***************************************************************** 05/08/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.118 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Stop nuclear industry from flexing its muscle 2 US: Brian Greenspun: Nuclear threat ignored 3 US: Guest editorial: Time for new nuclear plants NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 Czech Senate head promotes companies' bid to complete Bulgarian nucl 5 Russia told to pay Chernobyl man damages 6 US: Power Brokers Plan to Unplug Nuclear Plants 7 US: Studies in Favor of Indian Point's Closing List Power Effects 8 US: Nuke reactors: Safety must be top priority 9 US: NRC wants reactor top replaced 10 US: Regulators: No concern at TMI 11 US: No evidence of cracks at Fermi nuclear plant 12 US: Final written arguments made on Vermont Yankee sale 13 US: Power Brokers Plan to Unplug Nuclear Indian Point Plants NUCLEAR SAFETY 14 Germany: Ministry Criticized In Nuclear Case 15 Ukrainian lawmakers praise U.S. nuclear safety project 16 US: Chicago park site tested for thorium 17 US: Taking claims on nuclear exposure 18 US: Compensation program topic of demostration 19 AU: Keeping an eye on future with nuclear-test training 20 Controversy on Depleted Uranium Weapons Resurfaces in Italy 21 US: Phil PA: Inmates Want Payment for Experiments 22 Terrorists plan to use Kazakhstan in nuclear smuggling - TV cites 23 Threat of terrorism makes fear of nuclear war recede - Kyrgyz NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 24 US: House OKs Plan for Nev. Nuke Dump 25 Mushroom mop may clean up nuclear sites 26 Bitter fruit of the Soviet Union: The Russian village of 27 US: Congress Considering Solutions to Plutonium Controversy 28 US: Activist opposes plan to move nuclear waste 29 Taiwan Ed: Store waste at legislature 30 US: White House to Ask For Nuke Research 31 US: S. Carolina Airing Anti-Plutonium Ads 32 US: Administration to ask for long-term research into reducing both 33 US: House to Consider Nuclear Waste Plan 34 US: Activists, Legislators Urge Congress to Reject Fatally Flawed 35 US: Yucca opponents rally on eve of likely House defeat 36 US: DOE proposes science lab at Yucca Mountain 37 Environmentalists to Try and Convince Japan not to Bring Spent 38 US: House expected to ratify Yucca Mountain dump 39 US: State says EPA's rules on Yucca fail to protect public 40 US: 3-day Yucca protest planned 41 US: League of Women Voters opposes Yucca 42 US: O'Neil says Nevada should get compensation for Yucca 43 US: No Thanks to Goshute Waste site 44 US: Nevada Aims Ads at Utah 45 BNFL has unveiled its new look website. 46 Hazardous waste from Taiwan to be dumped in Solomon Islands 47 US: IEER | COGEMA: Above the Law? 48 US: Murtha wants off-site testing of nuclear dump in Parks 49 US: DOE blasts Hodges' plutonium ad 50 US: Nuclear waste we battled now haunts others 51 Taiwan to set up two commissions to address toxic waste dump NUCLEAR WEAPONS 52 Top-ranking U.S. diplomat heading to Moscow to hammer out arms 53 AU: Labor accused of hypocrisy over nuclear sub US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 Oak Ridge workers want benefits raised 55 Lawmakers upset over proposal to aid sick nuclear weapons workers 56 BWXT not ruling out subcontracting beryllium work 57 DOE ponders extending incinerator's lifespan 58 First SNS component completed on schedule 59 DOE payroll totals $144.3 million for OR residents 60 DOE's worker proposal attacked - 61 New Members Named to Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 62 NRC says Nuclear One faces danger of cracking due to age ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Stop nuclear industry from flexing its muscle 05/08/02 In his April 17 Forum article, "Davis-Besse's endless woes," Daniel Ford suggests that state attorneys general join, as they did in the tobacco litigation, to take action against trouble-plagued nuclear plants. This is easier to say than to do, as there are few effective legal remedies for state governments in the realm of atomic energy law. First, states are prohibited from regulating the radiological health and safety aspects of nuclear power reactors. This is a federally pre-empted field in which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction. Second, if a nuclear plant has an accident that causes radiological injuries or deaths, liability is capped by the Price-Anderson Act. The tobacco industry was never able to get this protection. Third, states seeking to get plant licenses revoked would have to file a show-cause petition with the NRC. Most of these petitions are denied, and no judicial review is available. Fourth, even in those cases in which judicial review is available, the Supreme Court has ruled that reviewing courts are to show extreme deference to the NRC, as that agency is making predictions at the "frontiers of science." The sad fact is that the nuclear industry has been able to get Congress, the NRC and the courts to skew the legal system in its favor. The Atomic Energy Act needs to be revised to make the industry and the NRC accountable to the public. Susan L. Hiatt Mentor Hiatt is director of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Inc. Regarding "Davis-Besse woes injure industry's PR efforts" (April 29): Ohio Turnpike workers passed a resolution opposing the Yucca Mountain, Nev., high-level nuclear waste transportation plan saying, they "would be placed on the 'front lines' of nuclear danger." The cities of Lakewood and Cleveland recently joined the opposition. This dangerous plan includes 100,000 shipments of nuclear waste passing through 43 states on roads and rails within half a mile of 50 million Americans. We will be at risk for exposure to high levels of radiation due to terrorist attacks, sabotage or when inevitable accidents occur. These nuclear wastes will most likely move through Ohio on I-90, I-480, the Ohio Turnpike, I-70 and key rail lines through Ohio urban and farmland areas. According to the Department of Energy, 70 to 310 accidents and more than 1,000 "incidents" will occur during a program of moving nuclear waste by truck. The shipment containers have been tested only in computer simulations and have never been physically tested for ability to withstand accidents. High-level nuclear waste must be moved someday because nuclear power plants are situated on bodies of water. But wastes should be moved only if doing so improves or solves the problem. The only real solution is to follow the lead of Germany and Sweden and plan for the orderly phase-out of nuclear power by tackling the problem at its source. Increasing energy efficiency and reliance on renewable energy resources will meet our current and future energy needs. Chris Trepal Cleveland Trepal is executive director of the Earth Day Coalition. © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Brian Greenspun: Nuclear threat ignored Las Vegas SUN May 07, 2002 Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. WHAT DOES every terrorist who hates America want? You guessed it, his own nuclear bomb. And where's he going to get it? You may have guessed right again if you said one of the thousands of trainloads and truckloads that President George W. Bush wants to send across this country to a site near Las Vegas for "safe storage." But, if you guessed that our nation's nuclear facilities would be the place for the bad guys to pick up their radioactive "starter kits" you would be wrong because they are the places that our president has promised to keep secure. Right? Not really. I don't know who was thinking what, or if they were even thinking at all, but President Bush's response to his energy secretary's request for $379 million -- for a "critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation and its people" -- was to slash this essential money by 93 percent. Presumably, this and other cuts have been made to stem the red ink in the president's budget this year because the country is not going to like $100 million-plus deficits after having spent the last decade of the 20th century fighting our way into the black and all the prosperity that comes with such an exercise. Personally, I don't have a big problem sinking into the red ink when it comes to paying for war and other needed "security" issues that plague our country from time to time. That's what normal Americans do when push comes to shove and they need to shove a little. As an aside, that's why I am still so befuddled at the reaction in this state to our senators' request for a few million dollars to fight this Yucca Mountain thing. Now's the time to find the money to pay for the fight, not listen to a million excuses why we can't do it. You would think from their negative reaction to such a request that most of the business community and gaming industry really don't care what happens to us and we all know that's not true, don't we? But, back to the budget for now. The American people will pay whatever they have to if the fight to defeat terrorism requires it. We will even pay an extra $379 million to keep our nuclear facilities safe from terrorist efforts to steal plutonium and other bomb-making ingredients or, God forbid, to prevent a direct attack on a nuclear power plant. But, it appears, no one has asked us how we want to spend our money, mostly, I suppose, because we take the president at his word that "nothing is more important than the national security of our country. Nothing is more important." Apparently, the budget is. Now I didn't come upon this view completely on my own. In fact, I was struck that a woman with whom I rarely agree, Arianna Huffington, opined on this very subject just a few days ago. Here's a little of what she said on the subject: "We know from the diagrams, computers, and 'Jihad for Dummies' manuals found in the bombed out caves of Tora Bora and Mazar-e-Sharif that the madmen of al-Qaida have their black hearts set on unleashing weapons of mass destruction on the people of America -- and would love nothing better than turning our own nuclear materials against us. "The vast amounts of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste stored at Energy Department facilities are enough to make a terrorist's mouth water but, evidently, not enough to stay the red pens of Mitch Daniels and the ruthless number-crunchers in the White House's Office of Management and Budget, who clearly have a very different definition of homeland security than the rest of us. "The Bush administration has been shameless in its willingness to play the national security trump card to promote the things it most cherishes -- from tax cuts to drilling in ANWR to the drug war to subsidies for corporate fat cats. So it's more than a little ironic that when it comes to doing something that will actually protect us, the president is suddenly unwilling to put our money where his mouth is." The one-time "darling of the right" continues at length to describe her disbelief in President Bush's actions and her discontent about the direction he seems to be taking us in our effort to secure our homeland. After comparing the sieve-like quality of our nuclear security to the clearly penetrable nature of our airport security pre-9/11, she asks, "Are we going to have to wait until we have a nuclear 9/11 before our leaders do all that they can to protect our nuclear sites?" And, then, the capper. "It's not like we're talking about an outrageous amount of money: $379 million to keep the ingredients of nuclear devastation out of the hands of mass murderers. That's only a few million more than the $250 million rebate the president's beloved rollback of the alternative minimum corporate tax would have given to Enron alone. And it pales beside the billions Bush wants for Star Wars." Those are Arianna's words not mine. But I wish I was smart enough to have said them first. I find the whole thing incredible, illogical, unfathomable and irresponsible in light of the knowledge that every bad man and his brother wants to whack us. It is not the economy, Mr. President. It is homeland security. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Guest editorial: Time for new nuclear plants [Perspective | Naples Daily News] Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Scripps Howard News Service Anti-nuclear activists have been telling reporters lately that nuclear power is now and will be forever a scary proposition, and express particular concern in one published report about damage discovered in reactors last year and earlier this year. They are right that the damage is nothing to scoff at, but if the thought is that nuclear power should therefore be scotched, they are as wrong as can be. Anti-nuclear activists have been telling reporters lately that nuclear power is now and will be forever a scary proposition, and express particular concern in one published report about damage discovered in reactors last year and earlier this year. They are right that the damage is nothing to scoff at, but if the thought is that nuclear power should therefore be scotched, they are as wrong as can be. The fact is — and this is hardly news — nuclear power is clean and has never killed one soul in this country. Coal-generated electricity pollutes heavily and coal mining has killed thousands. The problems detected in the reactors were in fact detected, and if they had not been and water had poured from the reactors, there were backup systems that would have kicked in to prevent disasters. The main thing to keep in mind is that these nuclear plants are aging, and one clear way around a recurrence of such problems is to build new plants employing new technology that would make a repeat of this problem next to impossible. Nuclear power is relatively cheap to produce once plants have been constructed, but constructing the plants has been expensive. The expense can be shaved, one author reminds us: If all plants were built very much the same in accordance with a standard approved by the government beforehand, the cost would go down considerably. New nuclear plants, which would be environmentally friendly and would be safer than the essentially safe ones already in place, are vital to this country's energy future. What chiefly stands in the way is an activist-fed superstition about them. It's time the public grew past that. [http://cfapps.naplesnews.com For Naples Daily News and naplesnews.com Copyright © 2002 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. Published in Naples, Florida. A Scripps [http://www.scripps.com] ***************************************************************** 4 Czech Senate head promotes companies' bid to complete Bulgarian nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 7, 2002 Sofia, 7 May: The Czech Republic wants Bulgaria to become a NATO member at its autumn Prague summit, Senate Speaker Petr Pithart, leading a Czech Senate delegation to Bulgaria, said today. "Bulgaria should be invited to join NATO mainly because it is an element of stability in the Balkans," Pithart told journalists after meeting parliament Speaker Ognyan Gerdzhikov... Bulgaria believes in enlarging the zone of stability to its territory and in a subsequent increase in its foreign investment in the country, Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg said during the meeting with Czech senators. The Bulgarian government said that it wanted to finish its nuclear power plant in Belene. Czechoslovak companies were among the main suppliers until the beginning of the 1990s. Prime Minister Simeon [Saxe-Coburg] said that the EU had no reservations about the plant and praised high level Czech technologies. Pithart confirmed Czech companies' interest in participation in finishing the plant... Source: CTK news agency, Prague, in English 1653 gmt 7 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 5 Russia told to pay Chernobyl man damages The Independent - United Kingdom; May 8, 2002 FRANCE: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg told Russia yesterday to pay damages to a man who suffered radiation poisoning while cleaning the exploded nuclear plant at Chernobyl. It ruled Anatoli Burdov, called up by the military to work at Chernobyl for three months, should be paid EUR3,000 (pounds 1,875) for delayed compensation payments. All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 6 Power Brokers Plan to Unplug Nuclear Plants The New York Observer May 6, 2002|7:40 PM by Josh Benson and Ian Blecher The noisy public debate over the fate of the Indian Point nuclear reactor came to City Hall on May 7, when energy-company executives, state officials and anti-nuke environmentalists testified before the City Council. There were a couple of novel highlights during the hearings—for example, one executive got into a discussion with a council member about precisely what size airplane could crash into the nuclear facility without causing a meltdown. But for the most part, the day’s discussions hewed fairly closely to the lines of public debate, with environmentalists and energy executives spinning rival stories of chaos and mayhem if the other side wins. But while the political and public-relations brawl over the facility’s future has grown in volume and emotion, industry players have been arriving at a behind-the-scenes consensus that may be more relevant to the fate of Indian Point than anything being hashed out in public. A series of interviews by The Observer with energy-policy experts and industry executives indicate that New York’s power brokers are preparing for a landscape without Indian Point. "If Indian Point were to be shut down, then there would be [a] need for replacement