nimbys in charge to improve planning Times Online March 08, 2002 Graham Searjeant, Financial Editor DAVID KING, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, last night called for more nuclear power stations to be built in Britain. Unless existing plant is replaced as it wears out, he said, all those wind farms will do nothing to boost the share of energy that we generate from sources that do not pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The threat of global warming is more important, he argued, than the dilemma of nuclear waste. This must be tackled anyway, since dismantling old nuclear stations will raise the amount of stored radioactive waste from 10,000 tons to nearer 250,000. An official body is quietly trawling for a dump site. The Sellafield area, the only one where there would be any local support for such a store, has been ruled out on geological grounds. In two months’ time Stephen Byers, or his successor at the Department of Transport, is due to issue a national plan to expand airport capacity. The fall in traffic since September 11 will not affect official projections of massive future growth. To the jaw-dropping surprise of people in Kent, this plan is expected to include a possible new multi-runway airport on bird-rich Thames marshland close to the junction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Kent politicians say that the only suitable site is the old Manston military airfield on the Isle of Thanet, where there is a desperate shortage of jobs. All of these might guarantee a public inquiry lasting half a decade, like the one for the Fifth Terminal at Heathrow. But they won’t. By then, the Government hopes to have put in place laws making itself, via Parliament, responsible for deciding whether we need these things and where they should go. Major roads, industrial plants and quarries would come under the same rules. A second reform would change local planning to avoid the endless local delay and obstruction that frustrates business development of housing estates, office blocks, superstores and laboratories. Zoning would be decided by regional quangos, leaving local representatives to focus on details. No wonder that environmental groups, responding at the end of the consultation period, are little short of apoplectic. Centralisation is one way to end the planning nightmares that stymie industry and development. It is not, however, a solution likely to improve economic outcomes. The Government wants to massacre the Nimbys, those much-pilloried folk who do not want a waste dump, a motorway or a drug treatment centre in their backyard. Unfortunately, Nimbys are not just mosquitos on the bodies of infrastructure and development pioneers. Nimbys are us. A system that suppresses grousers does not suppress the losses they suffer, in cash or living standards. Many business and housing developments are universally welcomed. In places where jobs are scarce, communities compete furiously for new car plants, electronics factories, docks, offices or tourist attractions. Hundreds of towns and large villages campaign for bypasses that central government refuses to build. Controversial cases pit gains against losses. The larger the project, the starker the contrast. The contrasts in new transport infrastructure, power stations or quarries, is between widely but thinly spread economic advantage and deep, concentrated local losses. Official cost-benefit analyses can compare the two, but do nothing to resolve the conflict or redistribute those costs and benefits. Only market forces and incentives can do this. Business has faced more hostility from local authorities since the crazy reform that gathered local business rates to the Treasury. No wonder. Local authorities have lost the direct financial gain from commercial building on their patch. You could not design a measure more hostile to business development. Nimbys could also be offered gains from development to offset their losses, redistributing benefits from those who do not suffer at all. If local people were offered half-price electricity, they might more readily vote for new power stations. Other Nimbys might be amenable if transmission lines were put underground instead of marching across the landscape on pylons. However, this would reduce the gain in economic output. Where a big dump for radioactive waste is proposed, it is hard to think of any planning gains or financial incentives that would win locals round. On the market test, no such dump should be built. In planning, market forces can often only work by proxy, by allowing those directly affected to vote on a development. A local referendum is still likelier to deliver the right economic answer than a whipped vote in Parliament. Sometimes, people will get it wrong or make short-sighted decisions. Such errors have been known in Westminster. Nimbys are more likely to make the right economic decision. The process of redistributing gains and losses to persuade them to back a controversial project will also boost its net value. Nimby power is good for the economy. graham.searjeant@thetimes.co.uk [graham.searjeant@thetimes.co.uk] Copyright 2002 [http://www.thetimes.co.uk ***************************************************************** 6 New Kazakh national nuclear company head to tackle "new" government tasks BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 8, 2002 Almaty, 6 March: The change of top executive at Kazakhstan's national nuclear company Kazatomprom [Kazakh nuclear industry] will in no way affect its plans and its endorsed development programme, nor its]established partnership relations, a Kazatomprom press release issued today says. As has been reported, Kazakh Energy and Natural Resources Minister Vladimir Shkolnik ordered Mukhtar Dzhakishev to be appointed head of Kazatomprom last week. Dzhakishev worked as deputy prime minister in the ministry prior to the appointment. The previous president and member of the national nuclear company's board of directors, Askar Kasabekov, has been appointed deputy governor of the oil-rich western Mangistau Region. The press release notes that the reason for the reshuffle is that new tasks are facing the Kazakh government, one of which is strengthening science-intensive industries. The implementation of the task has been entrusted to Mukhtar Dzhakishev, who already held the post of president of the national nuclear company in 1998-2001 before he was appointed deputy energy and natural resources minister. [Passage to end omitted: under Kasabekov's management, the company launched two new mines in southern Kazakhstan and set up a joint venture with the USA; Kazatomprom extracted over 2,000 tonnes of uranium in 2001] Source: Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency, Almaty, in Russian 0721 gmt 6 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 7 Bill aims for N-plant owners to fund anti-terror Buffalo News - Associated Press 3/7/2002 ALBANY - A new bill would require operators of nuclear power plants to reimburse local and state governments in New York State for the full costs of preparing for terrorist attacks. Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat, said in a news conference Wednesday that his proposal was motivated by the federal government's warnings of the threat of airborne assaults on nuclear facilities. Brodsky's county is home to the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors, which are owned by Entergy Corp. "Sept. 11 didn't change the reality about Indian Point; it changed the perception," he said. "And it increased the danger." Brodsky said his study revealed deficiencies in the evacuation plan for the Indian Point plants, which are on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of Manhattan. The plan makes false assumptions about residents' reactions and is based on 1990 population figures, he contended. As the perceived threats of a nuclear disaster have expanded since September, Brodsky said, it is time to make the plants responsible for the full expense of emergency planning. "Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the nuclear industry remains the last great bastion of socialism in the American system," he said. "It continues to profit from and insist on being excused from reasonable and foreseeable costs of the total operation." Each nuclear plant operator in New York annually pays $550,000 per active reactor for safety planning, with the money split between the state and local governments. A spokesman for Entergy, which also owns the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear plant near Oswego, said the company was not aware of any case in which those funds fell short of the need. He added that the New Orleans-based power company provided Oswego County with an additional $75,000. "What this amounts to is a tax on doing business in the state," Larry Gottlieb said. Brodsky, though uncertain of the true expense, said anecdotal evidence indicates that the cost of preparedness was significantly higher than the amount provided by plant owners. His legislation would require the government to determine the costs. Brodsky said it is not his objective to drive nuclear facilities from New York State, but he added that the plants should not be made to feel welcome. "Anything we can do to put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage would be a step in the right direction," he said. The bill will be sponsored in the State Senate by Thomas P. Morahan, a Rockland County Republican. A county lawmaker and several governmental, environmental and school groups have called for the shutdown of the Indian Point plants since Sept. 11. Assemblywoman Sandra R. Galef, a Westchester County Democrat, said in the news conference that she and the community where the Indian Point plants are located support the legislation. "I feel very strongly that the owner of a nuclear plant should take on the cost of all the local emergency planning," she said. Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 8 Senate Approval of Taxpayer-Backed Insurance Scheme for New Nuclear Plants Makes Energy Bill Much Worse Public Citizen March 7, 2002 Special Interests Running Roughshod Over Energy Bill WASHINGTON, D.C. — A flawed Senate energy bill became significantly worse Thursday when senators added language to reauthorize a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for a new generation of nuclear power plants, Public Citizen said today. An amendment sponsored by Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act passed 78-21. Originally approved in 1957, when commercial nuclear power was new, the Price-Anderson Act was supposed to be temporary. Recognizing that insurance companies wouldn't cover nuclear power, the government agreed to craft an artificial insurance scheme that would allow the nuclear power industry to exist. The idea was that over time, nuclear energy would prove its safety record and the insurance industry would agree to cover nuclear plants. But 45 years later, the insurance industry still refuses to take a chance on nuclear power. Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear power industry is required to collectively come up with $9.4 billion to cover financial claims that would arise from a nuclear catastrophe. But $9.4 billion amounts to only a fraction of the devastating economic cost that would befall a community or a region in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. As long ago as 1982, a study conducted for the government by Sandia National Laboratories estimated the financial consequences of a nuclear accident might be as high as $314 billion. "Insurance companies know a sucker bet when they see one, and that's how they've always viewed nuclear power plants," said Wenonah Hauther, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "They won't touch it. Sadly, the Senate isn’t as cautious." Congress has extended and modified the Price-Anderson Act repeatedly, most recently in 1987. Today's nuclear power plants would continue to be covered by Price-Anderson even if the act expired as scheduled this summer. The only reason to reauthorize the law is to promote the construction of new nuclear power plants — plants that, according to the Bush administration, need direct government subsidies for development. "Basically, the public's financial protection in the case of a nuclear accident is backed by nothing more than the continued stability of energy conglomerates," Hauter said. "And from Pacific Gas & Electric's bankruptcy to the shattered retirement savings of Enron employees, energy conglomerates have shown themselves to be anything but stable." During Thursday’s Senate debate, supporters of the Voinovich amendment wrongly justified their vote by claiming that nuclear power is "clean." Yet the nation has no workable long-term solution for handling the existing tens of thousands of tons of deadly nuclear waste. The Bush administration’s designation of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nuclear waste dump sparked bipartisan opposition, underscoring that a flawed solution like Yucca Mountain is far from being a genuine, scientifically sound solution. By voting to reauthorize Price-Anderson, senators voted to generate even more deadly radioactive waste. Prior to passage of the Voinovich amendment, Public Citizen was among a coalition of 15 taxpayer, consumer and environmental organizations urging passage of an alternative amendment sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. That amendment would have reformed Price-Anderson to demand more accountability on the part of operators of existing plants and would not have extended the act to new plants. Reid withdrew that amendment while urging defeat of the Voinovich amendment. In November, the U.S. House of Representatives also reauthorized the Price-Anderson Act. If the massive Senate energy bill currently under consideration passes, Senate and House versions of Price-Anderson reauthorization could be melded together in a conference committee. Public Citizen last month urged defeat of the energy measure. Although the bill contains positive provisions dealing with fuel economy standards, renewable energy and conservation, it also mirrors many of the misguided, corporate-dominated promotions and giveaways to nuclear and fossil fuels embraced by the Bush-Cheney energy plan and passed by the House last summer. "The bill was already severely flawed," Hauter said. "The decision to extend government-sanctioned coddling of nuclear power makes it worse. Positive provisions of the bill such as those that would promote conservation, renewable energy and increased fuel economy should be stripped from the energy legislation and considered on their own merits. But taken all in all, the bill deserves to die." ### ***************************************************************** 9 UK 'needs more nuclear stations' BBC News | SCI/TECH | 7 March, 2002, Environmental groups are against the proposals The UK's nuclear power station building programme should be revived, according to the government's chief scientific adviser. Professor David King told the BBC that restarting the programme would help meet international targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In a speech to launch National Science Week at the Albert Hall on Thursday, Professor King explained why he felt renewable energy sources on their own would fail to meet the UK's targets. We have to deal with (nuclear waste) whether or not we continue with nuclear power Professor David King The call for a shift in government thinking is somewhat remarkable. Until now, Professor King has been a sceptic of nuclear fission power - sharing concerns with environmental groups about the disposal and storage of radioactive waste. After a detailed review he has now concluded that the contribution from renewable energy sources, such as wind, wave and solar power, should be greatly boosted - to provide 20% of the UK's electricity by 2020. But he says these sources will not provide enough power to make a dent in the UK's reliance on fossil fuels on their own. This is because the contribution from the UK's aging nuclear power stations will decline from the present 27% to less than 4% as they are decommissioned. Difficult balance Professor King told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme decommissioning existing nuclear power stations over the next 20 years would leave us at a standstill regarding CO2 emissions. "Dependence on fossil fuels would be unchanged unless there is new nuclear build at least to replace existing nuclear power stations," he said. Professor King said more advanced research was needed into treating and disposing of nuclear waste - the legacy of the long Cold War period. "We have to deal with that whether or not we continue with nuclear power," he said. "Those who are opposed to nuclear power on environmental grounds have to weigh up this difficult balance... are we going to continue with global warming or are we going to mitigate it." Difficult route If cutting emissions were the priority, he added, then we needed to continue "our dependence on nuclear power at least in the intermediate phase at least until renewables come on stream substantially". Professor King is therefore suggesting that the government kick-starts the UK's nuclear power station building programme - a move he describes as a politically difficult but environmentally necessary route. Environmental groups reject this view, arguing the UK could meet its carbon dioxide targets by investing in energy efficiency technologies. A report by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) released in February said greater energy efficiency was the cheapest way of keeping security of supply and meeting climate change targets. But the review of the nation's future energy prospects left open the question of nuclear fuels, raising concerns among environmental groups. ***************************************************************** 10 New Pro-Nuclear Voice Heard in Britain Environment News Service: LONDON, United Kingdom, March 7, 2002 (ENS) - The British government's chief scientific advisor today called for new nuclear power stations, contradicting a major official UK energy policy review published just weeks ago. This recommended treating nuclear as a fall-back option in case renewables growth or energy efficiency improvements fell short of expectations. Interviewed on national radio, Professor David King, a chemist at Cambridge University, said, "The key new driver is climate change. We know that we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions." [King] Professor David King (Photo courtesy Cambridge University [http://www-dak.ch.cam.ac.uk/] ) Even if the share of electricity produced by renewables were to reach 20 percent by 2020, as recommended in the official review, he said, carbon dioxide emissions would still be "left in standstill" due to planned closure of most of Britain's existing nuclear capacity. "So it seems clear to me," he continued, "that our dependence on fossil fuels would be unchanged unless there is a new nuclear build at least to replace existing nuclear power stations." Currently, nuclear power