capacity of some kind," said Paul Parshley of American National Power, which is considering building a plant half the size of Indian Point in Ramapo, N.J. "So that would be interesting to us." Privately, other power-company executives were less reserved. "There are power plants waiting to be built," said one. "Because of Enron going under, energy companies can’t get the money they used to be able to get. But that money will appear if Indian Point closes. We’re all drooling, basically." Interestingly, the scenarios laid out to The Observer bore little resemblance to either the painless and speedy plant decommissioning envisioned by anti-nuclear environmentalists or the nightmarish emergency situation sketched out by the plant’s owners. Mostly, they go like this: The plant continues to operate for a few more years and then shuts down, to be replaced by a host of new, profitable facilities that would spring up to replace it. "It all depends on the assumptions you put into the model," said Liam Baker, a manager of asset development for Reliant Energy, which is currently seeking to revive a stalled project to upgrade a gas-powered plant it operates in Queens. "What you’d probably see in the short term [if Indian Point closes] is a small increase in cost for consumers. In the long term, it would probably level out." Before Sept. 11, the notion of closing Indian Point was largely a fantasy of the anti-nuclear movement. But the prospect of further terrorist attacks, and reports that Afghanistan-based terrorists may have planned to target nuclear facilities in the New York area, gave the issue a sudden urgency—and new advocates. Still, the idea that Indian Point might be taken offline anytime before the end of its original licensing period in 2015 seems unattainable, for several reasons. Foremost is the fact that the two operating nuclear reactors at Indian Point produce 20 percent of the electricity consumed in New York City. If that energy-producing capacity were to disappear tomorrow, the potential consequences would be dire. In his testimony before the council, William Museler—who heads New York’s power oversight board, the New York Independent System Operator—said that he had "serious concerns" about what would happen to energy prices and reliability if Indian Point were shut down, predicting a possible repeat of the summer of 2001, when prices soared. A report commissioned by the Entergy Corporation, which operates the facility, envisions a scenario in which the facility vanishes overnight, and pegs the hypothetical cost to consumers at $3.4 billion over the next four years. But here’s the catch: No one in any position of authority really expects the plant to close down tomorrow, or any time this year. As a result, say many experts and industry executives, the assumption upon which the report was based—namely, that Indian Point would suddenly cease to exist—produced conclusions that were entirely unrealistic. Mr. Museler said his concerns about power shortages would not necessarily apply in the case of a longer-term shutdown. "If you actually replaced power that Indian Point would generate and also build enough plants to take care of [increasing demand], then from a reliability standpoint you can probably solve that problem," said Mr. Museler. He also said that the effect on energy prices would be impossible to determine without knowing about what the replacement facilities would be. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said that although the report was based on current circumstances, it would be impossible to determine the long-term consequences of shutting down the plant. "It takes six, eight or 10 years to build some of the plants that get certified, so I don’t know if a couple of years makes a big difference," he said. "We also know that some of these projects might not get built at all." But some analysts feel that the report ignores something else: the obvious financial incentive that closure of Indian Point would provide to other companies looking to build power plants to serve the New York area. "The numbers in the Entergy report are way overblown," said an executive in a Wall Street firm who specializes in energy issues. "There’s no way it’s going to cost consumers billions of dollars to close that plant. There are too many other companies that can make money selling power here." Mirant Corporation, for example, was given permission to open a plant in Rockland County on March 25. At the moment, however, the project is stalled, mainly because the company is having trouble raising enough capital to complete construction—an increasingly common problem for energy companies after Enron’s collapse. But Lou Friscoe, a Mirant executive, said that financing would be much easier to come by if Indian Point closed. "The power demand would certainly increase [without Indian Point], which is good for us," he said. Another company, New Jersey–based PSEG, has been trying for two years to build connections that would allow New York to import electricity from plants the company is building across the Hudson. This would be done at PSEG’s own expense, and would go some way towards relieving the chronic and highly limiting congestion of the city’s power lines. The plan is tied up in bureaucracies on both sides of the river. Perhaps not surprisingly, PSEG executives also are watching what happens with Indian Point. "Anything that would remove a considerable source of supply would have an impact on both the market going forward as well as the reliability issue," said PSEG spokesman Neil Brown, who insisted that the company did not wish to see Indian Point close. "Any loss of supply from any reason is a boon to us." If all the plants currently in various stages of the approval process went through, there would actually be a surplus of energy in the New York area, according to some estimates. Mr. Steets acknowledged that other companies would act to make up the loss of energy, but suggested the only beneficiaries would be the companies themselves. "We know that by shutting down Indian Point, other utilities will of course make more money on electricity, but it would also drive up costs that are now reasonable for consumers," he said. "Good for them that it creates an opportunity for them, but it’s not a good scenario for rate-payers." In reality, it is nearly impossible to make precise calculations of the long-term costs of shutting the plant down. On that score, Indian Point’s opponents haven’t been above a little bit of creative formulation, either. When You Assume …. A report commissioned by Riverkeeper, an environmental group advocating the immediate shutdown of the facility, concludes that, under the right circumstances, the loss of Indian Point–generated electricity could be offset by conservation and the importing of energy from sources outside New York. "The permanent retirement of [Indian Point] would not lead to any reliability problems …. " the Riverkeeper report says. But this assumes both that consumers would voluntarily accept conservation measures and that prospective plant builders would continue to invest in new plants to replace Indian Point’s power—with no guarantee that Indian Point would close. In other words, it wouldn’t be easy. "You can’t shut it down without a plan," said Ashok Gupta, an energy specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "You need to have new generators and an efficiency program in place. If they want to shut it down this summer, I’d say they’re running out of time." Marija Ilic´ a senior research engineer for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was slightly harsher in her assessment. "In order for these ideas to work, the technology has to be in place, and it’s not there yet," she said. "They’re wrong." Kyle Rabin, a policy analyst for Riverkeeper, defended the report. "We’re not talking about closing the plant and doing nothing," he said. "Of course we believe that there should be a plan." Mr. Rabin said that even an immediate plant closure would leave enough energy for New York consumers to buy. "You would dip into reserve margins slightly, but you wouldn’t have blackouts and brownouts," he said. Mr. Rabin also asserted that even this amount could be compensated for by state-encouraged conservation programs. "New York State has the potential for real progress in efficiency and conservation," he said. "The state used to invest more in efficiency programs, and power companies used to have to promote it. We could definitely do more. Remember that California was a national leader in conservation, and they were still able to make a huge dent in their demand through conservation." The most realistic solution to the problem is somewhere in the middle of what’s currently being discussed by the warring sides. For logistical and other reasons, the plant would take several years to close under any circumstance. There would be no power shortage, though consumer prices might increase as cheaply generated nuclear energy is replaced by fossil fuels or small, eco-friendly turbines. In the meantime, New York would rid itself of a nuclear facility that produces more radioactive waste than it’s equipped to handle, and which many residents feel is unsafe. So everyone would be a winner, right? Well, not exactly. For Entergy and its employees—who have been increasingly vocal in countering calls for the plant’s closure—it would be a disaster. Not only would Entergy be out the $1 billion it paid for the plant, but the closing would set a precedent for its other nuclear plants across the country, which represent almost its entire asset portfolio. "We’re talking about 1,500 employees making $130 million in salary at Indian Point, plus a couple of hundred others in White Plains," said Mr. Steets. "We would be talking about a pretty devastating economic impact just locally." An increasing number of experts say that both the pro– and anti–Indian Point forces are getting farther from reality, not closer, and that market realities may leave them behind. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has the ultimate authority on decisions to close plants, intends to keep the plant open for now, rendering academic all talk of what would happen in the case of an immediate shutdown. The real worry, say energy experts, is that no one seems to be taking a long view of the situation. "You can’t just close the plant tomorrow and hope that the environmentalists were right," said Ms. Ilic´ "But you also can’t buy the other [Entergy] argument that closing it would be a disaster. You have to work in a very systematic way towards making the transition of the system into what customers need." You may reach Josh Benson and Ian Blecher via email at: jbenson@observer.com and iblecher@observer.com. back to top This column ran on page 1 in the 5/13/2002 edition of The New York Observer. THE NEW YORK OBSERVER ***************************************************************** 7 Studies in Favor of Indian Point's Closing List Power Effects May 8, 2002 By KIRK JOHNSON Closing down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, despite the grim predictions about blackouts and soaring electricity costs, might not be as painful as the plant's owners have contended, according to two new studies commissioned by opponents of the plant. The studies, issued yesterday by the environmental group Riverkeeper and the Pace Law School Energy Project, say that the lost power would be more than made up for by a falloff in electricity demand caused by the recession and the disruption of business in Lower Manhattan, along with the prospect of seven new gas-fired plants that could be built in New York State over the next five to seven years. Conservation measures like those used in California last year could also sharply cut demand, the studies say. Many environmentalists and public officials have expressed concern since Sept. 11 that Indian Point's two reactors, about 40 miles north of Midtown Manhattan in Buchanan, N.Y., could be a target for terrorists and that evacuation plans might not be workable in such a densely populated area. The plant's owner, Entergy Corporation, released a study last week by two independent research groups, which concluded that closing the plant could cost consumers $3.4 billion over the next four years in developing alternative sources. One of the reports released yesterday, by Synapse Energy Economics, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., said that last week's study underestimated the amount of new electricity supply in development, and overestimated how much demand will grow. The other report, by Charles Komanoff, an independent energy consultant in Manhattan, said that using the same legislative and policy tools that cut peak demand by 10 percent in California last summer, New York could more than make up for losing Indian Point's power as soon as this summer, even if no new plants were built. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | ***************************************************************** 8 Nuke reactors: Safety must be top priority The Daily Telegram - Superior, Wisconsin Last Updated: Tuesday, May 07th, 2002 10:33:59 AM Deterioration of two nuclear reactors has raised serious new concerns about safety of the nation's reactors as they get older. The most basic question is whether the inspections are adequate and whether we're simply lucky there hasn't been another Three Mile Island accident. The discoveries included a hole through most of the six-inch steel reactor cover at a power plant in Ohio. Severe cracks found in a reactor in South Carolina last year lead to a government-ordered inspection that discovered the hole in March. The fact that the damage has surprised safety officials and the industry as a whole means that something is wrong here. The hole at the 25-year-old Davis Besse reactor in Ohio was discovered before there were serious problems. But federal regulators find the recent cases of corrosion deeply troubling, with some officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calling the recent cracks and corrosion as the biggest safety problem since the Three Mile Island accident. In short, there was deterioration that wasn't expected. In both cases, the cracks and the hole, it's possible that thousands of gallons of radioactive water could have escaped from the reactor, risking overheating of the core's radioactive fuel (and maybe a meltdown and release of radiation from the larger containment building in the worst case). As one might expect, industry spokesmen say they believe the backups systems would have worked, preventing serious problems. That may be true, but we shouldn't wait for the next incident of reactor cracks to find out. One expert said everything has to work as it's designed to prevent larger problems. And if emergency pumping systems get clogged with debris or human mistakes are made, then a more serious accident isn't fantasy. What all this suggests is that this is still dangerous technology that gets unpredictable as the reactor material ages. And it's important that the federal government increase its inspections, carefully study this unexpected material corrosion and take its time in deciding whether to extend the licenses for utility reactors. ***************************************************************** 9 NRC wants reactor top replaced 05/08/02 John Funk Plain Dealer Reporter The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's top engineers yesterday made it clear they would rather see FirstEnergy buy a new reactor head for the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant than fix the rust hole in the old one. The comments came at the conclusion of a grueling five-hour NRC critique of FirstEnergy's analysis into what went wrong at Davis-Besse. William Bateman, chief of the NRC's materials engineering research section, said it was the consensus of the top NRC staff that the company would have "a clear path" to getting the reactor back on line if it chose to buy a new head instead of trying to make the repair. The comments were short of an official ruling, but they were the first clear indication of the direction in which the NRC staff is leaning. The company is considering purchasing an old - but never-used - head from Dearborn-based Consumers Energy Co., which owns a partially completed reactor in Midland, Mich., near Saginaw Bay. The reactor and its head have remained in a closed containment building since 1984, when the company abandoned the project because of financial problems. "We have discussed this at the highest levels of [NRC] management," said Bateman. "We have discussed it with the licensee. . . . Our sense is there do not seem to be any show stoppers." The repair, however, is another story, he said. "We have not seen our way clear to approve the repair plan," Bateman said. In hopes of saving time, FirstEnergy wants to remove the corrosion by cutting out a 17½-inch-by-6-inch hole in the head and welding a 450 pound chunk of stainless steel into it. That's the biggest version yet - FirstEnergy officials said it needed to be bigger because of possible greater corrosion. Before it would approve a weld plan, Bateman said the NRC will require the company to build two mock-ups of the damaged head and successfully weld patches into them before attempting to make the real fix. The repair will also have to undergo a lengthy inspection, he said. FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider last night insisted the preparations to make the repair were continuing but added that "there have been conversations of that [buying the Midland