stations produce 27 percent of the United Kingdom's energy supply. King said the problem of nuclear waste must be dealt with whether more nuclear plants are built in the UK or not. He referred to "deep ground disposal" as the best way of handling nuclear waste, and said he intends to stimulate public debate "so that we can get the public behind treating the nuclear waste." Calling it a "difficult balance," King said the crucial thing is mitigating global warming. "If we're going to treat that as a priority, and I have no doubt in my mind that has to be our priority, then we need to continue our dependence on nuclear power at least in the intermediate phase until renewables really come on stream substantially," he said. Government sources stressed that Professor King was expressing a personal opinion, but his comments will do nothing to damp down a furious ongoing debate between the UK's nuclear and renewable energy sectors. ***************************************************************** 11 UK: Call to expand nuclear power news.telegraph.co.uk - Monday 11 March 2002 By David Derbyshire and Sarah Womack (Filed: 08/03/2002) BRITAIN needs to build nuclear power stations if it is going to meet targets for greenhouse gas emissions, the Government's chief scientist said yesterday. In a speech that signalled a shift in Government thinking, Prof David King said renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power, would not be able to bridge the energy deficit in 20 years. His comments came the same day ministers pledged to ratify the Kyoto Treaty on cutting greenhouse gases "within weeks" following an EU agreement to enshrine it in law. Prof King, a critic of conventional nuclear power, has expressed concerns about the disposal and storage of radioactive waste. His comments infuriated environmental groups who believe the Department of Trade and Industry has long been lobbying for a revival of Britain's nuclear industry. Friends of the Earth said carbon dixoide emissions in Britain could be cut without resorting to nuclear power. Nuclear power provides 27 per cent of Britain's electricity. But as power stations are decommissioned and not replaced over the next 20 years, the figure will drop to below eight per cent. "Moving towards alternative energy scenerios is crucial and I have pushed this very hard in the energy reserach review," he said at the launch of the British Association annual science week. "At the same time, if we don't rebuild nuclear power stations, all our efforts in terms of renewable energy developments will be in vain. We will be at a standstill in our fossil fuel dependence in 20 years' time." Last month, a report from the Cabinet Office said greater efficiency was the best way to meet climate change targets and called for one fifth of Britain's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. But it left the door open for nuclear power. Prof King said that target "is going to be difficult to meet". He described nuclear power as a short-term way to plug the gap. "If alternatives can be found, then I am going to be a supporter of those alternatives." More advanced research was needed to treat nuclear waste, most of which was a legacy from the Cold War, he said. Friends of the Earth said Prof King's view had not been shared by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in 2000. Roger Higman, a spokesman, said: "Studies have shown that British carbon dioxide emissions can be cut radically without building more nuclear power stations. "Nuclear power is uneconomic, unsafe and unpopular. Creating even more would be extremely foolish. We can meet both our Kyoto commitments and long-term energy needs with renewable power and energy efficiency. "We should concentrate our efforts on sustainable solutions rather than dangerous short-term fixes," he said. Britain has 15 nuclear power stations. The oldest, Magnox, reactors will begin to shut down over the next few years. America is by far the world's biggest polluter, generating roughly a quarter of the globe's "greenhouse gases". Under Kyoto, Washington agreed to cut emissions by seven per cent of 1990 levels by 2012. The EU has a target of eight per cent cuts. Peter Ainsworth, Tory environment spokesman, said Britain was one of the dirtiest countries in the world, recycling only 11 per cent of waste compared with Europe's 50 per cent. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited [http://pressoffice.telegraph.co.uk] ***************************************************************** 12 Uk: 'Nuclear key' to creating green energy Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Tim Radford, science editor Friday March 8, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] New nuclear power stations could be inevitable in a greenhouse world, the government's chief scientific adviser, David King, warned yesterday. Climate scientists predict global warming of between 2.2C and 5.8C in the next century. Dr King launched national science week - with more than 800 events around the country - by saying that Britain needed to invest more in alternative energy from the tides, wind, and the sun. He predicted that in 20-25 years hydrogen engines which produce only water as exhaust could overtake petrol as motorists' favourite fuel. He also predicted that in 25-30 years, a new technology could mimic the thermonuclear fusion processes of the sun, leaving only harmless helium as the "ash" from the fusion process. "We are going to depend heavily on scientific research to mitigate climate change effects," he said. About 27% of the nation's energy comes from nuclear power. By 2020, with effort, 20% could come from clean, renewable sources such as solar or tidal power. This tough target had to be met. "But if over that period we don't rebuild nuclear power stations - if we simply decommission those power stations that will reach the end of their days - nuclear power on the grid will drop to 7% or 8% by 2020. We would be exactly where we are now, in terms of our dependence on fossil fuels." New nuclear power stations would have to fill the energy gap until about 2030. "We have to deal with radioactive waste," said Dr King. "That problem is there as a legacy of the past. The new nuclear power stations do not generate waste at nearly such a high a rate. We have to balance the environmental questions around nuclear radioactive waste with the questions around climate change. Mitigating climate change has to be the overriding priority." Greenpeace energy campaign director Matthew Spencer said: "The chief scientist is playing politics - he has strayed outside his scientific remit to try to soften up the public on behalf of the government which wants to build a dangerous new generation of nuclear power stations. "You don't need to be Einstein to see that the way to reduce global warming is simple. It requires this government to pull its finger out and seriously back renewable energy rather than the timid target set by No 10's energy review." Events in science week: [http://www.the-ba.net] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 13 NRC to Meet with Entergy to Discuss Indian Point 2 Performance NRC: Press Release Region I - 2002 - 14 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov No. I-02-014 March 7, 2002 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov [opa1@nrc.gov] Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Entergy Nuclear on Thursday, March 14, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. The facility is located in Buchanan, N.Y., and is operated by Entergy Nuclear. The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the large meeting room at Crystal Bay on the Hudson, Charles Point Marina, 5 John Walsh Boulevard, Peekskill, N.Y. NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions. The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001. In addition, Entergy Nuclear representatives will discuss continuing performance improvement efforts, including specific actions in the area of problem identification/resolution and human performance. A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to Entergy Nuclear addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/inpt_2001q4.pdf Current performance information for Indian Point 2 is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP2/ip2_chart.html ***************************************************************** 14 Worst Nuke Plant in U.S.: Indian Point 2 last on NRC list Newsday.com - Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Westchester (AP File Photo, 2000) By Thomas Frank WASHINGTON BUREAU March 8, 2002 Washington -- The Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Westchester, which local residents have been fighting since Sept. 11 to close, was given the lowest performance rating in the country by federal regulators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in its annual review released this week, found "ongoing substantive” problems with plant operations, and will continue the increased monitoring it started last year. Indian Point 2 was the only one of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants ranked in the second-lowest of five categories that rate overall plant performance -- a position it has held for more than a year. "It is staying there because the underlying weaknesses associated with it are still present and haven't been fully corrected,” said Peter Eselgroth, the NRC branch chief responsible for Indian Point 2. He added, "The plant's continued to operate safely.” Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., did not dispute critics who call it the country's worst-run nuclear plant. "If you want to put it that way, it's hard to argue against it,” Steets said. But Steets and others like Eselgroth say Entergy inherited vast problems when it bought the plant on Sept. 6 from Con Ed, the owner since its opening in 1974. "You're talking about changing culture and teaching people to be comfortable raising issues and have a questioning attitude, and that just takes a little time,” Steets said. He cited extensive operator training and a voluntary 10-day plant shutdown in October for equipment improvements. The latest NRC review could increase pressure from citizens groups and local officials in New York and Westchester to close both Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, a nuclear plant in the same complex on the Hudson River 25 miles north of Manhattan. The proximity to the city has sparked fears about a potential terrorist attack and about an evacuation plan that some say would leave people jammed in traffic. "Terrorism is not the only risk people have by living near Indian Point,” said Mark Jacobs, a founder of the anti-nuclear Westchester Citizens Awareness Network. He said Entergy has not improved operations and is "doing a bad job.” Indian Point 3, owned by Entergy since November 2000, was among 73 nuclear plants given the NRC's highest ranking, indicating no substantial problems. That group includes Millstone 2 and Millstone 3, north of Montauk on the Long Island Sound in Connecticut, which Long Island nuclear activists oppose. The NRC began stepped-up monitoring of Indian Point 2 late last year after four of the plant's seven operating teams failed an annual test that simulates operating procedures. In the 2001 federal fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the NRC spent 12,819 hours inspecting Indian Point 2, more than double the level at the next-highest plant, according to NRC data obtained by David Lochbaum, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group. "Even with the new owner and a proper attitude, there's a lot of inertia and a pretty big hole to get out of,” Lochbaum said, praising Entergy. The NRC's recent review of Indian Point 2 from April 1 to Dec. 31 found plant operators failing to correct problems quickly or effectively. "It's been a longstanding problem there,” said Eselgroth, the NRC inspector. Eselgroth said problems involving operators "are not of high safety significance, but they constitute a trend of performance that is undesirable.” He said Entergy improved standards, "but the bottom line for us is going to be results, and it's a little early to tell.” Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Japan: Water leaks at Miyagi nuclear plant Japan Today Friday, March 8, 2002 at 09:30 JST SENDAI — A few liters of water leaked Thursday from a pipe in the turbine building of a nuclear reactor in Miyagi Prefecture, northeastern Japan, but no radiation leaked outside the facility, Tohoku Electric Power Co said. A worker found the water spraying from an apparent crack at a welding point in the pipe at 9:42 a.m. in the No. 2 reactor of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which stretches over Onagawa and Oshika towns, company officials said. (Kyodo News) ***************************************************************** 16 Lithuania's nuclear plant closure to cost 3bn euros - study BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 8, 2002 Vilnius, 7 March: Costs associated with the total shutdown of Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear power plant (INPP), treatment of radioactive waste and mitigation of effects on the local community will reach 2.2bn euros by 2020, and top 3bn euros later. Such an assessment was presented to the parliament in a study by the Lithuanian Economics Ministry... The costs schedule for shutdown was based on the assumption that power unit one of the INPP will be shut down in 2005 as planned, and the second in 2009, as the European Union is demanding... Lithuania has already taken on an obligation to close power unit one of the INPP by 2005. So far, international donors have pledged more than 200m euros for closing down the nuclear plant. The European Commission has allocated an additional 70m euros annually from 2004 to 2006 for the plant closure. The INPP facility produces upwards of 75 per cent of all Lithuanian electric power, therefore, its closure will have a negative effect on the Lithuanian economy, experts claim. Lithuania will be unable to bear all the plant closure costs and deal with its negative consequences without international aid. Source: BNS news agency, Tallinn, in English 1548 gmt 7 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 17 Fault shuts down Russian nuclear power unit BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 8, 2002 Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Moscow, 8 March: The No 1 nuclear reactor has been shut down at Rostov nuclear power station at 0717 on Friday [0417 gmt 8 March]. The emergency was caused by failure of electrical equipment. The radiation level in the area of the station does not exceed permissible norms, ITAR-TASS was told by the Russian Ministry for Emergency Situations [Ministry of Civil Defence, Emergencies and dealing with the consequences of Natural Disasters]. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 0943 gmt 8 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 18 Propane leak puts Point Beach on higher state of alert JS Online: From the Journal Sentinel Last Updated: March 4, 2002 A propane leak at the Point Beach nuclear plant forced the operators to put the plant on a higher state of alert for about two hours on Monday. There were no injuries. The leak was detected about 9:45 a.m. near Point Beach's sewage treatment plant. The so-called unusual event, the lowest level of emergency for nuclear plants, ended shortly before noon. Plant personnel evacuated one building that houses pumps next the plant. One employee was affected. Point Beach spokesman Doug Day said the leak came from a line used to fill a tank with propane fuel. The treatment plant uses propane for heating. The cause of the leak, however, has not been determined. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other authorities were notified. Point Beach is on Lake Michigan, north of Two Rivers. The plant is owned by Wisconsin Electric Power Co. of Milwaukee and is operated by Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson. Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 5, 2002. ***************************************************************** 19 Vermont: Flaking For Vermont Yankee TOMPAINE.com - Citizen Corp. Versus Grassroots Activists [mjez@sover.net] writes from Brattleboro, Vermont. I did not get the letter from "Citizens Against the Shutdown of Vermont Yankee," signed by four respected members of the Brattleboro community, but a member of my family did, so I got to read it. The letter was in support of the sale of Vermont Yankee to the Mississippi-based Entergy Corporation and in opposition to the non-binding referendum on the Town Meeting ballots of Brattleboro and other Windham County towns calling on the Vermont Public Service Board to block the sale and move towards shutting the plant down. My first thought upon reading the letter and the accompanying survey was that the "Citizens Against the Shutdown of Vermont Yankee" is a Vermont Yankee front group. And I was right. Vermont Yankee has always presented its side of the nuclear story with vigor. They have a public relations staff trained to do that job. So why the front group? Why the transparently ridiculous attempt to show grassroots support? Alas, Vermont Yankee's ploy is becoming commonplace. More and more, corporate America is hiding behind phony citizens groups that disguise what it is up to. Corporate lobbyists routinely buy mailing lists and claim that the names represent the support of the public. During elections they bombarded us with expensive issue ads purporting to represent the views of grassroots America. But many of these ads -- and the phony letterhead organizations that sponsor them -- are financed out of corporate budgets. One of the arguments that corporations use to defend these efforts is that the environmental and anti-nuclear movements are well-funded. But according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a foundation-backed, non-partisan research organization that tracks political money, environmental organizations spent a total of $4.7 million in lobbying Congress in 1998, the last year for which figures are available. During that same year, the lobbying expenditures of industrial groups combined were $11.2 billion. Campaign contributions are easier to track but the same imbalance holds. Entergy, the corporation that wants to buy Vermont Yankee, is in the big leagues of political giving. Of the top contributors in the energy and natural resources field for the upcoming 2002 congressional elections, Entergy ranks twelfth, with $250,659 in contributions, 65 percent to Republicans. (Enron ranks seventh with $353,884, 94 percent to Republicans). To follow the money is to understand why the nuclear, oil, gas, and coal industries get huge federal subsidies while the alternative energy industry gets virtually nothing. In the four-year cycle leading up to the 2000 elections, the nuclear, gas, oil and coal industries made more than $105 million in federal political contributions. By contrast, alternative energy industry giving barely broke $1 million. That's the stacked deck that anti-nuclear activists and alternative