head] being an option." In speaking to financial analysts last month, FirstEnergy's top officers hinted at the Midland purchase as a backup plan while maintaining they still believed a repair could be made and the power plant restated by the third quarter, possibly September. While David-Besse is down, the company must buy high-priced energy, hurting earnings. It was not clear last night how long it would take to ship the Midland head from Michigan and modify it to fit on the Davis-Besse reactor. Last night, Schneider repeated the early fall start-up target - with a caveat. "Our position is the plant will be ready to restart in the third quarter. However, we cannot speak to what the NRC will do," he said. The plant was closed Feb. 16 for a 30-day refueling and NRC-ordered inspection of the alloy tubes that carry the reactor control rods through the head. Cracks had occurred in these sleeves at two other power plants. By early MArch, inspectors found cracks in five sleeves. Yesterday they reported to the NRC that ultrasonic inspections had detected 27 cracks in the tubes. Ten of the cracks had penetrated the tube walls, allowing boric acid solution into the interior of the carbon-stell head, where it ate the rust hole, they reasoned. Cracking could have started in 1990, they said. NRC officials were startled yesterday when FirstEnergy revealed that for the first time that there was one more crack in one of the control rod sleeves than previously been reported, prompting them to question the integrity of the entire FirstEnergy report. The NRC last night made it clear it intends to treat both the company's continuing investigation into what caused the corrosion and its proposed repain in a conservative way. Contact John Funk at: jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Regulators: No concern at TMI Philadelphia Inquirer | 05/08/2002 | Posted on Wed, May. 08, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] Problems were found at aging nuclear facilities in other states, but only minor cracks at the Pennsylvania plant. By Faye Flam Inquirer Staff Writer Three Mile Island is among those nuclear plants considered most vulnerable to the kind of unexpected corrosion and cracking found at aging plants in Ohio and South Carolina, but inspections have found no immediate cause for concern, both the owner and federal regulators said yesterday. Routine inspections at the plant near Harrisburg - site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident, in 1979 - did find eight cracks as of April 9, Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said. But the reactor vessel was fully intact and all existing cracks have been repaired, said Ralph DeSantis, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp., the company that operates both TMI and Davis Besse, the Ohio plant that was found to have a hole burned nearly through its six-inch protective steel cover. As a precaution, aging parts at TMI similar to the ones that caused problems in Ohio will be replaced, DeSantis said. The entire lid of TMI's reactor vessel also will be replaced next year using new, more crack-resistant materials, he said. The components where cracking seems most apparent are nozzles in the reactor vessel that make contact with mechanical parts that raise and lower control rods into the reactor core. It is a problem unique to 68 plants around the country that use pressurized water to transfer heat out of the reactor. Only two other plants in all of New Jersey and Pennsylvania - Salem, in southern New Jersey, and Beaver Valley, in far western Pennsylvania - depend on pressurized water. Inspections showed no problems at either, officials said yesterday. There are no nuclear plants in Delaware, and all the other plants in the region - Oyster Creek and Hope Creek in New Jersey, and Limerick, Peach Bottom and Susquehanna in Pennsylvania - use a different system for transferring power. "We've looked at all the remaining 68 pressurized water reactors [around the country] and found none that caused us alarm," said Brian Sharon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's assistant director for licensing and technology assessment. At the Davis Besse reactor on the shore of Lake Erie, tiny cracks in some mechanical parts allowed a corrosive coolant to leak and burn a hole in the reactor vessel. Cracks were also found at the Oconee plant in South Carolina. After a series of inspections, the NRC listed 14 other plants that might be vulnerable to the problem. Three Mile Island was among them. "What we found at TMI had no safety significance," said DeSantis, the spokesman for FirstEnergy. Anti-nuclear activists warned, however, that the hole at Davis Besse shows how little engineers know about the hazards of the nation's nuclear-power plants as the plants grow old. Paul Gunter, director of the anti-nuclear group Reactor Watchdog Project, said that even if new materials to be used for the reactor lid at TMI prove more crack-resistant, they will eventually give out. "The issue here is the cracking we're witnessing - neither the industry nor the NRC understand how the cracks are initiated or how quickly they can grow to failure," he said. "We're in the dark." But others say there's no danger as long as the plants keep up maintenance and inspections. "It's kind of a fact of life. Things made of metal crack," said Ralph Beedle, a nuclear engineer and vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. "You repair them and go about your business." Beedle said that TMI and other reactors were built to last for 40 years, but engineers expect to change components as they age. TMI opened in 1974. "It's like changing things in your car," Beedle said. "It doesn't mean you throw away the whole automobile." Contact Faye Flam at 215-854-4977 or fflam@phillynews.com [fflam@phillynews.com] . ***************************************************************** 11 No evidence of cracks at Fermi nuclear plant Monroe Evening News May 07, 2002 Problems at other aging nuclear plants have raised new questions about safety, however. By EVENING NEWS STAFF and AP Detroit Edison Co. officials say they've found no evidence at the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant of the kind of severe reactor vessel cracks discovered at FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse plant near Port Clinton, Ohio. But discovery of a hole that went nearly through the 6-inch steel dome at Davis-Besse and severe cracks found about a year earlier at a South Carolina reactor have raised new questions about aging nuclear plants and whether they are being inspected closely enough. Both incidents have had plant operators scurrying to look for cracking in reactor control rod nozzles and, more recently, for corrosive boric acid on reactor domes. It was a government-ordered inspection prompted by cracks found in South Carolina in early 2001 that led to the discovery of the Davis-Besse hole in March. A primary reason for the corrosion was the longtime escape through nozzle cracks of borated water from inside the Davis-Besse reactor vessel, investigators have concluded. Edison officials said previously that Fermi is a different type of reactor from Davis-Besse, control rods are configured differently and boron isn't used as an element in reactor water. Edison spokesman Scott Simons said no special inspections are planned at Fermi, but both visual inspections and ultrasound testing is done at the Fermi plant, mostly during plant refueling shutdowns. "During the last outage in November, nothing significant was found," he said. Indeed, so far, no one else is reporting the kind of corrosion found at the Ohio plant. While 14 reactors on a close-watch list have reported at least 62 nozzle cracks, most of them have been fixed and the rest are on a schedule for repair, industry and government officials said. A spokesman for Duke Power says the 23 cracks found at its three Oconee reactors at Greenville, S.C., have been fixed. Still, the discoveries have prompted new questions about aging nuclear power plants. "It was material degradation that wasn't expected," acknowledges Alex Marion of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. Still, he added, the problems should not affect relicensing since the problems are identified and being dealt with. Some industry critics disagree. "The concern here is that with this inherently dangerous technology, when it ages it becomes more and more unpredictable in terms of how rapidly things can break, leak and crack," argues Paul Gunter, an anti-nuclear activist and industry watchdog. Most reactors have a 40-year license and a growing number of utilities are planning extensions. FirstEnergy Corp.'s 25-year-old Davis-Besse reactor on the shore of Lake Erie has been shut down since February, waiting for the hole in the reactor dome to be patched. Like the reactor nozzle cracks found at the 28-year-old Duke Power-owned Oconee reactor, the hole at Davis-Besse was discovered before anything serious could go wrong, nuclear experts said. Still, federal safety regulators view the findings especially at Davis-Besse so troubling that some senior officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) privately have characterized the cracking and corrosion as the most significant safety issue facing the nuclear industry since the Three Mile Island accident 23 years ago. Fifteen anti-nuclear groups, including the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes with members in the Monroe area, have petitioned the NRC to have a team of independent consultants verify the safety levels at Davis-Besse. The steel reactor vessel, which encloses the reactor's core, has always been viewed as "a sacred component" that will not be breached, said Brian Sheron, the NRC's assistant director for licensing and technology assessment. "This really challenges that assumption." Only a thin noncorrosive stainless steel membrane kept the hole at the Ohio reactor from bursting open. And nuclear experts say if the cracks at the Oconee plant had been allowed to continue, the nozzle might have separated. In both cases, thousands of gallons of radioactive water would have escaped from the reactor, raising the risk of the core's radioactive fuel overheating and - in a worst-case scenario - possibly a meltdown and a release of radiation from the larger concrete containment building. Industry spokesmen said they are convinced backup safety systems would have averted more serious problems by pumping more water into the reactor than was being allowed. But that's true if everything worked as planned, counters David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and industry watchdog for the Union of Concerned Scientists. If the emergency pumping systems becomes clogged with debris, if other equipment is damaged or a gauge misread as workers struggle to keep the fuel covered with water, a more serious accident might be unavoidable, he said. The Davis-Besse corrosion was caused by a buildup of boric acid from reactor cooling water that had been leaking from nozzle cracks since the mid-1990s. The first signs of corrosion appeared four years ago when rust began clogging filters, investigators said. Despite a 1988 NRC directive to keep reactor lids free of boron, the layers of the powdery deposits hardened so much atop the dome - where access is difficult because of space and radiation exposure - that workers couldn't pry it loose. ©Monroe Evening News 2002 ***************************************************************** 12 Final written arguments made on Vermont Yankee sale Boston Globe Online: Print it! By Associated Press, 5/8/2002 06:48 MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) The state agency that represents utility ratepayers before the Public Service Board has again endorsed the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. The Department of Public Service told the board in legal papers filed Tuesday that the proposed sale to Entergy Nuclear Inc. is in the best interests of the state and should be approved. Three environmental groups oppose the sale, while one consumer group says it should be conditioned on a requirement that some of the money received for the nuclear plant be returned to ratepayers. James Volz, public advocate for the department, told the board that the sale would transfer the risks of owning and eventually dismantling an aging nuclear plant away from the ratepayers of its current owners, chief among them Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Green Mountain Power Corp. ''An important shifting of potentially higher costs for operations and decommissioning that would be borne by our ratepayers ... under the sale will be borne by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY),'' Volz wrote. Volz asked the board attach conditions to the sale, including: The plant must continue to meet Vermont's standard for limiting off-site releases of radiation, which is stricter than the national standard; And Entergy would have to get the state's approval if it wants to extend Vermont Yankee's operations beyond the currently scheduled 2012 expiration of its license. Vermont Yankee and Entergy are hoping for a decision from the board by mid-June. The final arguments capped a process that began last August, when Vermont Yankee's utility owners announced they had reached a deal to sell the plant to Entergy Nuclear for $180 million. The deal also contains a power buy-back agreement under which CVPS and GMP agree to continue taking their current allotment of power from the Vernon reactor, and to pay Entergy for it. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Citizens Awareness Network both maintained the sale was a bad idea. In the middle was the Vermont Electricity Consumers Coalition, which said it supported the sale, as long as some of the profits from the $180 million sale went to reduce power rates in Vermont. The New England Coalition's lawyer, James Dumont, said the board should be wary of giving up control over the plant's operations. ''Approval of this sale will dramatically reduce the board's authority to influence or control Vermont's energy future. That loss does not promote the general good,'' Dumont concluded. ***************************************************************** 13 Power Brokers Plan to Unplug Nuclear Indian Point Plants The New York Observer by [jbenson@observer.com] and [iblecher@observer.com] The noisy public debate over the fate of the Indian Point nuclear reactor came to City Hall on May 7, when energy-company executives, state officials and anti-nuke environmentalists testified before the City Council. There were a couple of novel highlights during the hearings—for example, one executive got into a discussion with a council member about precisely what size airplane could crash into the nuclear facility without causing a meltdown. But for the most part, the day’s discussions hewed fairly closely to the lines of public debate, with environmentalists and energy executives spinning rival stories of chaos and mayhem if the other side wins. But while the political and public-relations brawl over the facility’s future has grown in volume and emotion, industry players have been arriving at a behind-the-scenes consensus that may be more relevant to the fate of Indian Point than anything being hashed out in public. A series of interviews by The Observer with energy-policy experts and industry executives indicate that New York’s power brokers are preparing for a landscape without Indian Point. "If Indian Point were to be shut down, then there would be [a] need for replacement capacity of some kind," said Paul Parshley of American National Power, which is considering building a plant half the size of Indian Point in Ramapo, N.J. "So that would be interesting to us." Privately, other power-company executives were less reserved. "There are power plants waiting to be built," said one. "Because of Enron going under, energy companies can’t get the money they used to be able to get. But that money will appear if Indian Point closes. We’re all drooling, basically." Interestingly, the scenarios laid out to The Observer bore little resemblance to either the painless and speedy plant decommissioning envisioned by anti-nuclear environmentalists or the nightmarish emergency situation sketched out by the plant’s owners. Mostly, they go like this: The plant continues to operate for a few more years and then shuts down, to be replaced by a host of new, profitable facilities that would spring up to replace it. "It all depends on the assumptions you put into the model," said Liam Baker, a manager of asset development for Reliant Energy, which is currently seeking to revive a stalled project to upgrade a gas-powered plant it operates in Queens. "What you’d probably see in the short term [if Indian Point closes] is a small increase in cost for consumers. In the long term, it would probably level out." Before Sept. 11, the notion of closing Indian Point was largely a fantasy of the anti-nuclear movement. But the prospect of further terrorist attacks, and reports that Afghanistan-based terrorists may have planned to target nuclear facilities in the New York area, gave the issue a sudden urgency—and new advocates. Still, the idea that Indian Point might be taken offline anytime before the end of its original licensing period in 2015 seems unattainable, for several reasons. Foremost is the fact that the two operating nuclear reactors at Indian Point produce 20 percent of the electricity consumed in New York City. If that energy-producing capacity were to disappear tomorrow, the potential consequences would be dire. In his testimony before the council, William Museler—who heads New York’s power oversight board, the New York Independent System Operator—said that he had "serious concerns" about what would happen to energy prices and reliability if Indian Point were shut down, predicting a possible repeat of the summer of 2001, when prices soared. A report commissioned by the Entergy Corporation, which operates the facility, envisions a scenario in which the facility vanishes overnight, and pegs the hypothetical cost to consumers at $3.4 billion over the next four years. But here’s the catch: No one in any position of authority really expects the plant to close down tomorrow, or any time this year. As a result, say many experts and industry executives, the assumption upon which the report was based—namely, that Indian Point would suddenly cease to exist—produced conclusions that were entirely unrealistic. Mr. Museler said his concerns about power shortages would not necessarily apply in the case of a longer-term shutdown. "If you actually replaced power that Indian Point would generate and also build enough plants to take care of [increasing demand], then from a reliability standpoint you can probably solve that problem," said Mr. Museler. He also said that the effect on energy prices would be impossible to determine without knowing about what the replacement facilities would be. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said that although the report was based on current circumstances, it would be impossible to determine the long-term consequences of shutting down the plant. "It takes six, eight or 10 years to build some of the plants that get certified, so I don’t know if a couple of years makes a big difference," he said. "We also know that some of these projects might not get built at all." But some analysts feel that the report ignores something else: the obvious financial incentive that closure of Indian Point would provide to other companies looking to build power plants to serve the New York area. "The numbers in the Entergy report are way overblown," said an executive in a Wall Street firm who specializes in energy issues. "There’s no way it’s going to cost consumers billions of dollars to close that plant. There are too many other companies that can make money selling power here." Mirant Corporation, for example, was given permission to open a plant in Rockland County on March 25. At the moment, however, the project is stalled, mainly because the company is having trouble raising enough capital to complete construction—an increasingly common problem for energy companies after Enron’s collapse. But Lou Friscoe, a Mirant executive, said that financing would be much easier to come by if Indian Point closed. "The power demand would certainly increase [without Indian Point], which is good for us," he said. Another company, New Jersey–based PSEG, has been trying for two years to build connections that would allow New York to import electricity from plants the company is building across the Hudson. This would be done at PSEG’s own expense, and would go some way towards relieving the chronic and highly limiting congestion of the city’s power lines. The plan is tied up in bureaucracies on both sides of the river. Perhaps not surprisingly, PSEG executives also are watching what happens with Indian Point. "Anything that would remove a considerable source of supply would have an impact on both the market going forward as well as the reliability issue," said PSEG spokesman Neil Brown, who insisted that the company did not wish to see Indian Point close. "Any loss of supply from any reason is a boon to us." If all the plants currently in various stages of the approval process went through, there would actually be a surplus of energy in the New York area, according to some estimates. Mr. Steets acknowledged that other companies would act to make up the loss of energy, but suggested the only beneficiaries would be the companies themselves. "We know that by shutting down Indian Point, other utilities will of course make more money on electricity, but it would also drive up costs that are now reasonable for consumers," he said. "Good for them that it creates an opportunity for them, but it’s not a good scenario for rate-payers." In reality, it is nearly impossible to make precise calculations of the long-term costs of shutting the plant down. On that score, Indian Point’s opponents haven’t been above a little bit of creative formulation, either. When You Assume …. A report commissioned by Riverkeeper, an environmental group advocating the immediate shutdown of the facility, concludes that, under the right circumstances, the loss of Indian Point–generated electricity could be offset by conservation and the importing of energy from sources outside New York. "The permanent retirement of [Indian Point] would not lead to any reliability problems …. " the Riverkeeper report says. But this assumes both that consumers would voluntarily accept conservation measures and that prospective plant builders would continue to invest in new plants to replace Indian Point’s power—with no guarantee that Indian Point would close. In other words, it wouldn’t be easy. "You can’t shut it down without a plan," said Ashok Gupta, an energy specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "You need to have new generators and an efficiency program in place. If they want to shut it down this summer, I’d say they’re running out of time." Marija Ilic´ a senior research engineer for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was slightly harsher in her assessment. "In order for these ideas to work, the technology has to be in place, and it’s not there yet," she said. "They’re wrong." Kyle Rabin, a policy analyst for Riverkeeper, defended the report. "We’re not talking about closing the plant and doing nothing," he said. "Of course we believe that there should be a plan." Mr. Rabin said that even an immediate plant closure would leave enough energy for New York consumers to buy. "You would dip into reserve margins slightly, but you wouldn’t have blackouts and brownouts," he said. Mr. Rabin also asserted that even this amount could be compensated for by state-encouraged conservation programs. "New York State has the potential for real progress in efficiency and conservation," he said. "The state used to invest more in efficiency programs, and power companies used to have to promote it. We could definitely do more. Remember that California was a national leader in conservation, and they were still able to make a huge dent in their demand through conservation." The most realistic solution to the problem is somewhere in the middle of what’s currently being discussed by the warring sides. For logistical and other reasons, the plant would take several years to close under any circumstance. There would be no power shortage, though consumer prices might increase as cheaply generated nuclear energy is replaced by fossil fuels or small, eco-friendly turbines. In the meantime, New York would rid itself of a nuclear facility that produces more radioactive waste than it’s equipped to handle, and which many residents feel is unsafe. So everyone would be a winner, right? Well, not exactly. For Entergy and its employees—who have been increasingly vocal in countering calls for the plant’s closure—it would be a disaster. Not only would Entergy be out the $1 billion it paid for the plant, but the closing would set a precedent for its other nuclear plants across the country, which represent almost its entire asset portfolio. "We’re talking about 1,500 employees making $130 million in salary at Indian Point, plus a couple of hundred others in White Plains," said Mr. Steets. "We would be talking about a pretty devastating economic impact just locally." An increasing number of experts say that both the pro– and anti–Indian Point forces are getting farther from reality, not closer, and that market realities may leave them behind. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has the ultimate authority on decisions to close plants, intends to keep the plant open for now, rendering academic all talk of what would happen in the case of an immediate shutdown. The real worry, say energy experts, is that no one seems to be taking a long view of the situation. "You can’t just close the plant tomorrow and hope that the environmentalists were right," said Ms. Ilic´ "But you also can’t buy the other [Entergy] argument that closing it would be a disaster. You have to work in a very systematic way towards making the transition of the system into what customers need." You may reach Josh Benson and Ian Blecher via email at: [jbenson@observer.com] and [iblecher@observer.com] . New York Observer. ***************************************************************** 14 Germany: Ministry Criticized In Nuclear Case F.A.Z. - English Version F.A.Z. HANAU. Reports that allegedly radioactive soil had been found near nuclear facilities in Hanau continued on Tuesday to cause public outrage and political fingerpointing. The Hesse Environment Ministry, in particular, drew fire from Hanau officials and citizens because it reportedly knew since early 2001 of the discovery of radioactive pellets in the soil at a Hanau nuclear fuel plant but did not inform the public. "We have a collective anger because we were not informed," said Hanau Mayor Margret Härtel, who added that many residents of the city were worried about possible health hazards. The prosecutor's office in Hanau confirmed on Monday that it had been investigating the discovery of radioactive pellets in soil samples taken from the Nukem plant. The prosecutor's office also said that it had been passing on all information on its investigation to the ministry. May 7 © Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2002 ***************************************************************** 15 Ukrainian lawmakers praise U.S. nuclear safety project KPnews.com -- News about Ukraine 07 May 2002 The Associated Press KYIV, May 7 - Ukraine's parliament singled out a U.S. company Tuesday for developing what lawmakers called Ukraine's best investment project for improving nuclear security, a news agency said. The fuel and energy committee of the Verkhovna Rada praised GSE Systems of Columbia, Maryland for its work at the Khmelnytsky atomic plant assisting operators to detect minor malfunctions and prevent them from turning into serious accidents, the Interfax news agency said. The company has teamed up with Russian and Ukrainian subcontractors under projects sponsored by the U.S. Energy Department to improve safety at all of Ukraine's nuclear power stations. The report did not specify the amount of GSE's investment in Ukraine. Ukraine was the site of world's worst nuclear catastrophe in 1986, when a reactor at the Chornobyl power plant exploded and caught fire, spewing radiation over much of Europe. Chornobyl was closed down for good in 2000. Reactors at Ukraine's four nuclear power stations are frequently shut down for both planned and unscheduled repairs. On Tuesday, Ukrainian authorities shut down reactor No. 3 at the Yuzhna nuclear station for two days of scheduled repairs. Ten of the country's 13 reactors are currently operating. © 2000 SputnikMedia.net. The material may not be reproduced without the ***************************************************************** 16 Chicago park site tested for thorium Chicago Tribune | Advocates hope lakefront project gets needed push By Julie Deardorff Tribune staff reporter Published May 8, 2002 DuSable Park, an undeveloped, controversial patch of lakefront land at the mouth of the Chicago River, was tested for radioactive thorium and radium Tuesday, a hopeful sign to park advocates who have been waiting for a commemorative public space there for more than 15 years. The thorium contamination, discovered two years ago, is just the latest obstacle in the park's rocky evolution. Since then, the project has been stalled until the level of contamination is known and can be removed. Results of the soil samples are expected in three to four weeks, said Fred Micke, the on-scene coordinator with the Environmental Protection Agency, which conducted the testing along with a former owner of the property, Kerr-McGee. "It has been a struggle, but the three-acre peninsula will be a jewel when it's completed," said Linda Wheeler of the Chicago DuSable League, a member of the DuSable Park Coalition. For many park supporters, the extended battle over the isolated, overgrown meadow is more than just an attempt to preserve one of the last undeveloped pieces of land in the River East area. The park was named when it was nothing but a vision, and it was meant to honor Chicago's first non-native settler, Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, who arrived in the area by canoe. Virtually inaccessible and hidden from view, the neglected parcel between the Chicago River and Ogden Slip near Navy Pier was designated as a park in 1987 during then-Mayor Harold Washington's administration. But it wasn't until July 1999 that the Chicago Park District, which now owns the land, completed preliminary plans. A year later, the Park District galvanized community groups by announcing plans to lease the land for a parking lot. In response to protests, the parking lot idea was indefinitely shelved. When the EPA surveyed the area as part of a general investigation into the Streeterville community, where several sites had already been contaminated with thorium, DuSable Park also recorded signs of radioactive material. The source is most likely the old Lindsay Light Co., which used thorium to make lantern mantles from 1910 to 1936. Aerial photos show that mounds of soil and construction debris were deposited at the DuSable Park site between the mid-1970s and early 1980s, the EPA said. Though thorium is a naturally occurring, radioactive metal present in small amounts in all rocks, soil, water, plants and animals, it also is a known carcinogen that can be lethal at high doses. "This [testing] is long overdue," said Bob O'Neill, president of the Grant Park Advisory Council, a member of the DuSable Park Coalition. "We need to know how extensive the cleanup is. If we have to cart out all the soil, it's obviously a much bigger deal than capping over it." But just who pays for the cleanup, if one is necessary, is still unresolved. Though officials with the EPA's Superfund program are involved, the park is classified as a "non-time critical removal site," which means it's not a national priority. Cleanup of the thorium site in West Chicago, for example--which was a critical removal site--cost more than $400 million. "We need to see the scope of the problem. How much we find will have some bearing on how easy it is to come to a resolution about who pays," said EPA Superfund spokesman Mick Hans. "There will be discussions between the EPA, Kerr-McGee, the Park District and others involved in the property over the years." In addition to the potential cleanup, the site's revetment wall might need to be rebuilt and could cost $2.5 million, O'Neill said. Repairs alone would be around $400,000. The park itself is expected to cost $5 million, and so far, $1.1 million in private funding has been raised for the site, including a statue of du Sable to be created by sculptor Martin Puryear, a former professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Puryear, who lives in New York, is soliciting public comment on his proposal and held a meeting Tuesday at the Art Institute of Chicago. On Monday, he met with the presidents of the DuSable Museum of African-American History, the Art Institute and the Chicago Historical Society to discuss the du Sable statue, which has generated controversy over its abstract design. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 17 Taking claims on nuclear exposure Buffalo News - The federal government's program to compensate nuclear weapons workers had generated 1,439 claims from Western New York as of April. Now those administering the program will once again be here to help people fill out their applications. Claims takers will be at the Best Western Lockport Inn, 515 S. Transit Road, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday and next Wednesday and at the Tonawanda Community Center Philip Sheridan Building Community Room, 3200 Elmwood Ave., Kenmore, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. May 16 and 17. Those who worked at a number of facilities in Western New York that produced nuclear weapons, and who had a radiogenic cancers, may be eligible for a lump sum payment of $150,000, as well as payment of medical expenses. If the worker has died, his spouse or adult children may be eligible. The area facilities are: Ashland Oil, Linde Ceramics Plant and Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda; Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna; Bliss & Laughlin Steel, Linde Air Products and Utica Street Warehouse in Buffalo; Electro Metallurgical, Hooker Electrochemical, Lake Ontario Ordinance Works and Titanium Alloys Manufacturing in Niagara Falls; Simonds Saw and Steel in Lockport; and the West Valley Demonstration Project. For information, call toll-free (866) 363-6993. (Dial 1 first.) Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 18 Compensation program topic of demostration The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- 05/07/02 Looks like all those people frustrated with the compensation program for job-sickened nuclear workers will have a venue for voicing their displeasure. May 16 has apparently been designated Worker's Compensation Protest Day and will include a demonstration near the Oak Ridge field office for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. "This will be a peaceful demonstration and intended to get the attention of those who are depriving us of medical help and compensation for sick workers," said Jerry Tudor, who is trying to organize the event. Tudor, 55, who worked at the Y-12 National Security Complex, says he has prostate cancer and has been on disability since 1995. He added that he is struggling to get compensation after applying for the program in July. The compensation program, which officially began July 31, 2001, provides medical care and a payment of $150,000 to sick workers or their survivors, if the workers were exposed to cancer-causing radiation or to silica or beryllium, which are linked to lung diseases. The program is administered by the Labor Department. A group of sick workers gave the program a "D-minus" on a report card they issued to the Labor Department in February. Complaints about the program range from the number of medical problems it doesn't cover to the slow pace at which the Department of Energy has been operating in turning over "important" information relating to exposures. Last week, David Michaels, a consultant to the Labor Department on the compensation program, visited Knoxville to inform a group of DOE-related officials about the more than $43 million that's been paid out to Oak Ridge employees or their survivors through the compensation plan. Some published newspaper accounts of Michaels' talk have Helen Hardin, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District, chanting "$40 million! $40 million!" when questions were asked about the unfairness of some of the compensation program's rules. Tudor said he's glad Hardin tried to stir the questions back toward the positive aspects of the program because it inspired him to organize the demonstration. "She has really built a fire under me," Tudor said. The demonstration is expected to take place from 11 a.m. to noon on Thursday, May 16, near the compensation office, which is located at 800 Oak Ridge Turnpike. "We'll stay as long as the people are able to," Tudor said. "There may be five of us there or 5,000." Speaking of Wamp, whose congressional district includes Oak Ridge, he issued the following statement to the press after the $43 million figure was announced: "It is so rewarding to know that in just the first few months, more than 40 million dollars have been paid to Tennesseans who became sick as a direct result of their national security work at Oak Ridge. This compensation could never make up for the illnesses the workers and families have suffered, but our country is officially recognizing their service and providing them with financial and medical help so many desperately need. "The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program law that I cosponsored will help these Cold War workers whose health has been impacted by their exposure to harmful substances during their employment at DOE sites. These workers and their families need Congress's support to get early detection screening and compensation." Paul Parson is the science and technology reporter for The Oak Ridger. He can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or [pparson@oakridger.com] . [http://www.oakridger.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 19 AU: Keeping an eye on future with nuclear-test training canberra.yourguidewww.yourguide.com.au From GRAHAM COOKE, in Vienna Canberra geologist Paula Boldra is in training for a job that may be years away - monitoring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. She is in Vienna on a six-month course, after which she will be able to use her skills to search for changes in the environment that would indicate a country is breaching the treaty by testing nuclear weapons. The problem is that the document, established in 1996, is not yet in force. That will require the signature and ratification of all 44 countries in the crucial Annex Two of the treaty, nations that either possess nuclear weapons or have the facilities where they could be created. Australia, among the 44, was prompt to sign and ratify, in 1996 and 1998 respectively, but North Korea, India and Pakistan have done neither and the 13 countries that have signed but not ratified include the United States, China and Israel. Even so the treaty's optimistically named Preparatory Commission, based in Vienna and working under the auspices of the United Nations, is pressing ahead with programs including the training of monitors, of which Ms Boldra is a part. Employed by Geoscience Australia (formerly the Australian Geological Survey Organisation) she said at the very least the course was improving her skills, which could be called on at any time. "I am training to do seismic, hydro acoustic and infra sound measurements here," she said. "I have already done the seismic side of the work, which monitors movements in the earth, back in Australia, but the other two - measuring for nuclear explosions in the air or water - are quite new to me. "It's an additional experience to take back home." She was one of six chosen from 80 applicants for the course, which will continue through the northern summer. Up to now there had been very little practical work, "mostly lectures and instructions in how to handle the computer software you need for the job". Ms Boldra came to geology almost by accident. After leaving high school in Bowral she worked in a bank for three years and then left Australia to go travelling, a project which stretched on for several years as she ended up in Africa, working as a guide on adventure tours. "It was on one of these tours that I went into Namibia, looked around at the rock formations there and just went 'wow'," she said. "At the same time there was a geology student from England who explained what I was looking at. The thought that I might one day be a geologist began to form then." Also, the excitement of the travel business was beginning to pale. "On my last trip I was ill for quite a while, and I thought 'it's time to go back to Australia and do that university course I had been thinking about for so long'," she said. "That's what brought me to Canberra in 1998 - my original idea was to do the geology course at the University of Canberra and get out of the place as soon as possible - but then I got some summer work at Geoscience Australia and that prompted me to apply for a job there as an earthquake analyst. I've been with them ever since, getting more interested and involved as the work progressed. I still haven't completed that uni course." ***************************************************************** 20 Controversy on Depleted Uranium Weapons Resurfaces in Italy Xinhuanet 2002-05-08 04:43:46 ROME, May 7 (Xinhuanet) -- Italian Defence Minister Antonio Martino said on Tuesday that a scientific committee's report on the unusually high number of cancer cases, widely believed to have been related to the use of depleted uranium weapons, among Italian soldiers who took part in NATO peace-keeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo would be made known. This will be the third time the committee reports to the Italian government on the issue. The controversy over the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons resurfaced in Italy last week after a state-run radio show revealed that a number of children fathered by Italian soldiers who served in the Balkans and Somalia had been born with genetic malformations. The program said it had found seven cases of genetically malformed children born to troops who had served on peacekeeping missions in which DU weapons were deployed. The fathers, who preferred to remain anonymous, said their children suffered from the same sort of illnesses found among many of the offspring of soldiers who took part in the 1991 Gulf War operation Desert Storm and numerous children in Iraq. In particular, they cited bone deformations. RAI-News 24 produced evidence showing that Italy possessed DU munitions from 1985 on and that these weapons were used by Italian peacekeeping forces serving in Somalia in 1992-94 and were even used on some Italian firing ranges up until 2001. Senator Lorenzo Forcieri, who is head of Italy's parliamentary delegation at NATO, called for an immediate parliamentary inquiry into the allegations. "This isn't a question of creating alarm but of taking courageous action in a bid to find out the truth ... Our troops cannot be treated like cannon fodder," he said. The DU controversy exploded early in 2001 after Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands reported a spate of cancer cases among soldiers who took part in peace-keeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. During the 1999 Kosovo war, U.S. planes were reported to have fired about 31,000 rounds of DU ammunition at Serbian targets while in 1995, U.S. bombers fired 10,800 rounds of the same type of ammunition in Bosnia. But an Italian government report issued in March last year said there was no evidence of a link between DU weaponry and the 25 or so cases of cancer encountered in Italian Balkan veterans. Because of its density, depleted uranium is put on the end of shells and bullets which are then more effective and can even pierce armour-plating on tanks. Copyright © 2000 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Phil PA: Inmates Want Payment for Experiments Excite News 05/08/2002 5:24 AM EDT By BILL BERGSTROM (AP) Hazwz Turner, a former Philadelphia prison inmate, left, listens to the statements of Dr. Bernard... PHILADELPHIA (AP) - One after another, former city prison inmates came forward, pointing out scars they said were the marks of years of medical experiments in which they served as guinea pigs. Alfons J. Skorski, 52, showed a scarred leg he said resulted from an athlete's foot test at Philadelphia's Holmesburg Prison in 1970. A week later his foot lost all feeling and he could walk only "by taking a step forward with my left foot and dragging my right foot." Skorski said that even now, "if I don't concentrate on that right foot it will still droop down, causing me to trip." More than a half dozen former inmates appeared at a City Council committee hearing Tuesday to testify about the experiments they say were conducted on them. They are seeking an apology and compensation. Many of the inmates' stories were told in the 1998 book "Acres of Skin," by Temple University instructor and prison activist Allen Hornblum, who also testified Tuesday. A lawsuit filed in October 2000 on behalf of 298 former inmates claims the testing exposed the inmates to infectious diseases, radiation, dioxin and psychotropic drugs - all without their informed consent. It names as defendants the city of Philadelphia; Dr. Albert Kligman, a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist who conducted much of the research and is credited with developing the acne and anti-wrinkle treatment Retin A; the university; and Johnson &Johnson and the Dow Chemical Co., whose products were allegedly among those tested on inmates. The medical testing at Holmesburg began in 1951 and didn't end until 1974, when it was banned, Hornblum said. A federal judge ruled that the statute of limitations for such lawsuits expired about 20 years ago, said Tom Nocella, attorney for the plaintiffs. But Nocella said the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments on an appeal in July. Councilman David Cohen said he chaired Tuesday's hearing, which will resume May 28, to try to "see that the city ceases the dangerous stance in which it, instead of answering questions, tries to hide behind legal technicalities." The city and other defendants in effect argued "even if you're right, you're too late," Cohen said. "We don't think that kind of defense makes any sense." Mayor John Street's office didn't return calls seeking comment. After Hornblum's book was published, the University of Pennsylvania offered to examine any former Holmesburg inmates who thought they were harmed by Penn studies, and "that offer still stands," spokeswoman Rebecca Harmon said Tuesday. She noted that Kligman has said using paid prisoners as research subjects in the 1950s and 1960s was in keeping with "standard protocol" at that time. "To the best of my knowledge ... no long-term harm was done to any person who voluntarily participated," he said. Dow Chemical Co. spokesman Scott Wheeler said the lawsuit was a result of "applying what was common practice in the 1960s to 2002 eyes. All this is something that happened 40 years ago." Johnson &Johnson has said it tested some cosmetic and skin-care products in the prison in the late 1960s and early 1970s but didn't test any ingredients cited in the prisoners' lawsuit, and hasn't done testing on prison inmates since, according to spokesman Marc Marceau. Cohen said the city should apologize and compensate the test subjects regardless of the legal outcome. He noted the federal government waited 65 years to apologize for the 1930s Tuskegee experiment, in which government doctors let black men in an Alabama county go untreated for syphilis. "We don't want to have to wait until there are just three survivors," Cohen said. Articles From AP Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All right reserved. This ***************************************************************** 22 Terrorists plan to use Kazakhstan in nuclear smuggling - TV cites French ministry BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 7, 2002 [Presenter, over video of French scenes] International terrorists are going to use Kazakhstan as a transshipment base for smuggling nuclear materials, the French Interior Ministry has said, citing testimonies of members of terrorist groups who have been detained. (?Raymond Lobe), (?Serge Salfatti), and (?Yves Eklava) were arrested at a Paris airport several months ago while trying to fly to Kazakhstan. The police confiscated a lead container with five grams of enriched uranium-235. According to an expert examination, this amount would have been enough to make a nuclear bomb [as heard]. The detainees, who have only now started to give their testimonies, said that they thought that Kazakhstan was a most convenient point to transit nuclear materials to Afghanistan. Even if a container were to have been found on them during transit, then this would have tarnished the image of Kazakhstan where a certain amount of nuclear materials have indeed been stolen. Source: Kazakh Commercial Television, Almaty, in Russian 1030 gmt 7 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 23 Threat of terrorism makes fear of nuclear war recede - Kyrgyz president BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 7, 2002 Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev has described international terrorism as the new threat to the world, so great that it has caused fears of nuclear war to recede. Giving his state-of-the-nation address to a joint session of the Kyrgyz parliament, Akayev said, in remarks reported by a Kyrgyz agency: "11 September will forever remain a black date in the history of humanity. On TV screens, the world for the first time saw with its own eyes the nature and scale of the new threat hanging over mankind. International terrorism has become this new threat. Its main nest, as it turned out, was in neighbouring Afghanistan. Former concerns over a nuclear confrontation between the great powers, which used to rouse the consciousness of people all over the world, have receded to the background." Akayev also pointed to Kyrgyz support for the antiterrorist coalition: "President George Bush's call to set up an antiterrorist coalition and US practical actions received our full support. In coordination and agreement with partners and allies, we gave our consent to the deployment of the coalition's military contingent on our territory, hereby contributing substantially to the joint efforts. This met both our national interests and the interests of the partners and allies of Kyrgyzstan." "We could not have acted otherwise," Akayev went on to say. "The danger was not at the other end of the world. It was threatening the threshold of our own home." More to follow. Source: Kabar news agency, Bishkek, in Russian 0000 gmt 7 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 24 House OKs Plan for Nev. Nuke Dump Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Washington, D.C. Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Last updated at 3:05:05 PM PT By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER An employee of the the Yucca Mountain Project walks through a tunnel in the mountain near Mercury, Nev., May 22, 2001. The House on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, endorsed President Bush's decision to send U.S. nuclear waste to Nevada, voting to override the state's objections to a radioactive dump 90 miles from Las Vegas. Lawmakers rejected arguments that thousands of waste shipments across 43 states would pose safety and security risks. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch, File) WASHINGTON -- Ignoring protests from Nevada, the House on Wednesday overwhelmingly embraced President Bush's decision to bury tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste in volcanic rock 90 miles from Las Vegas. The lawmakers by a three-to-one margin approved a resolution to override a veto by Nevada of Bush's plans to develop Yucca Mountain as the central repository for 77,000 tons of used reactor fuel and other highly radioactive waste accumulating in 39 states. Opponents, including Rep. Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leader, argued that it would be too risky - especially after last September's terrorist attacks - to ship the waste across the country by truck and rail. But supporters of the radioactive dump argued that the waste poses a greater risk if it remains at more than 130 locations, including at 103 commercial power reactors. Half of the House Democrats joined all but a handful of Republicans in supporting the president's decision, approving the resolution 306-117. "Where are my colleagues who are advocates for states' rights, local control?" asked Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. He maintained that the Energy Department has failed to ensure that the waste would be kept safely isolated for the expected 10,000 years some of its isotopes will be dangerously radioactive. In Nevada, Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said, "We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on parallel track in the courts." Three lawsuits already are in the courts, challenging the Yucca plan. After Bush announced in February he would seek a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for the Yucca facility, Nevada vetoed the selection under a provision of the federal nuclear waste law. Congress must override the veto by late July if Bush's decision is to stand. "Certainly the Senate will take note of the overwhelming bipartisan support the Yucca Mountain project has received in the House," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. He expressed confidence that the Senate will endorse the project and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will find that it meets standards for health and safety. Supporters of the site said Yucca Mountain had been studied for two decades at a cost of nearly $7 billion. It is "scientifically proven safe" and as a single, central storage facility is preferable to "the current hodgepodge" of locations now holding the waste, said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. His state has 11 power reactors, most of any state, and a growing waste problem. But Gephardt argued that even with the Nevada dump "we'd still have nuclear waste stored around the country decades from now" and thousands of shipments of nuclear material on highways and rail systems. Abraham called the concerns about waste transport "baseless allegations" and said that over the past 30 years nuclear waste has been carried more than 1.6 million miles without a harmful release of radiation. "Currently more than 161 million people live within 75 miles of a nuclear waste storage site," said Abraham. Power reactors generate about 2,000 tons of used reactor fuel annually with about 40,000 tons already kept in reactor pools and - in a small number of cases - concrete bunkers. Several thousand tons of waste also is kept at federal facilities as part of the nuclear weapons complex. The nuclear industry has argued that the Energy Department under its contracts with utilities was obligated to take the used reactor fuel by 1998 but failed to do so. At the same time, ratepayers already have paid billions of dollars into a fund for a central repository yet to be built. A 1987 law required that only Yucca Mountain was to be studied as a potential repository, eliminating potential sites in Texas and Washington. The cost has been estimated at $58 billion for construction, waste shipments and the first 50 to 100 years of operation. At some point it would be shut in, making the buried waste no longer retrievable. Nevada was singled because it is "a small state with a small congressional delegation," complained Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov/ Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/ 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 25 Mushroom mop may clean up nuclear sites Ananova - French chemists say mushrooms mop up radioactive pollution. They say a pigment found in the fungi could be used to stop radiation getting into the food chain. Scientists may be able to design a synthetic version of the pigment and use it on a kind of fly-paper for radiation. Mushrooms like the bay boletus accumulate caesium-137 even though it has no known natural sources. It also mops up toxic metals like lead and mercury. Caesium-137 was released into the atmosphere following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Nature reports the way in which caesium binds to the pigment norbadione A depends on the acidity of the environment. Anne-Marie Albrecht-Gary of the Université Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg, France, says the pigment constantly changes shape so it can accept more and more caesium ions. Story filed: 09:50 Wednesday 8th May 2002 ADD THESE SUBJECTS TO YOUR NEWS: Find out how Pollution Amazing science Natural world Copyright © 2002 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 26 Bitter fruit of the Soviet Union: The Russian village of Muslyumovo, in the Ural mountains, is a picturesque home to 4,500 people. But, once a dumping ground for a nuclear processing plant, it is also one of the most radioactive places on the planet. Phot The Guardian - United Kingdom; May 8, 2002 Dangerous ground . . . Muslyumovo, in the Ural mountains 2,500km east of Moscow, is just 30kms from the old Soviet Mayak nuclear processing plant which dumped its waste in the nearby Techa river in the early 50s. Greenpeace has branded the village one of the most contaminated places in the world. Clockwise, from top left: an environmental officer tests radiation levels in fruit sold by a villager; two boys display their catch from the Techa; cows grazing on contaminated pastureland; one of the area's many deformed, stillborn babies, kept at the Chelyabinsk medical institute; celebrating a wedding with vodka (some locals believe alcohol protects them from radiation); and a boy emerges from a dip in the polluted waters All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 27 Congress Considering Solutions to Plutonium Controversy Environment News Service: AmeriScan: May 7, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC, May 7, 2002 (ENS) - Legislation now before Congress attempts to address the concerns of South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges over planned plutonium shipments to his state. Senator Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican, introduced the Senate version of a bill that aims to settle a dispute between the state of South Carolina and the Department of Energy (DOE) over shipments from the agency's Rocky Flats facility to the Savannah River Site. Representative Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, sponsored the House version. The legislation would codify part of a plutonium disposition agreement proposed by the DOE. Under the agreement, the DOE would build a facility in South Carolina to process the waste into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, which would be shipped to and used at nuclear power plants. If the facility is not producing at least one metric ton of fuel by January 1, 2009, the DOE would remove at least one ton of the plutonium from South Carolina and ship it to another site. If the DOE fails to meet this requirement, it would be fined $1 million per day up to $100 million per year until the requirement is met. If by 2017, the MOX program is not operating successfully, then all plutonium remaining in the state shall be removed. An additional $1 million per day fine, up to $100 million per year, would be charged during the removal period. The DOE says the bills would address "all of the concerns the state of South Carolina has raised regarding the plutonium disposition program." Governor Hodges has pledged to block the shipments, using state troopers to blockade roads if necessary, until he receives assurances that the plutonium will not be stored in South Carolina after it is processed. On May 1, he filed a lawsuit against the DOE, seeking a stay against any plutonium shipments until the agency completes environmental studies which Hodges charges the DOE has illegally disregarded. "While some progress has been made, the clock is ticking," Hodges wrote in a letter to the state's congressional delegation. "Unless we act now, plutonium could begin crossing our borders two weeks from today with no legal safeguards for our state." The DOE hopes that the legislation introduced May 2 will persuade Hodges to rescind his lawsuit. "We have engaged, for months, in bipartisan negotiations with South Carolina leaders to bring this matter to resolution," the agency said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the recent filing of a lawsuit by Governor Jim Hodges runs completely counter to any effort to work together to reach a solution. We hope that the Governor would join his own delegation in Congress and work to pass this legislation, and withdraw his ill timed, unnecessary and counterproductive lawsuit." The bills introduced by Representative Graham and Senator Thurmond would levy fines of $1 million a day against the federal government if it has failed to convert at least one ton of plutonium into MOX fuel by 2011. To stop these penalties, the government would have to accelerate its fuel conversion process or move the remaining plutonium to another state. "Quite frankly, intended or not, the Governor's lawsuit has chilled promising negotiations," said Graham. "We needed to introduce legislation before anyone could dismantle or walk away from their commitment to the concessions we've already won." The DOE plans to begin shipments of plutonium from Rocky Flats before the end of May, to help meet a federally mandated schedule for closing Rocky Flats by 2006. * Waste Characterization Could Speed Hanford Cleanup WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana, May 7, 2002 (ENS) - Researchers armed with a laser are learning how to condense millions of gallons of radioactive nuclear waste in leaky tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state. Their study is the first to describe the chemistry of waste formed by aluminum and alkaline, or caustic sodium compounds, mixing with high level radioactive material, said Cliff Johnston, lead author and Purdue University environmental scientist. This knowledge will be applied to the permanent disposal of the 53 million gallons of radioactive material held in 177 giant underground tanks at the Hanford site. Most of the storage tanks are at least 50 years old, 30 years older than the original intended usage, according to the Tri-Party Agreement, a consortium of the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Of the 177 tanks, 149 of them are have only one outer wall, and 67 of these single shelled tanks are suspected to have leaked an estimated one million gallons of high level waste. The radioactive waste includes a combination of aluminum clad nuclear fuel rods and caustic solutions added to the storage tanks to break down the rods and minimize tank corrosion. In studying how the different aluminum compounds in the tanks transform from a soluble liquid to a solid form, the scientists also are learning more about how to handle the toxic waste. "We've gained new information about the chemistry of aluminum in these very concentrated waste solutions," said Johnston, a Purdue agronomy professor. "The significance of that is related to two different areas: minimizing high level nuclear waste volume for permanent storage, and eventually determining what happens to the material when it leaks out of the tank." Scientists want to be able to decrease the waste volume by evaporating as much water as possible, making transport easier and storage less expensive. "In order to decrease the volume of the waste and deal with any that has leaked into the soil, we ultimately must learn the conditions necessary for the soluble forms of aluminum to be transformed into a solid," Johnston said. Johnston and his team of researchers have developed a method using a laser to measure molecular vibrations so they can study the soluble forms of aluminum in waste material samples. The technique could test tank contents from a distance, and eliminate the need for samples to be removed from the tanks. Congressional has ordered the DOE to begin moving the nuclear waste to permanent storage facilities by 2007. The Tri-Party Agreement has pledged to complete cleanup at Hanford between 2025 and 2035, 35 to 45 years sooner than planned. For cleanup and testing at Hanford alone, the government is spending about $1.5 billion each year. The Savannah River Nuclear Reservation in Georgia stores an additional 35 million gallons of high level nuclear waste in tanks similar to those at the Washington facility. The report was published on the "Environmental Science and Technology" Web site and scheduled to appear in the journal's June 1 print issue. * © Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 Activist opposes plan to move nuclear waste Welcome to NewsOK.com May 08, 2002 By Larry Levy The Oklahoman TULSA -- Carrie Dickerson, the woman who kept nuclear power production out of Oklahoma 25 years ago, announced a protest Tuesday against a government proposal to move spent nuclear fuel throughout the nation to permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, Nev. At a news conference, she urged Oklahomans to flood congressmen with pleas to vote against two proposals that could come up for a vote as early as today. The first proposal is for moving the fuel from nuclear power plants across the nation to the site near Las Vegas. Movements are expected to begin in 2010, according to the government's Yucca Mountain Web site. President Bush notified Congress on Feb. 15 that he considered the Yucca Mountain site scientifically and technically suitable for storage of high-level, radioactive waste. While rail is considered the prime method to move spent nuclear fuel, Dickerson distributed a map showing truck routes through Oklahoma. One would originate in Arkansas and follow Interstate 40, one of four transcontinental east-west routes. The second originating at power plants in Louisiana and Gulf Coast states would go through Texas to about Dallas and then north on Interstate 35 to where it joins I-40 in Oklahoma City. The second proposal would permit the construction of new nuclear power plants after receiving permits from the Energy Department, but that plants already with permits would not need to go through the permit process a second time. That, Dickerson said, would include the Black Fox plant southwest of Tulsa on the Verdigris River proposed by Public Service Co. of Oklahoma in 1974. She and the organization she formed -- Citizen's Action for Safe Energy -- managed to halt construction of the $2.4 billion project in 1982 when it was only 1 percent complete. While being moved, even under escort, the shipments would be subject to attacks by terrorists, she said after referring to the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the terrorist attacks Sept. 11. "My neighbors and all Oklahomans don't need to be taught the terrorism lesson a third time," she said, reading from a prepared statement. Such shipments "are a terrorist's dream," she said. Dickerson referred to potential danger during shipment from the nation's aging transportation infrastructure that have been the subject of recent news reports -- bridges in need of repair and replacement and track failures. She also said the Yucca site posed dangers because it was on an earthquake fault, near a dormant volcano and sits over a large water table. Those issues were taken into consideration, according to information on the government's Web site, and are not considered potential risks to either the nuclear fuel or to people. Dickerson said she favors increased security at the current 103 nuclear power facilities where the nuclear fuel already is located, either as actively producing electricity or in storage until they can be safety moved. Moving the spent fuel also means that the site can continue to operate by reusing the storage facilities already in place at each location. If a catastrophe occurs at the Yucca site, near where the government has conducted many nuclear explosion tests, the "U.S. will be wiped out. This is not pie in the sky," said Nadine Barton of Tulsa, a spokesman for the action group. © 2002, Produced by NewsOK ***************************************************************** 29 Taiwan Ed: Store waste at legislature The Taipei Times Online: 2002-05-08 Wednesday, May 8th, 2002 Letters: President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) was wrong to invoke the "golden rule" in response to the young Tao student's petition for the removal of the low radioactive waste storage facility from Orchid Island ("Child upstages Chen after speech," April 9, page 2). The low radioactive waste is safe and should not be considered an undesirable menace by educated decision makers in the central government. It is only a menace to those superstitious and naive minorities to whom the government has failed to devote sufficient educational resources. The win-win solution is to transfer the "harmless cans" to the Legislative Yuan where, supposedly, the brightest of the nation convene. A low-radioactive waste storage facility should be included in the planned new legislature and the entire project should be financed by the government's nuclear waste fund. As the number of legislative seats is reduced, more room will be made for new cans. The legislature should be surrounded by civil servant dormitories and ministries so that there