energy proponents are up against. In the local area, some anti-nuclear groups get foundation money. But the group that put together the Town Meeting referendum was a local, grassroots, volunteer effort. By contrast, Vermont Yankee paid consultants in Boston and Portland $35,000 for advertising, a letter, and a poll so subjective it would make anyone suspicious. Vermont Yankee is running scared, and well it should be. I was one of the no-nukers who took part in the nonviolent occupation of the proposed Seabrook nuclear power plant in the late 1970s. I wish I could say that my five-days on a New Hampshire prison farm was a factor in the industry's collapse. But it was finances, not protests, that stopped the industry. The financial markets simply lost confidence in nuclear investments. Federal support for alternative energy dried up as well. As a result the clean and safe energy sources that could replace nuclear, coal, and oil are not immediately available, a failure of public policy with horrendous consequences in terms of global warming and national security. Significantly, the debate about Vermont Yankee is no longer about nuclear power. At a candidates forum for the Brattleboro select board, all the candidates said that they opposed the anti-nuclear referendum. But no one spoke in favor of nuclear power. What concerned them was the cost of a shutdown in terms of jobs and the local economy. The debate over nuclear power has been transformed into one of local economics; the anti-nuclear movement has won the health, safety, technological and scientific arguments. Alternative energy sources exist; they just need adequate funding. The loss of jobs is a serious issue. But many of these jobs will be lost when Vermont Yankee's operating license expires; these jobs were never permanent. Be that as it may, the public and private sector should mobilize to create new ones. But there is also a double-standard involved. When a dozen out-of-staters on a corporate board of directors close a plant and throw hundreds of workers out of work, as happens often in Vermont, the attitude is "tough! the free market will benefit all." But when the public itself votes that a plant is too dangerous and too costly to keep in operation, those jobs are exploited as a political issue. For myself, I wonder why the owners of Vermont Yankee are so anxious to sell their property. The company has always told us how well-run the plant is and how efficient its operation. I also wonder about the price. When Yankee was first offered the plant for sale, the price was $23.5 million. Anti-nuclear opposition forced a delay and, as a result, the Public Service Board ordered a public auction. Entergy won the bidding with a $180 million offer. True, the terms of the sale are not identical, but, still, the Yankee owners made quite a killing thanks to the anti-nuclear intervention. Instead of attacking anti-nuclear activists, Vermont Yankee shareholders ought to thank them. And the public might ponder: which side of the controversy has shown economic prudence and financial wisdom. Copyright (c) 2002 by Marty Jezer Published: Mar 01 2002 ***************************************************************** 20 Data shows world awash in stolen nuclear material Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:25:33 -0600 (CST) Data shows world awash in stolen nuclear material Thursday, March 07, 2002 By Andrew Quinn, Reuters SAN FRANCISCO -- International researchers have compiled what they say is the world's most complete database of lost, stolen, and misplaced nuclear material, depicting a world awash in weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that nobody can account for. "It truly is frightening," said Lyudmila Zaitseva, a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Institute for International Studies (IIS). "I think this is the tip of the iceberg." Stanford announced its database as U.S. senators held a hearing in Washington to assess the threat of "dirty bombs," or radioactive material dispersed by conventional explosives. The Stanford program, dubbed the Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft, and Orphan Radiation Sources (DSTO), is intended to help governments and international agencies track wayward nuclear material worldwide, supplementing existing national programs which often fail to share information. The project took on added urgency following the Sept. 11 assaults on New York and Washington, which spurred fears that extremist groups might seek to use nuclear weapons in future attacks. "It blows the mind, the lack of information," said George Bunn, a veteran arms control negotiator and a member of the database group. "What we're trying to say is, 'What are the facts?'" CHILLING FACTS The facts, even on cursory examination, are chilling. Zaitseva said that, over the past ten years, at least 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium had been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union. While most of this material was subsequently retrieved, at least 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of highly enriched uranium stolen from a reactor in Georgia remains missing and unaccounted for. Other thefts have included several fuel rods that disappeared from a research reactor in the Congo in the mid-1990s. While one of these fuel rods later resurfaced in Italy, reportedly in the hands of the Mafia, the other has not been found. The Stanford group, led by nuclear physicist and arms control researcher Friedrich Steinhausler, decided to form its database after becoming alarmed at how patchy most of the available information was. Combining data from two existing unclassified databases and adding new information from sources ranging from government agencies to local media reports, the team has evaluated each entry for accuracy and probability. "You'd be surprised how much scientific junk is in the existing databases, from mixing up units to reporting on tertiary sources," Steinhausler said. "ORPHAN" RADIATION ALSO A THREAT The database includes both illicitly obtained weapons-grade nuclear material as well as "orphaned" radiation sources -- scientific or medical material that may have been lost, misplaced, or simply thrown away but which still poses a health and security threat. Steinhausler said the DSTO database would be open only to approved researchers and that the Stanford group was beginning to contact government agencies in the United States and Europe about sharing information to build more effective international supervision of nuclear material. "We cannot supply the means to improve the situation," Steinhausler said in a statement. "We're pinpointing weaknesses and loopholes and saying, 'do something about it.'" Zaitseva, visiting Stanford from the Kazakhstan National Nuclear Center, said the database was helping to build a dim picture of the market for stolen uranium, plutonium, and other dangerous materials. But she added that while, in many cases, those behind nuclear thefts can be identified, the ultimate destination of the nuclear material has remained a mystery. "We haven't found a single occasion in which the actual end users have been caught," said Zaitseva. "We can only guess by the routes where the material is going. We can't say for sure if it is Iraq, Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, or Hezbollah. We can only make assumptions." She added that the dangers of an unsupervised, underground market in nuclear material were likely to grow, noting that a U.S.-sponsored program to secure nuclear components in the former Soviet Union had thus far only locked up about one-third of an estimated 600 tons of weapons-usable material. "It's just not protected," she said. "This is hot stuff. If you steal 20 kilograms of that material, you can build a nuclear weapon." Copyright 2002, Reuters ***************************************************************** 21 NZ: Database to track nuclear material New Zealand News - World - W&H The remains of the World Trade Centre serve to underline the importance of the database of missing nuclear material. Reuters 08.03.2002 SAN FRANCISCO - International researchers have compiled what they say is the world's most complete database of lost, stolen and misplaced nuclear material - depicting a world awash in weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that no one can account for. "It truly is frightening," said Lyudmila Zaitseva, a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Institute for International Studies. "I think this is the tip of the iceberg." Stanford announced its database as United States senators held a hearing in Washington to assess the threat of "dirty bombs", or radioactive material dispersed by conventional explosives. The Stanford programme is intended to help Governments and international agencies track wayward nuclear material. The project took on urgency following the September 11 attacks, which spurred fears that extremists might turn to nuclear weapons. Zaitseva said that, over the past 10 years, at least 40kg of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium had been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union. Though most was retrieved, at least 2kg of highly enriched uranium stolen from a reactor in Georgia remains missing. Other thefts have included several fuel rods that disappeared from a research reactor in the Congo in the mid-1990s. One later resurfaced in Italy - reportedly in the hands of the Mafia - but the other has not been found. The Stanford group, led by nuclear physicist and arms control researcher Friedrich Steinhausler, decided to form the database after becoming alarmed over the lack of information available. Combining data from two existing unclassified databases and adding information from sources ranging from Government agencies to local media reports, the team has evaluated each entry. Steinhausler said the database would be open only to approved researchers. The Stanford group was beginning to contact Government agencies in the US and Europe about sharing information. In other developments yesterday: * US intelligence has detected al Qaeda operatives communicating with one another in Pakistan with an eye towards regrouping for terrorist attacks against Western interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere. * A third Australian, a 28 year-old man from Melbourne, is reported to have trained with al Qaeda. The Herald Sun said he converted to Islam in a Melbourne mosque, and changed his name to Jihad, before leaving Australia last March. ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 22 Home News: Leaflet outlines State plan on nuclear fall-out Irish Times; Mar 8, 2002 A number of leaflets outlining the post-September 11th plans for a national emergency response were posted to households in the Dublin area prematurely yesterday. The Department of Health and Children will begin sending out the packets of iodine tablets later this month, it is understood. The leaflet, which was due to be sent out nationwide next week, simply contains a number of key points of advice about what to do in the event of nuclear fall-out. The leaflet contains three images of cooling towers, presumably at a nuclear power station, as well as an image of a forest and a person looking through a telescope. It says that in the event of a 'nuclear emergency' information will be issued by the Department of Public Enterprise primarily through television and radio. 'Information will be issued promptly and will be updated regularly.' The national emergency plan, which is being co-ordinated by the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, is 'designed to respond to a major nuclear accident or terrorist attack abroad which could result in radioactive contamination reaching Ireland'. The bulk of Mr Smith's work in chairing a committee on upgrading the State's national emergency plan is to ensure that the emergency services are in a position to respond to a major disaster. The Minister's committee has been briefed by the State's senior security advisers, including the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda, Mr Noel Conroy, who has responsibility for all Garda operations involving crime and security. It is understood he advised that there was no significant major outside terrorist threat against this State. It would appear from the leaflet and the decision to send out iodine tablets to each household that the committee's main concern is about a major incident at the Sellafield nuclear re-processing plant. It says that as a result of such an emergency 'radioactive substanc- es released into the air could be carried in a manner similar to a plume of smoke, and could be deposited on the ground along the path of the plume. It would be several hours at least before any radioactivity reached Ireland. The amount of radioactivity in this plume would decrease with distance from the site of the emergency.' Stable iodine is being distributed. 'It is not envisaged that an accident in a nuclear installation abroad would give rise to the need for evacuation of people in Ireland,' it says. It also gives two Web addresses, for the Radiological Institute of Ireland (http://www.rpii.ie) and the Department of Public Enterprise (http://.dpe.ie) where more information will be made available. Those interested can also apply for booklets giving further advice and these and other information will be made available in libraries. ***************************************************************** 23 Officials testing air, dust (Beryllium) from building Friday, March 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL National Nuclear Security Administration officials began collecting air and dust samples Thursday night from a government building in North Las Vegas after a contract worker was diagnosed with a debilitating lung disease related to beryllium exposure. A spokesman for the administration, a branch of the Department of Energy, said the sampling will continue today with results expected on Monday. The other 125 employees in the B-1 building will have the option of working there today or taking a day of paid administrative leave, he said. The building is located off of Losee Road about one mile north of Lake Mead Boulevard in the administration's complex. "We're doing a full environmental survey to ensure the workplace is safe. We don't believe the employee contracted it at the workplace," said the spokesman, Darwin Morgan. He said the employee who was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease -- an incurable but treatable disorder that scars lung tissue -- had worked in the building for about five years and previously at the Nevada Test Site. The element, beryllium, had been used in small quantities in the building as recently as the early 1990s as an alloy in making switches for diagnostic equipment for collecting data from nuclear weapons tests. Morgan said the disease is one of the most common health disorders among former workers at nuclear weapons assembly plants. But beryllium, which is sometimes a material used in golf clubs and bicycle frames, also has been used at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and occurs naturally in the soils in Southern Nevada. Dr. James Collet, the chief medical expert for Bechtel Nevada, the prime test site contractor, said the disease typically takes six years to 10 years to fully develop. Another day of exposure for workers in the building today "would not make any difference," he said. "We're not cordoning off the building," Collet said, noting that, as a safeguard, technicians will conduct extensive monitoring of the building's ventilation system and collect dust samples that will be tested for beryllium. "If they find beryllium contamination, especially in the air, that would be a great concern. But we don't anticipate that to be the case," he said. Collet said the disease is an allergic response by suspectable people when they're exposed to beryllium dust. In those cases, inhalation of beryllium particles leads to scarring of the lungs, which impedes oxygen transfer into the blood stream. Symptoms include shortness of breath. The disorder can be treated with anti-inflammatory drugs. According to the Energy Department, chronic beryllium disease usually takes more than five years of exposure to fully develop, however some cases have developed after only three months or as long as 40 years of exposure. Morgan said the environmental survey in and around the B-1 building will involve 26 air sampling stations and collections of up to 60 swipes of dust. "We'll crawl up into the rafters and look for old deposits of dust." webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 24 NRC looks at sleeping inspector in Paducah - The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Friday, March 08, 2002 The visitor was observing a safety class, and the agency says it's not the same as having an operator at the controls. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is withholding judgment on one of its visiting inspectors said to have fallen asleep Monday while observing a safety class at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "Apparently he fell asleep, although we're still looking into it," said Jan Strasma, NRC Region 3 spokesman in Chicago. "It was in a class setting, and there were no safety consequences involved." Strasma said the unidentified official was back working in Chicago after routine inspections at the plant last week and early this week. The incident happened while he was watching a basic radiation protection class. No disciplinary action was taken. The NRC oversees nuclear facilities nationwide, including the Paducah plant, which enriches uranium for use in nuclear fuel. The inspector was one of two brought in from Chicago for routine observations. Two NRC resident inspectors have full-time offices at the plant. Strasma said sleeping on the job can result in severe penalties or dismissal for plant employees, depending on the rules of a particular plant. "Certainly it's something that we, as an agency, would be concerned about," he said. "It's important that reactor operators actually at the controls of the plant be alert and not be asleep or have distractions, because they have an important safety function." But, he added, "I don't think I can draw a direct parallel to an NRC inspector's sitting in a classroom and falling asleep because that's not a direct safety function." John Volpe, manager of the Kentucky Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch, said he was awaiting details from the commission before drawing conclusions. "It's the NRC's responsibility to oversee those facilities, and you should take it seriously, not that the person didn't," he said. "There may be a good explanation." Volpe said a state inspector once had to be treated for narcolepsy, a condition characterized by brief periods of deep sleep, but he was uncertain whether that was a factor in the Paducah incident. "I think NRC's inspectors at Paducah have done a good job inspecting the facility on a routine basis," he said. "I was surprised when I heard about this." ***************************************************************** 25 Nuclear reaction: Dump stirs up Nevada Denver Post.com Yucca Mountain's benefits, hazards debated By [sgreene@denverpost.com] Denver Post Staff Writer --> Friday, March 08, 2002 - YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. - Plans to turn a bleak, flat-top mountain into a nuclear waste dump have so upset people in this state that even its lounge acts are speaking out in protest. But the madam of the nearby Cherry Patch Ranch says the new facility would help her brothel's bottom line. Behind the tumult here is a serious debate over whether the proposed project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas will help protect the nation by consolidating high-level nuclear waste, or create huge risks from shipping radioactive materials along railroads and highways - some of them, probably, in Colorado. The controversy stems from a February decision by the Bush administration that, after two decades and $6.8 billion of research, recommends tons of radioactive waste be disposed of in an underground repository in Yucca Mountain. Opponents here are trying to enlist support among Coloradans by pointing out that some of the nuclear waste might travel along Interstates 25 and 70. The debate takes on a distinctive flavor in this state, which beckons tourists with the promise of fun and fantasy and where the federal government - owner of 87 percent of the land - has harmed people with atomic tests that it said were safe. Charo, the "cuchi-cuchi" spitfire, was incensed enough to contact President Bush. "This is a very serious issue," the entertainer said in a videotaped message. "We are in Las Vegas, the state of Nevada, the capital of the world. We need you to consider right now to stop to bring the nuclear waste. Nevada doesn't need that." Charo's is a common view in metropolitan Las Vegas, the nation's fastest growing community, where polls show 82 percent of residents oppose the Yucca Mountain project. Part of the concern is public relations. "We are a tourism-based economy. Just the perception of a problem or an accident will be devastating to this community," said Mark Brown, a consultant hired by the state to dish on the dump. But the prospect of 3,300 new jobs, paying an average of $65,000 annually, is appealing to some who want to diversify the state's economy. "We have so many people focusing on the negatives that it's difficult to move on to discussion about the positives," said Bob List, a former Nevada governor, who lobbies for the project on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. Other industries also favor the project. Crystal Mills, at the Cherry Patch Ranch, which sits about 12 miles from Yucca Mountain, is the closest business to the site. Though her "girls" don't often discuss the issue, the dump should boost business. "It would bring more traffic in," said Mills, who had no customers Wednesday afternoon. "It's already pretty dead around here. We've got nothing to lose." Low-level radioactive waste has been stored since 1999 at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant east of Carlsbad, N.M. Support for a national repository for high-level nuclear materials began in the 1970s, when researchers studied burying waste in the Arctic, shipping it off to some remote Pacific island and even launching it into outer space. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act called for studies on underground sites in Hanford, Wash., Deaf Smith County, Texas, and southern Nevada's desert. Then in 1987 came what some here call the "Screw Nevada Bill," which picked Yucca Mountain as the only proposed site. The 20-mile-long mountain sits on Bureau of Land Management land just outside the southwestern border of the Nevada Test Site, much of which is contaminated from more than 800 nuclear-weapons tests over four decades. Geologists picked the site for its hard rock, low rainfall, deep groundwater and relative isolation. The nearest community, Amargosa Valley, has 970 residents, two pistachio farms, one dairy and Mills' brothel. Some 1,600 Department of Energy employees and contractors have spent the past 15 years studying the mountain's climate, hydrology and geology. Studies showed that water could eventually come in contact with the waste, breaking down into tiny radioactive particles that could be carried into the groundwater in Amargosa Valley. Still, the DOE concluded that the site would safely isolate radioactive materials for tens of thousands of years. At $58 billion, Yucca Mountain is said to be the costliest public works endeavor in human history. Some 60 miles of tunnels up to 1,400 feet beneath the surface would house spent fuel rods and other highly radioactive material from 131 nuclear power plants, research reactors and military facilities nationwide. Those include three in Colorado: the former Rocky Flats weapons plant, the decommissioned Fort St. Vrain nuclear power plant near Platteville and a U.S. Geological Survey lab at the Denver Federal Center. As planned, some 77,000 tons of waste would be hauled to Yucca Mountain over 24 years, beginning no sooner than 2010. That would entail about 650 shipments each year on many of the nation's major highways and rail lines, although exact routes haven't been determined. In one scenario, trucks would haul waste to Denver, where it would be loaded onto trains. On Feb. 15, Bush endorsed the project. The president argued the nation needs to consolidate nuclear waste now scattered throughout the country, where it is vulnerable to mishandling and terrorist attack. Further, he said the dump could help speed approval and delivery of new nuclear reactors, for which his budget this year includes $38 million. In 2001, about 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. came from nuclear plants. The crusade against the facility has become top priority for Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, who helped secure Bush's narrow victory here in 2000, but plans to veto his decision by mid-April. Then, by law, the U.S. House and Senate will have 90 days to override Guinn by simple majorities. Led by Speaker Dennis Hastert - whose home state of Illinois has 10 nuclear facilities - the House is expected to easily approve the project. The Senate also is expected to pass it, though more narrowly. Finally, the plan would require licensing approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Guinn characterizes the fight as Nevada versus the 39 states housing nuclear materials, which he says should store waste in dry casks where it's generated. His office has filed four federal lawsuits. Opponents cite a recent report by Congress' General Accounting Office that raises hundreds of questions about the DOE's research, and an analysis by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent federal agency, that took no position on Yucca Mountain but called the DOE's science "weak to moderate" The NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste found the agency's data "not founded on realistic assessments of the evidence," saying it does "not provide a basis for estimating the margins of safety." Critics say the DOE needs to complete nearly 200 more scientific studies, present its final design for the repository and detail the transportation routes before seeking a license from the NRC. "Hide the ball. That's their strategy so people don't speak up," said Dick Bryan, a former Nevada governor and U.S. senator who has fought the dump since the 1970s. "There are so many uncertainties, and we, our children, our children's children are the people at risk." Allen Benson, who directs institutional affairs for the project, countered that details about the repository are "really an evolving thing." "Do you want a final design or a better design?" he asked. "Why spend time and money on transportation routes if you don't know you have a site yet?" Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has threatened to arrest the first truck driver who hauls in the waste. Dubbing the project a "mobile Chernobyl," he and the state's team of dump detractors charge that millions of people - in Nevada and nationwide - could be at risk because nuclear waste shipments might be vulnerable to attack or accident. "You don't need (Osama) bin Laden or (Timothy) McVeigh to create havoc in this country," said Goodman, looking out his office window onto the busy junction of Interstates 15 and 95. "All you need is a truck jackknifing off the highway, and that happens all the time. Being a betting man, I'm betting on disaster. "People in Denver should be freaking out. They should be screaming like banshees about this stuff coming through their neighborhoods." Some Amargosa Valley residents also worry about trucks carrying waste through their rural hamlet. Already, they say, too many people die on their long stretches of desert highway. "There are crosses everywhere at the side of the road. The bodies are already piling up," said Mark James, owner of a 40-acre ranch. Dump proponents say critics over-dramatize the risks. They point out that some 161 million Americans already live within 75 miles of a major nuclear facility. Since 1965, they say, there have been 2,700 shipments of nuclear materials hauled over 1.6 million miles of rail line and highway. "It's not like this stuff has never been transported," said Patrick Rowe, a DOE engineer on the project. The state's relationship with the federal government has not built up trust. Countless Nevadans suffered cancer and other health problems as a result of nuclear tests that Washington promised would be safe. "We've all heard their assurances," said Bryan, who recalls his childhood home shaking from nuclear blasts. "I don't trust the government when they say it's safe and not to worry." Some also are suspicious of Bush's motives. They point to the $13.8 million the nuclear industry gave political candidates - two-thirds of whom were Republicans - during the 2000 election cycle. Bush got at least $290,000. His energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, got $82,700 for a failed Senate campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "The president is so close to the nuclear industry that if the lights were turned out, he'd glow in the dark," Bryan said. "Yucca Mountain has nothing to do with storage capacity or public safety. It's about advancing the interests of an industry that realizes if the waste is out of sight, it's out of mind." The Bush administration says the president's recommendation was based solely on the merits. "His decision was influenced by sound science - decades of scientific studies - and nothing else," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. Still, many are miffed that Bush has never visited Yucca Mountain and that Abraham came for 45 minutes, flying by helicopter over the land it could contaminate. Among the less caustic things Mayor Goodman calls Abraham are "fathead" and "fraud." List, the former governor, says it's wiser to use the project to leverage political capital - there could be help in the form of money or a coveted high-speed train to Southern California, he says - rather than antagonize the White House in a losing battle. He urges Nevadans to embrace what he calls the project's "inevitability." ***************************************************************** 26 Official laments another broken promise (from USEC) - chillicothegazette.com Friday, March 8, 2002 Opinion By George Voinovich Another broken promise - that sums up the recent announcement by the U.S. Enrichment Corp. that it would relocate 437 Ohio jobs from its Piketon uranium enrichment plant to its other gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Ky. USEC's announcement not only strikes another blow to Southern Ohio's economy but it strikes yet another blow to whatever trust Piketon's employees and their families, the State of Ohio, and the federal government may have had left in the company's word. Last summer, when USEC announced that uranium-enrichment operations at the Piketon plant would be terminated and performed solely at Paducah, the company vowed to continue to operate the highly-specialized transfer and shipping operations at the Ohio facility through 2004. Instead, USEC announced recently that it was breaking this commitment and has put Ohio jobs as well as the reliability of our nation's nuclear fuel supply at risk. Uranium enrichment is very complex and specialized work and USEC must enrich uranium to individual customer's specifications. The steps in the process that comprise the transfer and shipping procedures have never been done in Paducah before, only in Piketon. The complexity of the process is great and there is some concern about Paducah's ability to perform procedures that they have no experience doing. Even worse, there has been some speculation that USEC Energy Departments not actually intend on setting up this end-stage enrichment capability in Paducah, raising the question, "What do they intend on doing and what effect will it have on our domestic nuclear fuel supply?" In response to USEC's announcement that it was breaking its commitment and moving the transfer and shipping function out of Portsmouth, I wrote to President Bush urging him to take the company's recent actions into consideration as the Energy Department negotiates with USEC on our long-term nuclear fuel supply needs, especially USEC''s status as the sole executive agent for highly-enriched uranium imported from Russia. This status is important to the company's bottom line because it is cheaper for USEC to buy Russian material than to have it produced domestically. Despite USEC's disappointing announcement, some good news came from the Energy Department recently when it announced that the Piketon plant was being considered as a possible new location for a commercial nuclear-power plant. Through a new public-private partnership known as Nuclear Power 2010, Energy Department and private electric utility companies will evaluate three government sites to see if they are suitable for a new nuclear power plant. With this announcement, Energy Department has only underscored what's been known for years - this region has the quality workforce and supportive communities needed to secure our nation's nuclear power base. Following USEC's announcement last year that they would transfer nuclear fuel production to the Paducah facility, I worked with other members of the Ohio delegation to secure from Energy Department $126 million over two years for worker transition assistance, winterization of the facility and to keep the facility in "cold standby" for future use. And I am particularly proud to help lead the creation of the compensation program in place for Cold-War era defense workers made sick by exposure to radiation, beryllium, silica and other toxic substances. Preserving jobs and promoting new economic opportunities for Southern Ohio is important to me and I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Ohio delegation on behalf of the entire region's workforce. As angry and disappointed as I am with yet another broken promise from USEC, I am even more committed to keep working with Sen. Mike DeWine, Gov. Bob Taft, Rep. Ted Strickland, and Rep. Rob Portman to secure a stable prosperous future for the region. Part of that future means building on what works and finding new formulas for success. To that end I am pleased to report that my legislation to reauthorize the economic development programs of the Appalachia Regional Commission has passed Congress and is on the way to the President for his signature. This bill will help direct federal funding to the region's most distressed counties and includes a technology initiative to promote new e-commerce opportunities. The commission has worked for southern Ohio and by taking advantage of its successful programs to help diversify the economy, we can help make sure that the next broken promise won't set off another tidal wave, but a ripple. (Voinovich, the former Ohio governor, is a U.S. senator from Ohio.) Originally published Friday, March 8, 2002 [http://www.gannettfoundation.org] ***************************************************************** 27 Time runs out for anti-Yucca resolution in Utah Friday, March 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SALT LAKE CITY -- A resolution opposing federal plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada died in the Utah Legislature on Wednesday night. The resolution urged Congress to reject the Energy Department's recommendation for storing waste at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sponsor Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, managed to get the bill read for the penultimate time in the Senate. But it would have needed a third Senate read, then House approval. Time ran out. The Legislature ended its 2002 session at midnight. Davis said Gov. Mike Leavitt didn't want the resolution to pass. "He doesn't even want it discussed," Davis said. Nevada officials have argued that the government can't ensure that the public will be protected over the thousands of years the waste will remain dangerous. The Yucca Mountain site is 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, one of the fastest-growing urban areas in the country. Davis said transporting the waste from nuclear plants in the East to Nevada would be a nightmare, especially given terrorism concerns. Davis and others also are concerned that a temporary nuclear waste storage proposal would become permanent if the Yucca Mountain plan is furthered. A group of nuclear utilities has leased 125 acres on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians' reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, to store up to 4,000 casks of spent power-plant fuel. The site currently is intended to be a temporary storage area, with the waste eventually ending up at Yucca Mountain. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 28 Senate OKs Chu as Yucca project chief Friday, March 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Reid lifts three-month hold on nomination By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Senate, by voice vote on Wednesday, unanimously confirmed the nomination of Margaret Chu to be the Department of Energy's director of the Yucca Mountain Project. Chu, 56, is the former manager of nuclear waste programs at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. "I want to enhance the credibility of the Department of Energy and communicate more with all participating parties (regarding the Yucca Mountain Project)," Chu said Thursday. Chu, who has been working in Washington for Sandia since October, said she was surprised by the timing of the Senate confirmation. "I thought it would be another couple of weeks," she said. Chu's confirmation was delayed almost three months by Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid put a hold on Chu's nomination in December, saying he was not satisfied with her answers to his questions about the government's efforts to store 77,000 tons of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said the senator decided to lift the hold because Chu can't hurt Nevada any more than the Bush administration already has. On Feb. 15, President Bush approved the Energy Department's recommendation of Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a nuclear waste repository. "What Chu could do at this point pales in comparison to what the president did," Naylor said. "But with that said, it might help to have a change in that office. Maybe the scientist in her will kick in once she stumbles over all the potholes in the Yucca Mountain program." A source close to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said Reid got something in return for letting Chu's nomination go through. The source declined to elaborate. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 29 UK: Fears over missing nuclear material BBC News | AMERICAS | Thursday, 7 March, 2002, A few kilos of plutonium is enough for a nuclear bomb International researchers have warned that the world may be awash in unaccounted weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, after completing a latest database of lost and stolen nuclear material. It truly is frightening. I think this is the tip of the iceberg Lyudmila Zaitseva, Stanford research member The new database by the Institute for International Studies (IIS) at Stanford University said the protection of nuclear and radioactive material was "woefully inadequate", pointing to huge gaps of information on the exact amount of missing material. "It truly is frightening. I think this is the tip of the iceberg," one of the researchers, Lyudmila Zaitseva, said. The Stanford Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources (DSTO) was released as US senators warned that the so-called "dirty" bombs made of discarded radioactive material could have a significant psycho-social effect and cause mass panic among the population. The database, which will only be available to carefully vetted researchers, is intended to help governments and international agencies track missing nuclear material worldwide amid concerns over the patchy nature of most of the available information. Chilling estimates According to the report, about 40 kilograms of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium have been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union during the last decade. It said that while most of that material had been later retrieved, two kilograms of highly enriched uranium from a reactor in Georgia was still missing. DSTO incident list 643 nuclear smuggling incidents 107 sources of orphaned radiation over 80 cases of fraud or malevolent acts The database, which combines information from two existing unclassified databases and also adds independently obtained figures, registered 830 incidents of illicit trafficking of radioactive material. But Ms Zaitseva said that the real amount of missing weapons-grade material could be 10 times higher than the official figures. "We don't know what's missing. That's the most frightening thing". Another member of the research team, nuclear physicist Friedrich Steinhausler, said the biggest hole in the database was that no one knew where the smuggled material has gone. "There is no proof. There is suspicion but there is no proof," he said. 'Orphan' radiation The Stanford database also lists "orphaned" radiation sources: scientific or medical material that may have been lost or misplaced. Mr Steinhausler said that such materials also presented a real threat because victims may not know that they have been exposed. "Many countries don't even have a central register of radioactive materials. If they don't know what they have, they don't know what they've lost," he said, quoting two cases of relatively recent mass accidental contamination in the USA and Brazil. Ms Zaitseva added that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large amount of weapons-grade material was left without adequate protection. She said the US-sponsored programme to secure nuclear components in the former Soviet Union has locked only one-third of the more than 600 tons of weapons-usable material. "It's just not protected. This is hot stuff. If you steal 20 kilograms of that material, you can build a nuclear weapon". ***************************************************************** 30 Row erupts over Sellafield security Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Staff and agencies Thursday March 7, 2002 A Conservative spokesman was accused of "irresponsible" behaviour in the Commons today after he revealed just how easy it would be for terrorists to destroy Sellafield nuclear power plant and render most of Britain uninhabitable. Tory environment spokesman Jonathan Sayeed called for stricter security to prevent a possible air strike on the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, after spelling out the consequences of a hijacked airplane crashing into the nuclear reactor. But environment minister Michael Meacher turned on Mr Sayeed during question time, claiming it was extraordinary for a frontbench MP to draw attention to the "exposure of a major nuclear plant" in public. The row was sparked when Mr Sayeed said the amount of highly radioactive material stored at Cumbrian plant "in steel tanks nearly 50 years old" was around 100 times the quantity released in the Chernobyl disaster. "Will you confirm that a passenger jet would take about 30 seconds to traverse the air exclusion zone around Sellafield and hit those tanks. "Do you agree that, dependent on weather conditions, this would render all land within 400 miles of Sellafield, uninhabitable. "There's an urgent need for the imposition of new security measures, perhaps involving precautions as basic as barrage balloons, to deal with this threat until safer storage of fissile material is achieved," he said. Mr Meacher responded: "I find it absolutely extraordinary that a frontbench spokesman, on behalf of the opposition - even if what he said was correct, and I certainly don't confirm it - to advertise in parliament and draw attention to the exposure of a major nuclear plant in this way is pretty irresponsible. These matters had received "intense examination" since September 11. "It is not my place to say publicly here in parliament exactly what are the precautionary measures that have been put in place. "I would expect these measures to be handled through the usual consultative channels and not openly broadcast in this way." The government was "acutely aware of the problem" and doing everything it could to deal with it. Earlier, Labour's David Chaytor also raised the vulnerability of Sellafield to attack. Mr Chaytor asked whether the government's chief scientific adviser would have issued his statement this morning calling for Britain to build new nuclear power stations "had the hijacked aeroplane flown into Sellafield and not the World Trade Centre". Mr Meacher told him: "Obviously after September 11 the exposure of nuclear plants is a major issue. "This is now kept very firmly under review by the office of civil nuclear safety and security measures have been tightened in the light of that event." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 31 Chinese Scientists Developed Technology on Spent Nuclear Fuel Separation Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Friday, March 08, 2002 China is capable of solving nuclear waste disposal problem, said Qiu Guoyi, member of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) at a press conference on the issue of nuclear station safety, Chinese scientists have developed a separation technology on the spent nuclear fuel. According to reports, there are about 2 percent of radioactive substances existing in the spent fuel, and the radioactive material of the semi-exhausted substance will last for millions of years. Should such substance be not disposed properly, it will entail damages for generations after generations to come once they enter into human's living environment, such as water. International nuclear circle attaches great importance to this issue, a kind of separation technology-transmutation technology is being explored to realize the final disposal of the spent fuel. Qiu said that China's technology has been eyed by international nuclear circle. By using this technology, uranium and plutonium left in the spent fuel can be extracted and reused, the semi-exhausted radioactive substances can be singled out. When asked about the shocking Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, Qiu said, according to expert's appraisal, the nuclear station had defects in design. It does not completely conform to international standard, researchers say that even though such accident is going to happen, the conclusion will remain unchanged, i.e. nuclear energy is a safe, clean energy and to develop nuclear energy is one of the most efficient ways for solving energy pollution. What's Spent Nuclear FuelNuclear fuel starts with uranium, a naturally occurring radioactive material. The uranium ore is mined and refined into a brightly-colored solid uranium compound referred to as "yellow cake". The yellow cake is converted into various uranium metal alloys or compunds to be used as nuclear fuel. The uranium is formed into rods, pellets, or plates. They are completely sealed ("clad") with metals such as aluminum, stainless steel, or zircaloy to provide structural strength and to surround the fuel to prevent the release of radioactive particles. By PD Online Staff Li Yan Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 32 Yucca: Federal plan draws council's ire - By Michael Gill Lakewood Sun Post [http://www.sunnews.com/] Thursday, March 07, 2002 Lakewood City Council unanimously and quickly passed a resolution opposing a plan by President George W. Bush's administration to create a federal nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Councilman Denis Dunn, D-at large, brought forth the resolution, noting that Lakewood must go on record opposing the Department of Energy's selection of Yucca Mountain as a high-level nuclear waste repository, and the transportation of high level radioactive waste through our community and Northeast Ohio. But Todd Schneider, manager of communications for the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., says the resolution was unnecessary. Spent fuel is not going to be transported through cities or highly populated suburbs, he said. The Department of Transportation is responsible for designing the route, which they have not done yet. And, when the time comes, the state and communities will have input. During council's discussion of the resolution, however, Earth Day Coalition executive director Chris Trepal showed maps from a Department of Energy study that traced possible routes. The maps showed that routes serving nuclear power plants along the eastern seaboard converged as they passed through Cleveland. Those are only possible routes, Schneider said. They were certainly not the final routes. There are tracks and highways in less populated areas that can be used. Councilman Michael Skindell, D-at large, who worked with Dunn on the resolution, was critical of both the idea and the plan for transporting waste. Skindell brought a similar resolution to council in January 2000, opposing the transport of high level waste. He faulted the Bush administration for allowing the plan to go forward. He also was critical of the containers used to transport the waste, saying they have not been tested in practical circumstances. Skindell noted that, a week after his 2000 resolution, an accident in Tiffin involving a truck carrying low-level nuclear waste caused a major incident. Schneider, however, expressed confidence in the containers. Those canisters are made of stainless steel and lead. They weigh 25 tons apiece, and they are designed to protect fuel in event of a traffic accident, he said. They have built canisters and tried to destroy them. The canisters have been hit with a train. They have put canisters on a truck and ran the truck into a wall. They've been built, tested, and are nearly indestructible. Dunn said terrorist activity is an additional concern. In the wake of 9-11, he said, you've got to think that these convoys are likely targets. Schneider doesn't dispute that likelihood, but says planned protective measures would be sufficient to ensure safety. There have been 3,000 shipments of nuclear waste in the country in the last 15 years, and there have been seven traffic or rail accidents. The canisters have not been damaged in any of these, he said. Also, the routes will be kept confidential. The vehicles transporting spent fuel will be escorted. The workers will be highly trained. No one disagrees that disposal of nuclear waste is expensive, but they do differ on how the bill would be paid. Skindell says the project is a tax-funded bail-out for the energy companies. Schneider, however, retaliates that the idea is not new and will not be funded by tax dollars, anyway. Back when the first plants were being planned, the Department of Energy said to companies, "We will take spent fuel off your hands. That will be our responsibility.' They have not lived up to that obligation yet, he said. Whether it is a federal obligation or not, Schneider says, the clean-up will be funded by user fees built into bills and tied to usage of electricity produced at nuclear facilities. Consumers are billed for nuclear waste cleanup at a rate of one-tenth of a cent per nuclear generated kilowat hour. Schneider says the charge has been in place since 1982, and has amassed $17 billion nationally and $350 million in Ohio. The money is to be used to pay disposal costs. Ultimately, Skindell and Dunn said they'd like to see the waste stay put and the country pursue alternative power sources. Schneider, however, says current locations are not adequate. He says waste is being stored at the plants now, but that Davis Bessie has had to take measures to create additional storage space. ***************************************************************** 33 Moving nuclear waste LancasterOnline.com Thursday, March 7 By Ad Crable New Era Staff Writer Beginning in 2010 and continuing for 30 years, hundreds of trains and trucks may pass through Lancaster County carrying potentially deadly cargoes of used nuclear fuel from nuke plants in three states. It took 20 years and billions of dollars to pick an under-mountain lair in a remote part of Nevada as the burial ground for high-level radioactive waste that has been piling up at the country's nuclear plants since they opened in the 1960s. The U.S. Department of Energy and President Bush tabbed Yucca Mountain last month. Now, an equally contentious debate --fueled by the new specter of terrorism --is shaping up: Is shipping the waste to Nevada on highways and railroads through 44 states safe? Congress still has to approve Yucca Mountain, and legislators already have promised congressional hearings on the transportation issue in cities along the travel routes. Though the DOE refuses to list specific routes that might be used in transporting the waste, one major highway and one rail corridor through Lancaster County have been identified in several studies as possibilities. The Pennsylvania Turnpike, those studies say, would be a likely truck route, carrying radioactive waste westward from several plants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Norfolk Southern rail line that follows the Susquehanna River along the length of Lancaster County is a possibility for shipping spent fuel from the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland to western rail routes in Harrisburg. Spent fuel moved from the Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island plants would not go through Lancaster County. As befits past debates about nuclear energy, the current rhetoric ranges from confident assurances from the nuclear industry and the federal government to doomsday warnings from opponents. "All it takes is one terrorist with a TOW missile obtained on the black market to take out a truck carrying this deadly substance, and we get Chernobyl in our backyard," says Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman. "It is just a matter of time, God forbid, that one of those cities (along the transportation routes) is destroyed." Goodman and several other officials in Las Vegas, about 90 miles from the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, are bitterly opposed to the site. Nevada has spent millions fighting the repository and has several lawsuits pending against the federal government. The Physicians for Social Responsibility, which represents more than 20,000 health-care professionals, has issued similarly dire warnings. "Any one of these shipments could be hijacked by terrorists and exploded as a "dirty bomb,' spreading nuclear fallout across the center of an American city," says Martin Butcher, director of security programs for the group. Town fathers in Takoma Park, Md., a Washington, D.C., suburb, already have declared the town a nuclear-free zone and have banned any shipments through their community. But Corinne Macaluso, a DOE official, says a community "can't interrupt interstate commerce." "I'd like to see it out of here," says Paul Thibault, County Commissioners chairman, of plans to remove nuclear waste from area plants. "If that involves transporting it through the county to get it out once and for all --provided adequate security measures are taken --I would want that." The nuclear industry and its federal regulator, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, claim that nuclear waste has been shipped for 30 years in this country without a single radiation leak. And rigorous testing of secure shipping casks makes transportation a non-issue, they say. "The fact is, the waste is already closer to the people every day of the week than it will be if it moves past a community for five or 10 minutes. We have a perfect track record," says DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham, who calls Yucca Mountain necessary to the national security and the country's energy future. Pennsylvania environmental officials say they support the Yucca Mountain plan. "We are confident of the transportation system. Our feeling is the casks have been well tested and are capable of safely transporting the waste," says Ron Ruman, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts "understands there are safety concerns...and feels strongly that every measure possible should be taken to make sure it's done in a safe manner," says spokesman Gabe Neville. But Pitts also is convinced "Yucca Mountain is the answer, and storing the waste in one location is still safer than storing it at 100 locations all over the country," Neville says. Though Yucca Mountain would take some nuclear waste from military installations, the cavernous tunnels deep inside the mountain would be filled mostly with spent fuel from the country's 103 nuclear plants in 31 states. Spent fuel is used uranium, from reactors whose ability to create electricity has waned. Yet it is still hot, highly radioactive and potentially harmful. In 1982, the federal government promised to take charge of the waste by 1998 but never did. Many utilities and states, including Pennsylvania and the owners of TMI and Peach Bottom, sued the government as waste piled up at nuclear plants. Critics said the plants were becoming de facto nuclear waste dumps. The waste is being stored under water --that's the case at TMI --or in above-ground vaults at plants such as Peach Bottom that have run out of space. TMI has about 492 metric tons of spent fuel stored on site; Peach Bottom, 1,195 tons, according to the plants' owner, Exelon Nuclear. The two plants account for almost half of the spent fuel stored at the state's five commercial nuclear plants. Since 1983, U.S consumers' electric bills have included an extra fee aimed at a resolution of the nuclear-waste issue. Ratepayers in Pennsylvania have paid in more than $1.5 billion. Yucca Mountain would hold 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste, taken there by rail or on roads in 35,000 to 100,000 shipments over three decades. The spent fuel that already is waiting for disposal would fill about half of Yucca Mountain's capacity. Whether by train or truck, the spent fuel would be shipped in huge special casks shaped like a barbell. Inside the thick, steel cylinders are tons of shielding designed to contain radioactivity. The casks have to be demonstrated to be safe from impact, flames, puncture and submersion in water. Graphic videos distributed by the industry and the government show the casks being struck by locomotives traveling 100 mph. Trucks carrying the casks have been slammed into concrete walls at 80 mph. Casks have been dropped 3 feet onto a steel bar. In a new industry report presented to the NRC this week, it was determined that a direct hit by a 767 jet engine would deform, but not rupture, a cask. Radioactive waste --mainly spent fuel from submarines --has been transported in the barbells for 30 years. The industry and the NRC note with pride that, during that time and over the course of more than 3,000 shipments, only eight accidents have occurred. Casks loaded with radioactive waste were involved in four of them, and in each case the casks protected their cargo. Opponents of the transportation of nuclear waste counter that the number of expected upcoming shipments is unprecedented and that the casks have not been widely exposed to "real world accident conditions." The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, using federal accident rate data, estimates that shipping casks will be involved in 210 to 354 accidents over 30 years. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group, worries about the margin of human error in building and loading 10,000 containers of deadly waste. Spent fuel rods have to be carefully configured to prevent a nuclear reaction. According to Nevada research, a person standing 3 feet away from a cask would receive a lethal dose of radiation in less than three minutes if it cracked open. An accident involving a fire and exposure could contaminate a 43-square-mile area, according to a U.S. Department of Energy study in 1985. Eric Epstein of the Harrisburg-based Three Mile Island Alert citizens group says, "Simply put, people don't want this coming through their backyards." "What we see is a risky transportation plan to bring this waste to a dangerous site where it will leak. That simply can't be justified in terms of public health and safety," says Lisa Gue, policy analyst for Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program, an anti-nuclear group. But Melanie Lyons of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, accuses anti-nuclear groups of "fear mongering." She says transportation routes will be coordinated with the help of local and state officials. Federal transportation regulations, she says, will require Pennsylvania's governor to be notified about a shipment and its route seven days beforehand. As for security concerns related to terrorism, she says some trucks and trains will be tracked by satellite. If a security breach is detected, she says, the truck or train will not be allowed to move. Neil Sheehan of the NRC acknowledges that terrorism adds a new element to the equation. Shipments would be escorted and would likely travel during odd hours, he says. The NRC is getting ready to begin an analysis of the potential for damage from terroristic activities, including direct hits from airliners. TMI spokesman Ralph DeSantis says transporting nuclear waste "has been done safely and can be done safely in the future." As for the threat of terrorism, he says it makes more sense to guard the nation's high-level nuclear waste at one spot rather than at widely dispersed nuclear plants. Peach Bottom spokesman Dave Simon adds, "There really is nothing the public needs to worry about." ©2001 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Connecticut Nuclear waste suit blocked TheDay.com: Local resident’s lawsuit to halt construction of storage facility is denied By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 03/08/2002 Haddam — A federal judge has blocked a local resident's state court challenge to construction of a high-level nuclear waste storage facility on property owned by the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. The latest twist in the case could set a legal precedent establishing where federal rules prevail and local and state regulations end when it comes to managing the nuclear waste that is left behind when a nuclear plant is closed. Connecticut Yankee ceased operations in 1996. Connecticut Yankee has plans to remove the spent fuel rods now stored in a special pool at the closed plant and transfer them into protective casks, which would be stored on a tarmac about three-quarters of a mile from the plant. Though part of Connecticut Yankee property, the site is zoned residential. Initially opposed by town officials and rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the company pursued the project in federal court, claiming federal regulations took precedent over the local zoning. On Jan. 24 the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to settle the dispute in return for $13 million in compensation. Five days later a building permit was granted by the town. The settlement led to the filing a lawsuit in state Superior Court by an adjoining property owner, Andrew J. Egri. He contends that the selectmen had no right to approve a deal that does not comply with the zoning regulations of the town and did not allow for public participation in the decision. Other residents opposed to the proposed facility are supporting Egri's lawsuit. Judge Alan Nevas has now granted a temporary restraining order preventing Egri from pursuing the case in state court. His order also stops all other attempts to block plans for the waste facility. Nevas acted on an application filed by attorneys for Connecticut Yankee. Next stop for the case is Nevas' U.S. District courtroom in Bridgeport March 15, at which time he will hear arguments whether his order should remain in place. Attorney Nancy Burton, representing Egri, said local and state rights are being violated and she will fight to get the matter back before the state Superior Court. “This order is an unprecedented prior restraint on the rights of the people of the entire Connecticut River Valley to protest the siting of a high-level radioactive waste dump where it is prohibited by state and local zoning law,” she said. © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 35 NRC finds probe into missing rods was adequate TheDay.com: But location of nuclear material still a mystery By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 03/08/2002 The Scarab III, a crawling device with two shielded high-resolution cameras, was used in the search for the missing fuel rods at Millstone. Waterford — Looking like a VCR riding on tractor treads, the robot crawled through a watery environment too hostile for any human. A plow attached to the front pushed through sediment as it maneuvered around racks of nuclear waste material on the bottom of the Millstone 1 storage pool, the attached cameras peering in vain for two missing reactor fuel rods. The use of the robot, with its radiation-tolerant cameras, was just one of the extraordinary steps investigators took in trying to find the fuel rods. Those efforts are detailed in a newly released federal report, which concludes that the investigation into the missing rods was a good one, even though no conclusive determination was reached about their precise location. The failure to account for the two fuel rods, classified as high-level nuclear waste, is unprecedented in the history of the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must now decide what civil penalties, if any, are appropriate for a mistake of such proportions. Operators at Millstone Power Station first realized on Sept. 12, 2000, that the two uranium-filled fuel rods, 12 feet long and the thickness of a man's thumb, were not where they were supposed to be. The contents of the Millstone 1 pool were being inventoried in preparation for the sale of the nuclear station. Operations ceased at Millstone 1 in 1995, and unlike reactors 2 and 3 that continue to pump out electricity, it will never function again. Yet the high-level radioactive waste generated at Millstone 1 remains stored there, except for the two rods. Northeast Utilities, which operated Millstone Station for three decades until its sale to Virginia-based Dominion for $1.3 billion in April 2001, conducted a nearly year-long investigation that cost $9 million to try and locate the fuel rods. In addition to using a remote-controlled robot to survey the highly radioactive environment in the plant's storage pool, the NU investigation team looked through thousands of records at Millstone and in possession of the NRC, then developed 75 scenarios in an effort to explain what might have happened. Now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its report assessing that investigation. Among the report's findings: The most likely scenario is that the high-level waste was inadvertently shipped to the low-level radioactive waste dump in Barnwell, S.C., the same conclusion reached by NU investigators. Mistaken for power-monitor rods, the fuel rods were likely cut into pieces beneath the waters of the Millstone 1 pool and shipped in a shielded container with other material to Barnwell. There is some “small degree” of chance they were instead shipped to a radioactive waste dump in Hanford, Wash. It is highly unlikely the rods are still somewhere in the pool and it is implausible that they were shipped to a General Electric facility in Pleasanton, Calif. This contradicts the NU report, which had concluded that the rods could still be in the pool or had been shipped to the GE plant. Concurring with the NU investigation, the NRC report concludes that if the fuel rods are in Barnwell or Hanford “the risk to human health from the missing fuel rods is negligible.” There is no plausible scenario that would suggest the fuel rods could have been stolen. While there were some small differences between the findings of the NU and NRC reports, overall the federal inspectors conclude that the NU investigation was a good one. “The NRC special inspection team determined that your investigation was thorough and complete, and the conclusions were reasonable and supportable,” it states. The robotic search at the bottom of the 40–foot spent fuel pool was an impressive undertaking, said Todd J. Jackson, director of the special inspection team and a radiation protection specialist. Distortions under so much water were a challenge for the investigators, he said. A claw-like arm on the robot was set to the exact diameter of the fuel rods, so that any debris viewed on the bottom could be measured. The robot also carried a rod the same size as the missing rods, so that could be swung into the video image for comparative purposes. The NRC and officials in South Carolina and Washington must decide what to do about the fuel rods that may be buried in those states. Calculations show that the fuel rods are now less radioactive than much of the waste buried around them, and so are no immediate threat. But they will continue to give off deadly radiation far longer, for thousands of years, said Jackson. This is why the long-term storage of such waste has become a controversial problem in the United States, one that continues to be debated even as plans move forward for a high-level waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Retrieval would be an option since records show approximately where shipments from Millstone were buried. But it would be an extremely expensive undertaking that would expose workers doing the excavating to the high levels of radiation. The report squarely lays the blame for the missing rods on past mistakes made by NU – good news for current owner Dominion, which has asked for a license amendment to store more spent fuel in its Millstone 3 storage pool. Anti-nuclear groups, including the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, have challenged the plan, arguing that the missing fuel rod episode brings into question the station's ability to handle more waste at unit 3. The fuel rods were removed from the reactor in 1972 after an intrusion of seawater and moved to the adjacent storage pool. While a large assembly of fuel rods was inspected and returned to the reactor, the two rods in question were slightly damaged and not put back. Records from 1974 to 1978 make no reference to the rods, while records from 1979 and 1980 place them in a container stored in the pool. There is no mention of the rods after 1980. Though the fault for losing the rods lies with NU, any fines imposed would be targeted at Dominion because it now holds the license, said Jackson. Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Dominion, said the company agrees with the report's conclusions. Dominion expects NU to accept responsibility for any fines and penalties the NRC might issue, just as it agreed to assume the cost of the investigation into what happened, Hyde said. Deborah Beauchamp, Hyde's counterpart at NU, said such talk is premature. First it has to be determined if there will be fines imposed and for what violations. The NRC inspection team said NU was guilty of a range of “apparent violations.” During its operation of the Millstone 1 spent fuel pool NU failed to keep adequate records, establish adequate procedures for monitoring the spent fuel and did not conduct physical inventories of the used reactor fuel. When it did discover that the fuel rods were missing, the company failed to immediately report that information to the NRC, instead waiting three months, another apparent violation. The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone is asking the NRC to issue the maximum civil penalty, which it calculated to be $9.9 billion, or $100,000 per day since the fuel rods were misplaced. Realistically, a much smaller fine can be expected. David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the violations cannot be dismissed solely as “a sin of the past.” The three-month delay in reporting the problem to the NRC once it was discovered was a recent violation, not some historical artifact, Lochbaum said. Some of the same people at Millstone then are there now and he remains concerned about their ability to manage more spent fuel at Millstone 3. p.choiniere@theday.com © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 36 Preparing for nuclear or biological attack proves nearly impossible Threat is significant, Senate panel is told [http://www.sfgate.com] [eepstein@sfchronicle.com] Thursday, March 7, 2002 Washington -- This city is protected by a silent, invisible shield, a wonder of 21st century technology. But even with the deployment of radiation detectors at choke points around Washington in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, federal officials remain nervous that the city, and other big metropolitan areas like the Bay Area, are vulnerable to attacks by nuclear or radiological weapons. "Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will protect us from these threats," Donald Cobb, a Los Alamos National Laboratory threat reduction researcher, told a Senate committee yesterday. Cobb and others at the hearing also pointed out that there are a variety of weapons, ranging from relatively low-tech radiation dispersal devices -- so- called dirty bombs -- to sophisticated nuclear bombs, perhaps stolen from other countries' weapons stockpiles. "We know that radiological and nuclear attacks on the United States are not only possible, but there are enough screwballs out there willing to risk or even give their lives to use them," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. The most likely threat is from a dirty bomb, experts testified yesterday. Such a device could be made by taking radioactive material commonly found in X- ray machines or used to sterilize medical instruments and food, in a variety of industrial uses and at nuclear power plants. The device would be detonated with conventional explosives. "I believe that the deliberate dispersal of radioactive materials is a significant and plausible threat," said Steven Koonin, Caltech's provost in Pasadena. The good news, if there is any, is that not many people would die from such an attack, perhaps none immediately. Koonin calculates that dispersal of just three Curies of a radioactive isotope, equal to a fraction of a gram, over a square mile would mean that for every 100,000 people exposed, four cancer deaths would be added to the 20,000 cancer deaths that would have occurred anyway. "But the psychosocial effects would be enormous," he warned. Vast areas of cities would be made uninhabitable, businesses would shut down, buildings would have to be torn down and society would have to debate how much to spend on cleanup. Richard Meserve, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said such attacks -- even if they don't prove deadly -- would serve the terrorists' goals. "Terrorists' greatest weapon is fear," he said. "These are not very effective as weapons." In contrast to dirty bombs, a nuclear weapon could kill tens of thousands and spread radiation sickness. But officials say no terrorist group has a nuclear weapon, and those weapons would be easier for radiation monitors like those in Washington to detect. Long before Sept. 11, the government was working on preventing rogue groups from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. At hundreds of sites across the former Soviet Union, Americans help maintain nuclear weapons security to prevent theft of enriched uranium or plutonium. A separate program tries to provide employment for the thousands of nuclear scientists who find themselves unemployed because of the Soviet Union's demise, so they won't be tempted to go to work for terrorists or states trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons. "We don't see that this brain drain in the former Soviet Union is an epidemic," Biden said. "But one person with this knowledge can change all this speculation from a wish to a genuine concern." The United States maintains a multilayered defense against the terrorists' nuclear threat, said Harry Vantine, a counterterrorism and incident response expert at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. In addition to the radiation detectors and the Geiger counters carried by the Border Patrol, these include a program to assess the credibility of nuclear threats and helping Russia's border patrol look out for illicit nuclear material. Meserve said his commission had stepped up contacts with the thousands of companies and medical centers around the country that use radioactive substances to bring the material under tighter control. "Probably the most effective thing we can do is try to control these materials at the source," Meserve said. E-mail Edward Epstein at [eepstein@sfchronicle.com] . ***************************************************************** 37 Nuclear sub readied for dry-dock exhibition Ananova - The decommissioned nuclear-powered submarine Courageous is being moved to a dock where she can be viewed by the public. She will become the first exhibit of her kind in the country. It is hoped Courageous will be unveiled at Devonport Naval Base, Plymouth, Devon, in time for the port's Navy Days. The three-day event hosted by the Naval Base over the August Bank Holiday weekend is expected to attract more than 55,000 visitors. The operation will involve settling the Churchill class submarine on blocks in a dry dock, says Captain John Binns, in charge of safety at the base and responsible for preparing the submarine as an exhibit. A number of adaptations needed to be made to the submarine to make it safe for people walking round it, he said. "We hope to strike a balance between adapting Courageous into an exhibit without compromising any realism of what conditions would have been like for those who served on her," said Captain Binns. Story filed: 03:21 Friday 8th March 2002 Copyright © 2002 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 38 Labs run nuclear tests via computer Tri-Valley Herald Online Data to be projected on aging U.S. nuke stockpile March 08, 2002 By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE -- Using the fastest supercomputer on the planet, scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos laboratories conducted the most complete virtual tests of a nuclear weapon explosion, nuclear officials said Thursday. Researchers built three-dimensional models of a complete thermonuclear weapon system and simulated the explosion produced by the weapon. "We can now simulate an entire nuclear weapon explosion and learn critical information about the nation's weapons stockpile as it ages," said John Gordon, who leads the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an oversight agency for several nuclear weapons facilities. The United States banned nuclear explosives testing in 1992, and has since relied on a range of experiments to certify the reliability of the stockpile. Such detailed computer simulations will provide a new method to test the components of weapons in the aging stockpile. Research teams at each of the labs produced separate computer models, and the full-system simulations were validated by review panels. ASCI White, a supercomputer at Livermore Lab capable of performing 12.3 trillion calculations per second at peak speed, was used to produce both simulations. The Los Alamos team -- working with Livermore Lab researchers and experts at Science Applications International Corp. -- prepared, revised, and ran their simulation over a period of about seven months on the ASCI White machine, using about 23 percent of its total processing power. "The actual run time was about four months of round-the-clock computing," NNSA officials said, or roughly equivalent to continuously running a high-end home computer for about 750 years. High-speed, high-security data connections between Livermore and Los Alamos labs allowed researchers at Los Alamos to remotely run and view their simulation. "This remote computing effort worked almost as easily as computing on a local supercomputer at Los Alamos," said Bob Weaver, Los Alamos team leader. Livermore Lab researchers used 1,024 of 8,192 high-speed computer processors on the ASCI White machine for their simulation, which took 39 days to run. Livermore's simulation "produced important information about the nuclear weapons stockpile, including the primary and secondary yields, for comparison to past nuclear test data," NNSA officials said. In 2000, researchers at Livermore Lab completed a three-dimensional computerized simulation of the initial implosion, called the "primary," which is used to trigger a thermonuclear explosion. And months later, scientists at Los Alamos Lab completed a three-dimensional simulation of the secondary stage in a thermonuclear explosion, paving the way for the latest round of simulations. ***************************************************************** 39 Scientist exhausted, elated with response to fusion research By FRANK MUNGER Rusi Taleyarkhan is 49, suddenly famous and emotionally spent. "It's been a pressure-cooker for the past one year," said the senior scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has attracted worldwide attention this week regarding his research on "bubble fusion." In January 2001, after four years of study and experimentation, Taleyarkhan started seeing "interesting results" in his research with sono-luminescence - a phenomenon in which sound waves produce bubbles that collapse explosively and release energy in the form of light flashes. The feedback gave him confidence that the tabletop experiment might achieve nuclear fusion - the fusing of deuterium atoms at high temperatures. "I've been living on adrenaline since then," he said. On Monday, however, the stress became too much. On the same day that Science magazine unexpectedly lifted an embargo on its March 8 publication and broadly released a paper revealing the preliminary - and controversial - results of his research effort, Taleyarkhan was in bed. The long-standing intensity had made him sick. "I couldn't get off my back," he said. When he returned to work Tuesday, a couple of hundred e-mails and a bank full of phone messages awaited him. Colleagues from around the world, including friends in his native India, offered congratulations. Others wanted more details on technique and analysis. Reporters posed the obvious questions, most notably, "Is this 'cold fusion' all over again?" Taleyarkhan said his favorite message was from a one-time skeptic, a fellow scientist who previously had doubted his research in the strongest terms. The message simply congratulated the researcher on his perseverance. Having the work published was a huge relief. For months the results had been pored over in the peer-review process, every detail challenged by experts inside ORNL and a dozen others retained by Science magazine - one of the world's premier scientific journals. Taleyarkhan and his research team members addressed the questions one by one. One senior-level administrator in Oak Ridge told Taleyarkhan he had never seen a scientific paper receive such critical attention or so many reviews. Why? Mostly because of the unfortunate history of tabletop fusion experiments, especially the 1989 fiasco known as "cold fusion." In that instance, Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah announced prematurely that they had achieved a fusion reaction at room temperature through chemical means and thus set off wild speculation about the possibilities. The celebrated work had not undergone peer review, and when scientists around the globe failed to reproduce their results, the affair turned into one giant embarrassment for the Utah professors and science in general. Taleyarkhan's research was based on different principles and was decidedly not cold fusion, but there were enough similarities that it would draw the inevitable comparisons. Taleyarkhan knew it would. ORNL management knew it. Science magazine knew it, too. Everybody knew there'd be plenty of hoopla surrounding the work because once again scientists were claiming to have achieved nuclear fusion in a beaker. Or at least there was evidence that appeared to support such a claim, including the presence of radioactive tritium and the timely release of neutrons from the experimental chamber. Taleyarkhan said he has performed the bubble experiment more than 100 times, each time taking apart and reassembling the test apparatus. The experiments rely on what's called "acoustic cavitation," which is the collapse of bubbles formed during the process using sound waves. According to information from ORNL, cavitation works like this: "When a sound wave propagates through a liquid, the molecules in the liquid are subjected to positive and negative pressures. During the negative pressure phase of the wave, tiny bubbles in the liquid can grow dramatically (up to a factor of 1,000 in volume), since the pressure is below the vapor pressure. When the positive pressure of the sound wave passes, the bubble collapses, and the energy accumulated in the bubble during growth is released." Taleyarkhan did a couple of things to enhance the research environment. He used acetone, an organic liquid known best to many as nail-polish remover, because it allowed researchers to achieve a high tensile state in the liquid without bubbles collapsing too quickly - a problem known as premature cavitation. Deuterium also was added, thus allowing scientists to study the possible nuclear reaction of deuterium atoms fusing. The process then was stimulated with strong pulses of neutrons. The research team reportedly produced bubbles 1,000 times bigger than any achieved by prior studies, with resulting clouds of bubbles interacting and grandly multiplying the implosive force as they collapsed. Taleyarkhan estimates that the collapsing bubbles generated temperatures approaching 18 million degrees Fahrenheit (Contact Frank Munger of The Knoxville News-Sentinel in Tennessee at http://www.knoxnews.com.) March 7, 2002 ***************************************************************** 40 Hanford budget to get $433 million boost for cleanup This story was published Thu, Mar 7, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer Washington state and the federal government announced Wednesday a sweeping new plan for Hanford funding that would inject $433 million into the Hanford cleanup budget, stabilize funding through 2006 and cut the projected horizon for cleanup by at least 35 years. The Department of Energy would put the extra money into Hanford's budget beginning in 2003. That will be enough to satisfy the state that Hanford will meet its legal cleanup obligations for 2003, said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for Washington's Department of Ecology. The plan means Hanford will get more than half of the $800 million DOE wants to set aside for accelerating its cleanup projects nationwide. The extra money DOE has promised accompanies an agreement that DOE, the state and the Environmental Protection Agency signed Tuesday to work out plans by August to significantly speed cleanup. The agreement's goal is to complete Hanford's cleanup between 2025 and 2035 instead of 2070 as currently planned. "We're going to get Hanford cleaned up faster and better -- and save money, too," said Gov. Gary Locke. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said: "This agreement appears to keep the federal government's promise ... to clean up Hanford." DOE has until May 1 to come up with draft plans to accelerate cleanup with specific goals for between now and 2012. DOE, the EPA and the state then are supposed to work a mutually acceptable plan by Aug. 1. Hanford cannot get any of the extra $433 million until DOE, EPA and the state sign off on their master plan. When that happens, DOE guarantees it will seek full funding for that master plan through 2006. Each year until now, DOE traditionally requested less than full funding for Hanford, with Congress adding the extra needed money later. "(DOE) and the Office of Management and Budget are promising that the days of fighting over nuclear cleanup budgets are behind us. I sincerely hope they are," said U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. State and federal officials are optimistic about reaching agreements by Aug. 1 because they have worked on acceleration plans for more than a year. That helped Hanford become the first DOE site to get DOE's headquarters in Washington, D.C., to approve its acceleration proposals. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said: "Hanford has become the model for other nuclear sites across the country." Some potential Hanford acceleration plans include: -- Awarding a contract later this year to finish cleaning much of Hanford's Columbia River shore by 2012. -- Emptying and sealing Tank C-106 by 2004, instead of 2016 as currently planned. DOE hopes that will lead to closing other tanks early. -- Studying ways to speed glassifying Hanford's tank wastes. -- Studying if some tank wastes can be rerouted to a process that is supposed to be quicker and cheaper than glassification. -- Speeding the cleanout of radioactive sludge at the K Basins, plus the cleanout and demolition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant. -- Not glassifying cesium and strontium stored in an indoor pool network. Experts want to study if that material can be stored in a dry area, waiting for the cesium and strontium radiation to decay to benign levels in a few hundred years. n A long list of other ideas. Many probably won't be studied for several years. Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, criticized Tuesday's agreement, saying it does not really change Hanford's budget picture. He argued that the state and EPA would have to agree to DOE's plans for Hanford to get the extra $433 million, giving DOE leverage to dictate terms in the upcoming talks. And he said he believed the state and DOE will enter the upcoming talks with different ideas on how locked in they are on settling on alternatives to glassification. Meanwhile, 2003's budget picture still is fuzzy because DOE and the state cite conflicting budget figures. DOE says it agreed to request an extra $433 million for Hanford. But the state says that figure is $450 million. And in a Wednesday news release, DOE contended Hanford's revised 2003 budget would be "more than $2 billion." But by using DOE's figures, the Tri-City Herald calculated a $433 million addition actually translates to a proposed $1.893 billion Hanford cleanup budget for 2003. That would be $171 million more than the $1.722 billion appropriated for 2002. Here is how the budget figures unfold. In January DOE requested Congress to appropriate $6.7 billion in 2003 for nationwide nuclear cleanup -- the same amount allocated for 2002. But DOE's 2003 budget request called for a $5.9 billion guaranteed base budget. Another $800 million would be in an incentive fund to accelerate cleanup. That translated to DOE guaranteeing $1.46 billion for Hanford in 2003, plus whatever the site could obtain from the incentive fund. The $1.46 billion figure spooked the Northwest. Locke, Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Hastings, Murray and Cantwell growled loudly that it was $300 million to $400 million short and lobbied heavily for more money. Now, DOE says it will allocate $433 million more to Hanford. Consequently, the Herald calculated that Hanford's 2003 budget request is $1.893 billion. But DOE's Wednesday's news release contended Hanford received $1.64 billion in 2001 and $1.87 billion in 2002. But DOE said last year that Hanford's 2001 budget was $1.456 billion. And DOE said last month that the 2002 budget was $1.722 billion. No information was unavailable Wednesday on how DOE came up with the new and bigger 2001 and 2002 figures. And there was no explanation on how DOE arrived at the "more than $2 billion" figure for 2003. Meanwhile, other DOE sites are expected to submit acceleration plans to get their shares of the $800 million. If $800 million is not enough, DOE said it will seek an extra $300 million. If Hanford gets $433 million, that would leave $367 million to $667 million for the other DOE sites to apply for. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 41 CH2M Hill names new president Wednesday This story was published Thu, Mar 7, 2002 By the Herald staff Ed Aromi has been appointed president of CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the company announced Wednesday. He has been the company's acting president since Jan. 7, when former president Fran DeLozier became senior operations vice president for CH2M Hill's Nuclear Systems and Services Business Unit. Aromi joined CH2M Hill Hanford Group last year as executive vice president. Previously he was president of Duratek Federal Services of Hanford, a subcontractor of Fluor Hanford. CH2M Hill Hanford Group manages Hanford's tank farms and the site's preparations to send radioactive tank wastes to a proposed glassification complex. It employs more than 1,300 people. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 42 Hanford Plutonium Waste Cleanup Accelerated Environment News Service: OLYMPIA, Washington, March 7, 2002 (ENS) - The highly radioactive nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the Columbia River in southcentral Washington state could be cleaned up at least 35 years faster than originally estimated, due to an agreement reached between two federal agencies and the state of Washington. The waste is the legacy of 45 years of nuclear weapons production. It amounts to about 60 percent of all the high-level nuclear waste in the United States. [Locke] Washington Governor Gary Locke (Photo courtesy Office of the Governor) Washington Governor Gary Locke announced Wednesday an agreement reached with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham that reverses a $300 million cut from Hanford cleanup funds that was part of the Bush administration's proposed FY 2003 budget. A Letter of Intent was signed on Wednesday by the State of Washington, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which modifies their existing Tri-Party Agreement restoring funding and setting an accelerated schedule for Hanford cleanup. The letter states, "This represents a transformation in Hanford Site cleanup, with the objective of accelerating completion from a 2070 timeframe to 2035, and possibly as soon as 2025. It establishes a bias for action and continuous improvement throughout cleanup." DOE managers have assured the governor and other state officials that they will create a budgetary approach that ensures full funding through fiscal year 2006. Hanford produced plutonium for nuclear weapons from 1943 through 1989. The Tri-Party Agreement of 1989 governs the handling and cleanup of the radioactive and hazardous wastes from the plutonium production. The Department of Energy has made a commitment to restore $300 million to fully fund Hanford's cleanup budget and provide an additional $150 million in fiscal year 2003 to pay for accelerated cleanup activities this year. "This is the best news for Hanford since the signing of the original cleanup agreement," said Governor Locke, who met Energy Secretary Abraham in Washington, DC late in February to negotiate a reverse of the budget cut. "At the time, I could not divulge the framework of the agreement, but it is clear that the trip paid off," he said Wednesday. There are 177 large scale underground nuclear waste tanks at Hanford containing 54 million gallons of high-level wastes. An estimated 440 billion gallons of contaminated liquids were discharged to the soil since 1944. There are over 1,500 areas of contaminated soil at Hanford. [waste] High-level nuclear waste in a Hanford storage tank (Photo courtesy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [http://www.pnl.gov/] ) The funding cut would have jeopardized construction of a vitrification plant for immobilization of the nuclear waste in glass. The vitrification plant is also expected to serve in the cleanup of other areas of the Hanford site which may then be converted into industrial parks, brownfields or conservation sites. As a first step, Energy Department experts will develop a set of specific goals for physical progress by 2007 and 2012 that will represent "a major acceleration from current plans," the agency said. DOE will produce a draft work plan showing how these goals can be met by May 1, and the Tri-Parties hope to produce a mutually agreed to work plan by August 1. Washington Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, said the agreement is really the culmination of two years of effort by the Hanford site managers and the state and federal regulators to reexamine cleanup goals and priorities. "Funding for Hanford cleanup has always been a difficult, but necessary fight," Senator Murray said. "The Department of Energy and Office of Management and Budget are promising that the days of fighting over nuclear cleanup budgets are behind us. I sincerely hope they are. The Administration must still present a formal revised budget for Hanford, and I look forward to working with the Administration to appropriate these funds." "If it weren't for our resolve, there would have been little commitment to clean up Hanford in accordance with the terms of the Tri-Party Agreement," Governor Locke said. "We're going to get Hanford cleaned up faster and better - and save money, too." The largest Hanford cleanup citizens watchdog group, Heart of America Northwest, applauded the restoration of funding and a new plan for groundwater monitoring and protection. But the group warned that the letter of intent refers "closure" of tanks which the Energy Secretary's review of progress at Hanford, issued with the 2003 budget, had proposed as a condition of restoring funding. "The proposals in that review and in accompanying DOE briefings would be to leave high-level nuclear waste forever in more than 60 single shell tanks, and declare them "closed" with cement added. Many of the remaining liquid high-level nuclear wastes would be mixed with cement, called grout, instead of being glassified under the Bush Administration plan," cautioned attorney Gerald Pollet, the group's executive director. [tanks] Construction of double shell waste storage tanks at Hanford (Photo courtesy DOE) Pollet said, "The Bush Administration's proposals to leave waste forever would condemn the Columbia River and make the Hanford Reach National Monument into a Hanford Reach National Nuclear Waste Sacrifice Zone. Contract and management reform at U.S. DOE are what is needed to make Hanford cleanup cost efficient, as opposed to simply not leaving waste behind." On Wednesday, Edward Aromi was appointed president and general manager of CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection [http://www.hanford.gov/orp/] prime contractor responsible for storing, characterizing, and retrieving the nuclear waste for treatment. He had been acting president of the Hanford tank farm prime contractor since January 7. "I am honored to be chosen to lead this company and am eager to continue our efforts to build a team focused on safe, quality performance," Aromi said. "I look forward to working with our DOE customer and my fellow CH2M HILL Hanford Group employee-owners to provide maximum value to the American taxpayer as we accelerate Hanford cleanup." Aromi came to CH2M HILL Hanford Group in 2001 as executive vice president and CEO from Duratek Federal Services of Hanford, Inc., where he was president and general manager. In that capacity, he also served as vice president of Fluor Hanford's Waste Management Project. During his time with the Fluor-Duratek team, Aromi was responsible for the management of Hanford's 200 Area Liquids Facilities, 242-A Evaporator, WRAP, 222-S and WSCF Laboratories, Solid Waste Treatment, and Storage and Transuranic Waste programs, receiving excellent performance ratings from DOE every year. ***************************************************************** 43 SNS is topic of Altrusa meeting Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:36 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 2002 Judy Trimble, Human Resources manager for the Spallation Neutron Source office, will discuss the Spallation Neutron Source Project at the meeting of Altrusa of Oak Ridge at noon on Wednesday, March 13, at First Presbyterian Church, 1051 Oak Ridge Turnpike. Trimble will describe the project and help people understand SNS, a $1.4 billion project that is the biggest United States science project under construction by the Department of Energy. An Altrusa member, Trimble has more than 12 years of human resources experience and has been responsible for service in staffing, compensation, employee development, and workforce planning and restructuring. She has a bachelor's degree in biology and a master's degree in plant pathology from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. She joined the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division in 1983 as a member of DOE's Biomass Program management team and has held several technical and administrative positions. She was instrumental in forming ORNL's Committee for Women in 1993 and served as a committee member for three years. Altrusa members may make reservations by calling Aleen Swofford at 558-9475 by 2 p.m. Tuesday, March 12. Non-members may make reservations by paying $10 for lunch in advance to Sandra Burchfield at the Garden Plaza, 215 S. Illinois Ave., Oak Ridge. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 44 Pact accelerates cleanup at Hanford Thursday, March 7, 2002 The Spokesman-Review.com - Yakima _ The U.S. Department of Energy and the state of Washington have signed an agreement to speed the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation by 35 to 45 years. The target date for completing cleanup had been 2070. The new target dates are 2025 to 2035. "This is the best news for Hanford since the signing of the original cleanup agreement," Gov. Gary Locke said Wednesday. Under the accelerated cleanup plan, the Bush administration has agreed to restore $300 million it had cut from Hanford's 2003 budget and provide an additional $150 million in 2003 to pay for cleanup work this year, bringing Hanford's total budget to more than $2 billion next year. The agreement was signed Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Ecology. It calls for speeding up retrieval of the more than 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks near the Columbia River. Over the years, the tanks have leaked more than 1 million gallons into the soil and groundwater. Construction is expected to begin late this year on a huge vitrification plant to turn 10 percent of that waste into glass logs for long-term storage. The new agreement also calls for faster cleanup of the Hanford corridor along the Columbia River; improving the vitrification plant to handle more waste; looking for alternative technology to dispose of less-radioactive tank waste; speed up processing of scrap plutonium; and speed up clean-out of the K Basins, where lethal, corroding rods of spent nuclear fuel are stored. The accelerated cleanup plan also includes a commitment to provide predictable and stable funding for work at Hanford through 2006. ***************************************************************** 45 MIT nuclear professor dies at 66 MetroWest Daily News.c o m - LOCAL NEWS Associated Press Thursday, March 7, 2002 CAMBRIDGE - Retired MIT nuclear engineering professor Lawrence M. Lidsky, a critic of the use of fusion as an energy source, died Friday at his Newton home after a 17-year battle with cancer. He was 66. Lidsky was assistant director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Plasma Fusion Center in 1983 when he wrote an article titled "The Trouble With Fusion" in MIT's Technology Review. At the time, Lidsky said he wrote the article because there wasn't enough "internal discussion" of the topic. "Some didn't care and some didn't want to know," he said. Shortly after the article's publication, Lidsky resigned from the Center. Lidsky later advocated development of meltdown-proof reactors which depend upon nuclear fission rather than fusion for their energy, an idea which garnered little enthusiasm in the United States at first, but has recently resurfaced. Professor Jeffrey P. Freidberg, head of MIT's Department of Nuclear Engineering, called Lidsky "one of the smartest people I have ever met." "He was often way ahead of his time in delivering insightful and crucial analysis of the prospects of both fusion and fission power," Freidberg said. Lidsky was born in New York on Oct. 15, 1935. He grew up in Brooklyn and graduated from Cornell with honors in 1958. Lidsky then entered the nuclear engineering graduate program at MIT. He received his Ph.D. in 1962, then joined the faculty as an assistant professor. He became an associate professor in 1968 and full professor in 1976. He was appointed an associate director of the Plasma Fusion Center in 1978. He retired from the MIT faculty last summer. He leaves his wife, Judith; his mother, Ada Lidsky of Waltham; two sons, Loren Lidsky of Newton and David Lidsky of Oakland, Calif.; a daughter, Jane Gray of Franklin; two brothers, Arthur Lidsky of Belmont and Ted Lidsky of Manalapen, N.J.; a sister, Judy Lidsky of Valley Stream, N.Y.; and seven grandchildren. © Copyright by the MetroWest Daily News and [http://www.hiasys.com] ***************************************************************** 46 'Bubble fusion' Fact or fiction? Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:47 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Rusi Taleyarkhan, an Oak Ridge scientist, has been thrust into the spotlight. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientist has attracted worldwide attention for his research, which suggests the possibility of nuclear fusion -- the sun's energy source -- during tabletop experiments involving the explosive collapse of bubbles in liquid. It's a process known as cavitation. Although Taleyarkhan eagerly talked with The Oak Ridger about the experiment, there was one question that he was hesitant to answer: Could this research lead to a Nobel Prize? "That is not for me to decide," said Taleyarkhan, who declined to discuss any hopes of getting that prestigious honor. "The work is far more important." Taleyarkhan, a senior scientist in ORNL's Engineering Science and Technology Division, and Richard Lahey Jr., a professor of engineering at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., are leading the collaborative research effort that also includes the Russian Academy of Sciences. The work was sponsored through the Department of Defense. According to Taleyarkhan, the experiment, which has been dubbed "bubble fusion," involves bubbles that grow in the presence of sound waves and collapse to produce pressures and temperatures that can be sufficiently high to result in light emissions called sonoluminescence. "Four years ago I got interested in sonoluminescence and performed single-bubble sonoluminescence research from which certain key insights were generated," he said. "This led to formulation of hypotheses wherein vapor bubbles could be nucleated on the nuclear scale, causing them to grow to large dimensions prior to implosive collapse." Evidence for tritium production and neutron emission was observed during the collapse of bubbles in the cavitation experiments, which used deuterated acetone (acetone with its normal hydrogen atoms replaced by deuterium, a heavy hydrogen isotope that can undergo fusion reactions). Normal acetone is a colorless, volatile liquid often used as a paint remover or chemical solvent. If correct, the results suggest that nuclear reactions may have occurred. Although this would be a significant discovery in physics, ORNL authorities are also quick to point out these are very challenging measurements. The neutron and tritium levels are small, and experience corroborates that measurements at these levels are difficult to interpret. Bill Madia, director of ORNL, chose his words carefully when discussing the research Thursday night. He was asked to do so during his talk Thursday night to the Friends of ORNL at the American Museum of Science and Energy. "Can we believe it (bubble fusion)?" an audience member asked. "Not yet," the ORNL chief responded. "We'll wait and see." Madia said he had no doubt that researchers worldwide are probably trying to reproduce Taleyarkhan's work, which has endured its share of criticism and controversy. In a repeat of the experiment that used slightly different equipment, Dan Shapira and Michael Saltmarsh of Oak Ridge National Laboratory argued the neutron emission they detected was too small to explain the tritium production reported by Taleyarkhan. "There's always controversy," said Taleyarkhan. "Skepticism and controversy keep people honest." Science magazine, a leading scientific journal, this week spotlighted the experiment. The magazine published a paper on the experiment by Taleyarkhan and his colleagues in addition to several other articles. Donald Kennedy, the magazine's editor in chief, wrote in an editorial that "Science received communications from two distinguished scientists Š raising objections to the paper and urging that we reconsider our plans to publish it." He also noted that several other people did not want Taleyarkhan's paper published. "I have been asked, 'Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?'" Kennedy wrote. "Well, that's what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That's where it belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay inside. "It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right," the editorial also stated. "We're not that smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be wrong, and a provocative result is not fully confirmed. What we are very sure of is that publication is the right option, even -- and perhaps especially -- when there is some controversy." In addition, Taleyarkhan shuns comparisons between his work and the notorious scientific experiment known as "cold fusion." That late 1980s project involved two researchers -- Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann -- prematurely announcing that they had achieved a fusion reaction at room temperature through chemical means. However, researchers failed to reproduce the work. "This is not cold fusion," said Taleyarkhan, whose work has undergone peer review. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 47 Q on 'bubble fusion' experiment Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:36 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 2002 Editor's note: The following question-and-answer form was prepared in order to help readers understand Rusi Taleyarkhan's research, which is being called "bubble fusion." A group of Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers and managers prepared the answers. Q. What exactly was measured in this experiment? A. Evidence for tritium production and neutron emission was observed during the collapse of bubbles in cavitation experiments using deuterated acetone. If correct, and this is a very important "if," the results suggest that nuclear reactions may have occurred. This would be a significant discovery in physics. Q. Why do you say "if?" A. These are very challenging measurements. The tritium and neutron levels are small, and experience has shown that measurements at these levels are difficult to interpret. In addition, an attempt to confirm the neutron data using a different detector and counting system yielded results that are not in agreement with the published data. The preliminary measurements are potentially very interesting, but it is premature to conclude that nuclear reactions have been achieved. Q. What about potential applications that may come from this experiment? A. We are far too early in the process to speculate on potential applications. If the effect is confirmed, there are obvious research opportunities. We have no way of knowing whether any practical applications, such as fusion energy, might be possible. The relevant cross sections for this particular process indicate that scale-up is unlikely. If the claim of nuclear fusion is indeed correct, these experiments would still have produced only one tenth of a millionth of a watt of power -- far too small to measure. Q. How does cavitation work? A. When a sound wave propagates through a liquid, the molecules in the liquid are subjected to positive and negative pressures. During the negative pressure phase of the wave, tiny bubbles in the liquid can grow dramatically (up to a factor of 1,000 in volume), since the pressure is below the vapor pressure. When the positive pressure phase of the sound wave passes, the bubble collapses, and the energy accumulated in the bubble during growth is released. This process is called "acoustic cavitation." Temperatures in the collapsing bubbles can reach 10,000 kelvin, sufficient to influence chemical reactions. Q. What is sonoluminescence? A. If the energy density in the collapsing bubble is sufficiently high, the residual gases are heated to incandescence and emit light. This is sound-induced light, or sonoluminescence. Q. How do you get nuclear reactions from sonoluminescence? A. The energy in the collapsing bubbles must be increased by a factor of one million above traditional sonoluminescence energies. One way to increase the energy in the bubbles is to increase volume change during the bubble growth phase. This process occurred in the present experiments. Numerical calculations suggest that temperatures in imploding bubbles could approach those required for nuclear reactions under certain conditions. Q. What is the nuclear reaction mechanism? A. The proposed mechanism is the fusion of two deuterium nuclei. This reaction has two pathways with approximately equal probabilities. The first pathway produces helium and a 2.5-MeV neutron. The second pathway produces tritium and protons. In this experiment, the 2.5-MeV neutron and tritium production were investigated as signatures for the reaction. Q. What is the next step? A. We believe it is very important that these measurements be repeated, and that differences in the data be resolved. We are planning follow-on experiments. We should know more in a few months. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************