are no ignorant civilian neighbors complaining about these gifts of progress. Why leave those yellow cans in a neighborhood of Luddites, whose fear is beyond salvage, when the government district offers an enlightened neighborhood whose residents will have the intelligence to understand the science and engineering involved. Fossil fuel supplies will always be uncertain and the so-called renewable energy sources have yet to reach either econo-mic efficiency or scale. Nuclear power must remain an option. The government is responsible for educating its citizens about the safety of nuclear technologies. Storing low-radioactive waste in the legislature will go a long way to convince citizens that the yellow cans are not evil spirits. The legislature has to do more to secure Taiwan's nuclear future beyond merely forcing the government to resume construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. One further step it could take would be to store the spent nuclear fuel in the legislature where no thief or terrorist would be able to get to it. The landmark status of the building will ensure proper management well into the future and beyond the half life of the isotopes. Legislators, please learn to take comfort in the nuclear safety technologies of the 21st century. Chekgiau William Ng Sanchung, Taipei County This story has been viewed 274 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/05/08/story/0000135136] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 White House to Ask For Nuke Research Las Vegas SUN May 07, 2002 WASHINGTON- The Bush administration plans to ask Congress to expand long-term research into reducing the amount of nuclear waste produced by the U.S. nuclear energy and reduce the cost of disposal, the Energy Department said Tuesday. Energy Undersecretary Robert Card said there is for now "a riveting focus" on getting approval for a waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But he added, "We should be looking at science and technology that would reduce the cost." President Bush's decision in February to go ahead with the Yucca Mountain facility 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was to face its first congressional test Wednesday. The House is expected to vote to override Nevada's veto of the president's decision. The Senate will take up the matter this summer and is beginning the process with a series of committee hearings this month. Anticipating congressional rejection of the veto, which would allow implementation of the Yucca Mountain disposal plan, Card said the department's focus for now is on getting a license application ready for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2004. Assuming the license is approved, the disposal facility is expected to open in 2010. Card also said the administration will ask Congress for "tens of millions of dollars" on broader long-term scientific research into ways to reduce the volume of nuclear waste including research into technologies such as transmutation and waste reprocessing. "The administration is on record as being willing to reopen the reprocessing issue," Card told members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an advisory panel created by Congress. The United States remains opposed to reprocessing used nuclear fuel because of the risk of nonproliferation. Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force recommended continued research into reprocessing technology. Transmutation is an emerging technology that reduces the number of long-lived isotopes in nuclear waste, but no one has yet to perfect it, and it is widely believed to be too expensive to pursue now. Reprocessing or transmutation would reduce the amount of waste, but not all of it, so a disposal site still would be needed, Card said. He and other Energy Department officials expressed confidence that Yucca Mountain will be approved not only by Congress but by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must issue construction and operating licenses. The DOE officials made clear in remarks to the advisory board Tuesday that they expected many of the remaining technical uncertainties, including the specific design of the Yucca facility, to remain flexible well into the licensing process and, in some cases, beyond that. For example, final decisions have not been made whether to pursue a "hot" design, in which wastes would be kept closer together, or a cooler design with wastes would more spread-out. The advisory board has urged for some time adoption of a cooler design, arguing it would remove some uncertainties over the durability over thousands of years of the engineered waste package. Card said Tuesday the department would keep both options open, although he favors a "hot" design. Addressing another contentious issue, Card said he is confident a system will be developed for transporting the wastes to Yucca Mountain that is satisfactory to the states through which the waste would pass. Opponents of the Nevada site have argued it is too risky and dangerous to have thousands of nuclear waste shipments crossing the country on highways and by rail. DOE officials said the department leans heavily toward primarily rail transport, although completion of a final transportation plan is not expected until next year. "We want to jump-start the transportation issue," Margaret Chu, the new director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which oversees the nuclear waste disposal issue, told the advisory panel. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov/ [http://www.nwtrb.gov/] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/homejava/homejava.htm [http://www.rw.doe.gov/homejava/homejava.htm] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 S. Carolina Airing Anti-Plutonium Ads Las Vegas SUN May 07, 2002 COLUMBIA, S.C.- The governor is spending $100,000 of his campaign re-election fund to air TV commercials blasting the federal government's plan to ship plutonium through the state into Georgia. Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges on Tuesday began running the 30-second ad that criticizes Energy officials for "breaking their promise" not to make South Carolina a nuclear dumping ground. The ad shows Hodges at a practice blockade that may be used to block shipments, which could begin May 15. The ad urges residents to call Washington and tell federal bureaucrats "no plutonium dumping in South Carolina." A spokesman for the Department of Energy said the shipments are a security matter and criticized the governor for using election funds on a nonpartisan issue. "It is a well-established tradition in this country that matters of national security and foreign policy are viewed as nonpartisan and certainly should never be politicized for personal gain," spokesman Joe Davis said. The DOE's plan is to ship weapons-grade plutonium to the Savannah River Site near Aiken, Ga., for conversion to nuclear reactor fuel. South Carolina officials worry the conversion program will never be funded and the plutonium will remain in the state indefinitely. Hodges sued the federal agency a week ago to halt the shipments. Hodges and fellow Democrats also accuse Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a former GOP senator, of helping Republican Sen. Wayne Allard's re-election chances by moving the radioactive material from Rocky Flats to a site just over the Georgia border. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 Administration to ask for long-term research into reducing both nuclear waste and cost of its disposal Las Vegas SUN May 07, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration plans to ask Congress to expand long-term research into reducing the amount of nuclear waste produced by the U.S. nuclear energy and reduce the cost of disposal, the Energy Department said Tuesday. Energy Undersecretary Robert Card said there is for now "a riveting focus" on getting approval for a waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But he added, "We should be looking at science and technology that would reduce the cost." President Bush's decision in February to go ahead with the Yucca Mountain facility 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was to face its first congressional test Wednesday. The House is expected to vote to override Nevada's veto of the president's decision. The Senate will take up the matter this summer and is beginning the process with a series of committee hearings this month. Anticipating congressional rejection of the veto, which would allow implementation of the Yucca Mountain disposal plan, Card said the department's focus for now is on getting a license application ready for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2004. Assuming the license is approved, the disposal facility is expected to open in 2010. Card also said the administration will ask Congress for "tens of millions of dollars" on broader long-term scientific research into ways to reduce the volume of nuclear waste including research into technologies such as transmutation and waste reprocessing. "The administration is on record as being willing to reopen the reprocessing issue," Card told members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an advisory panel created by Congress. The United States remains opposed to reprocessing used nuclear fuel because of the risk of nonproliferation. Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force recommended continued research into reprocessing technology. Transmutation is an emerging technology that reduces the number of long-lived isotopes in nuclear waste, but no one has yet to perfect it, and it is widely believed to be too expensive to pursue now. Reprocessing or transmutation would reduce the amount of waste, but not all of it, so a disposal site still would be needed, Card said. He and other Energy Department officials expressed confidence that Yucca Mountain will be approved not only by Congress but by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must issue construction and operating licenses. The DOE officials made clear in remarks to the advisory board Tuesday that they expected many of the remaining technical uncertainties, including the specific design of the Yucca facility, to remain flexible well into the licensing process and, in some cases, beyond that. For example, final decisions have not been made whether to pursue a "hot" design, in which wastes would be kept closer together, or a cooler design with wastes would more spread-out. The advisory board has urged for some time adoption of a cooler design, arguing it would remove some uncertainties over the durability over thousands of years of the engineered waste package. Card said Tuesday the department would keep both options open, although he favors a "hot" design. Addressing another contentious issue, Card said he is confident a system will be developed for transporting the wastes to Yucca Mountain that is satisfactory to the states through which the waste would pass. Opponents of the Nevada site have argued it is too risky and dangerous to have thousands of nuclear waste shipments crossing the country on highways and by rail. DOE officials said the department leans heavily toward primarily rail transport, although completion of a final transportation plan is not expected until next year. "We want to jump-start the transportation issue," Margaret Chu, the new director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which oversees the nuclear waste disposal issue, told the advisory panel. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov/ [http://www.nwtrb.gov/] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/homejava/homejava.htm [http://www.rw.doe.gov/homejava/homejava.htm] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 House to Consider Nuclear Waste Plan Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 5:20:15 PDT WASHINGTON- President Bush's decision to send the country's nuclear waste to Nevada is getting its first test before Congress, where the state is facing heavy odds in its battle against the radioactive dump. Supporters of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility predicted broad support for the president in a House vote scheduled for Wednesday. Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said he expects both Republicans and Democrats to vote to reject a Nevada protest of Bush's decision to build a nuclear disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Bush announced in February that he would proceed with seeking a federal license for the Yucca disposal site, which has been under study for 20 years. Nevada, as was its right under federal law, challenged the selection, and only Congress can override the state's protest. Nevada faces overwhelming odds in trying to convince lawmakers to keep the thousands of tons of nuclear waste at 103 reactors in 31 states instead of shipping it to a central location. All along, Nevada lawmakers have said they expect the president's decision to be upheld in the Republican-controlled House, and have concentrated their efforts in the Senate, which is expected to take up the issue this summer. Several Senate committee hearings are scheduled later this month. Last weekend, Democrats gave Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a chance to make her case in the party's nationally broadcast radio address, during which she highlighted the risks of sending thousands of nuclear waste shipments on highways and rail lines. The waste from commercial power reactors and some federal military weapons would be safer at reactor sites, she argued, instead of "sweeping it under the carpet near my hometown of Las Vegas." The plan calls for sending 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain, most from reactors in the eastern half of the country. Under the current schedule, the first shipments would arrive in 2010 and continue for 24 years. Even then, critics say, the proposed site would not have enough room for all of the industry's waste, with at least 44,000 tons still expected to be left in storage at power plants around the country. The cost of the project has been estimated at $58 billion for construction, waste shipments and the first 50 to 100 years of operation. About $6 billion already has been spent on researching the site. Tuesday, Energy Undersecretary Robert Card told a nuclear waste advisory panel that the administration will seek more money from Congress for research into ways to reduce the waste volume and the cost of disposal. He said the research should include looking into transmution, a technology not yet fully developed and viewed by many as too expensive, and waste reprocessing. Both technologies would reduce the amount of the most radioactive isotopes that would have to be disposed of. While the United States remains opposed to reprocessing because of nuclear proliferation concerns, last year Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force recommended continued research into the technology. "The administration is on record as being willing to reopen the reprocessing issue," Card told members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an advisory panel created by Congress, at a meeting Tuesday. Addressing another contentious issue, Card said he is confident that a transportation plan for the waste will be developed that will be satisfactory to the states through which the shipments will pass. Energy Department officials said the department is leaning heavily toward rail transport, although completion of a final transportation plan is not expected until next year. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov/ [http://www.nwtrb.gov/] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/ [http://www.rw.doe.gov/] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Activists, Legislators Urge Congress to Reject Fatally Flawed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump Public Citizen May 7, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - National environmental, public interest, taxpayer and consumer groups joined members of Congress at a press conference today to discuss the importance of the upcoming vote on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and urge lawmakers to reject the dangerous plan. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Wednesday on the repository (H.J. Res. 87). "Stopping Yucca is a huge priority for the major national environmental, consumer and safe energy organizations because of the grave threat to public health and the environment that this project poses," said Debbie Sease, legislative director of the Sierra Club. Added Jill Lancelot, legislative director at Taxpayers for Common Sense, "The Yucca Mountain proposal is a bad solution to a very real problem. Support of Yucca is a roadblock to finding a cost-effective solution to the nation’s nuclear waste problem." Speakers raised concerns about the safety of transporting nuclear waste through 44 states and the District of Columbia to the Nevada facility. "A crash involving just one of these deadly shipments could be catastrophic," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "This is an unnecessary risk that should not be imposed on communities along the nation’s roads and rails." Added Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., P.H., executive director and CEO of Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Even without an accident, transporting nuclear waste poses health threats. Each transport is like a portable X-ray machine that cannot be turned off. We are asking Congress to put the safety and health of the American people ahead of the interests of the nuclear industry." The groups also questioned the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. Environmental and public interest groups, as well as the state of Nevada, have charged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illegally manipulated standards for protecting groundwater around the site from radioactive contamination. They want the EPA to rewrite the groundwater standards it established specifically for Yucca Mountain. "Everyone knows Yucca Mountain leaks like a sieve," said Alys Campaigne, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "EPA has committed outright scientific fraud in constructing its drinking water compliance boundary around the Yucca Mountain site. The agency’s proposal will permit a radioactive septic field in a region that relies solely on groundwater for drinking water and irrigation." Added Deb Callahan, League of Conservation Voters president, "Storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is an issue that raises more questions than answers, but two things are certain: It’s neither smart policy nor smart politics. Candidates in 350 congressional districts this fall will have to tell voters whether they are willing to risk their communities by allowing thousands of tons of dangerous nuclear waste on their highways and rail lines." U.S. Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.), and Jim McDermott (D-Nev.) spoke at the press conference. League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG track lawmakers’ voting records on environmental/public interest scorecards. ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 35 Yucca opponents rally on eve of likely House defeat Wednesday, May 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Storm clouds gathered overhead and bulldozers roared nearby, making it almost impossible to hear at a Tuesday news conference opposing the Yucca Mountain Project. The unfavorable backdrop seemed to symbolize Nevada's dim chances of prevailing when the U.S. House votes today on overriding Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto and authorizing nuclear waste storage in the state. Nevada officials have long acknowledged they will not win in the House. But during a Tuesday morning news conference, state lawmakers and several allies persisted for more than 45 minutes in restating their case against the Yucca Mountain Project. They said they hope at least to stave off a lopsided result that could provide momentum for a vote in the Senate later this summer. About 35 people, mostly staffers and reporters, attended the news conference. "If we can persuade even one more member of Congress to vote with us, then the next 24 hours will have been a success," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. Nevada is hoping to obtain between 100 and 120 votes in the House against the repository, according to congressional sources. But House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., is reportedly twisting arms for a landslide vote in the House. Joining Hastert are lobbyists for the nuclear power industry and the White House. All are pressing House members to back President Bush's Feb. 15 recommendation of Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for permanent storage of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., has found himself virtually isolated in his effort to recruit GOP votes against Yucca Mountain. "Transporting this material across our country and through our communities ... is going to present America with an enormous disaster waiting to happen," Gibbons warned. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said Bush used the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an excuse to approve the Yucca Mountain Project before all scientific questions could be answered. "My view about this is that if we were just putting people at risk in Nevada, that would be enough to stop it," McDermott said. "But we're putting people at risk all across this country." McDermott and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., cited recent train accidents as evidence that the transportation of nuclear waste could endanger communities outside Nevada. "We are about to have an historic debate," Markey said. "We are going to decide whether we are going to ratify a political decision made by the United States House and Senate and then pushed through the Bush administration on political grounds or we are going to listen to the scientists who are telling us that there are still 293 unresolved scientific issues (about Yucca Mountain)." Spokesmen for the League of Conservation Voters, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Interest Research Group and Sierra Club also appeared at the news conference. Across town, the head of Nevada's nuclear waste project office served notice the Energy Department will face tough scrutiny beyond Congress. "The tough road ahead for DOE is going to come in the next two stages: the legal arena and the scientific arena," Bob Loux told an audience attending a meeting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. "The difficult stages are still ahead," Loux said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 36 DOE proposes science lab at Yucca Mountain Wednesday, May 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Official says tens of millions might be needed each year for studies in geology, hydrology, other fields By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- With Yucca Mountain seemingly close to being finalized for a nuclear waste repository, top Energy Department officials on Tuesday outlined an added focus for the Nevada site in the years ahead: as a science laboratory. DOE managers proposed ongoing research and development at Yucca Mountain apart from their efforts to win a federal license to store tens of thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Energy Undersecretary Robert Card said tens of millions of dollars might be needed each year for "open-ended" science into geology, hydrology and other fields. Margaret Chu, the new director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said she intends to "beg" lawmakers for science funding. "I will share that vision with people in Congress," she said. Card said Yucca Mountain, if approved for a repository by Congress, will be viewed as an international treasure for other nations to model. With the repository planned to accept nuclear waste over dozens of years and not expected to be closed between 50 and possibly 300 years, "we intend to take advantage of its operations as a `forever study' program," he said. The Yucca Mountain Project overall has received between $300 million and $400 million annually from Congress over the past seven years. Project manager Russ Dyer said between $40 million and $60 million has been spent each year on science experiments to support site recommendation and licensing, but little if any on research similar to what is being proposed now. Card and Chu called for a strong science and technology focus at Yucca Mountain in separate presentations to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a presidentially appointed body that has raised questions over the years about DOE's repository science. Card said he has directed DOE staff to begin working with the National Academy of Sciences and others to design a science program "of what we need to do, not from a (license) compliance standpoint but from a science understanding standpoint." The idea got a mixed reception from review board members. With one program focused on license development and another on pure science, "It sounds like we've got parallel universes," said Debra Knopman, associate director of the RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute. "What's the point?" she asked. A Nevada nuclear waste consultant, Steve Frishman, said DOE managers "at this late date can talk about science all they want, but it's not to going to change the decision schedule." The Energy Department "goes on and on talking about better ideas, as this thing just keeps rolling on," said Judy Treichel, head of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, a nonprofit anti-Yucca group. "Suddenly there's this brand new focus, but it's the same old mountain." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 37 Environmentalists to Try and Convince Japan not to Bring Spent Nuclear Fuel to Russia Pravda.RU ¹ May, 07 2002 20:11 2002-05-07 Part of its campaign against bringing spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the Environmental Protection international group will give a series of lectures and consultations in Japan. According to the group's press centre, Vladimir Slivyak, its co-Chairman, intends to meet with various Japanese authorities and representatives of nuclear energy industry in 7 Japanese cities. The action will be supported by the Japanese Green Action and the Centre of Nuclear Information. Mr. Slivyak said the objective of his group was to persuade a possibly large number of countries to abstain from sending spent nuclear fuel to Russia. In 2001, similar actions were organised by the group in Germany and Taiwan. © RosBalt Pravda.RU:Society ***************************************************************** 38 House expected to ratify Yucca Mountain dump Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 11:09:48 PDT By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- The House today was expected to stamp its final approval on Yucca Mountain, marking a significant milestone in the long history of the nuclear waste project. House lawmakers were poised to vote this afternoon on a simple one-sentence resolution approving Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear waste repository. They were expected to approve Yucca by an overwhelmingly majority. House action would set up a vote in the Senate expected by the end of July. Two hours of debate on the Yucca resolution began today when Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., brought the issue to the floor. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., promptly tried to use a parliamentary tactic to block a vote. Gibbons argued that federal law prevents Congress from passing laws that would create unfunded mandates for states and local governments. Gibbons and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., argued that the Yucca resolution would force states and locals to pick up a "massive" tab in the billions of dollars to prepare for waste shipments through their areas. "Yucca Mountain is a financial boondoggle that flies in the face of fiscal responsibility," Berkley said. Gibbons' point of order was voted down 308-105, and the debate began. Opening moments of debate centered on familiar themes. Tauzin argued that Yucca Mountain is a "safe and secure" site for waste storage. He assured the House that unresolved scientific questions about the site would be resolved in the next few years. Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stressed that both Democrats and Republicans on his panel approved the resolution, 41-6. "This is the right thing for America, and we stand as Americans united to get this important resolution passed," Tauzin said. Berkley stressed the accident and terrorist risks associated with shipping waste across America from power plants to Nevada. Berkley said 83 percent of Nevadans oppose the Yucca project. The state has no nuclear plants. "Nevada is being asked to carry a burden we had no part in creating," Berkley said. Nevada lawmakers found several allies to argue their case, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who argued that transporting was rife with dangers. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said the reason there is support for Yucca Mountain is because, "Nevada is not Texas. It is not South Carolina." He noted that handling the waste is viewed as Nevada's problem, but "getting it there is ours." Berkley and Gibbons lobbied colleagues right up until debate began. Berkley, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera, a Democrat who is running for Congress, each spent several minutes addressing the weekly meeting of the House Democrats today. They urged lawmakers to reject the Yucca project. It was unusual for a senator and local government official to speak to the caucus, but House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri has been a Berkley ally in her fight against the dump. "We're going to do everything we can to derail this ill-thought out, ill-advised proposal," Gephardt told reporters after the caucus meeting. Still, Nevada lawmakers expect at least 300 lawmakers in the 435-member House to support the Yucca proposal. Berkley and Gephardt have invited Herrera, who is also a Democratic candidate for Nevada's new third House seat, to help them lobby House Democrats. He intended to visit with several before today's vote. Gibbons, who has had a more difficult time rallying GOP colleagues to vote against Yucca, was scheduled to make his 100th anti-Yucca speech on the House floor later today during debate. Meanwhile today in Washington, the independent board created by Congress to review the Department of Energy's work on the Yucca project concluded a two-day meeting. The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has said the scientific evidence supporting the site has been "weak to moderate" so far. On Tuesday, board chairman Jared Cohon also said he believes the DOE has not clearly explained all the project "uncertainties" to Congress. Congress in 1987 designated the Yucca site as the only one in the nation to be studied to determine whether it was a geologically suitable site to bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste. The waste would be shipped from 131 temporary storage locations, mostly at nuclear power plants and U.S. defense sites. It would travel through as many as 45 states by truck and train over several decades. The Energy Department deemed the desert ridge a suitable site after 15 years of analysis. President Bush quickly endorsed the site recommendation. Gov. Kenny Guinn, in another historic action, vetoed Bush's approval April 8. The unique Nuclear Waste Policy Act, originally drafted by Congress in 1982, gave Guinn that unprecedented right. But Congress can override Guinn's veto. Debate over Yucca Mountain has centered on a number of topics from national security to waste transportation and the future of nuclear power in America. Today's House action followed years of lobbying that intensified in recent months on both sides of the issue. Pro-Yucca forces, led by the nuclear industry and its influential trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, have argued that the nation needs a central, remote, secure location for 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive nuclear waste. No new nuclear power plants have been approved since the 1970s. Industry officials argue that a national nuclear waste repository is needed before any new plants could be constructed. Nuclear waste is currently stored in waste pools and in dry on-site containers. Storing the radioactive material in underground tunnels at Yucca would be safer from terrorists, dump supporters say. Nevada officials sharply disagree. "With around the clock nuclear waste shipments rolling for decades, the chance of a terrorist attack is all too plausible, in our post-September 11 world. The risk is unacceptable." Berkley and three other House lawmakers, including Gephardt wrote in a letter to colleagues. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 State says EPA's rules on Yucca fail to protect public Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 11:09:48 PDT By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect the public in setting the standards for containing radiation at the proposed nuclear dump site in Nevada, the state attorney general's office says. The state, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups say the underground drinking water supply would be contaminated because of the lax regulations for a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The statements, filed Tuesday in a legal brief in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., said Congress "left no ambiguity (in the law) about the paramount obligation of the federal government to protect public health and safety." The brief said the standards by the EPA allow radioactive contaminated water to spread over about 120 square miles, and travel as far from the site as 11 miles. The proposed boundary standard is weaker than the contamination limit that EPA applies at other U.S. nuclear sites, said Geoffrey Fettus, attorney for the environmental groups. Because it allows the contamination to be spread over a greater area, the radiation can be diluted by ground water, the groups maintain. The Yucca Mountain standard violates federal health and safety regulations, Fettus said, including the Safe Drinking Water Act. "EPA's dramatically irregular boundary line has no precedent in environmental protection," Fettus said. "It would be laughable if we weren't talking about dangerous radiation that will be around for thousands of years." EPA has also said the repository must meet the standards for 10,000 years. But the lawsuit says the peak radiation periods extend beyond 10,000 years. Sun reporter Mary Manning contributed to this story. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 3-day Yucca protest planned Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 10:12:46 PDT Indians, peace groups and international environmental activists announced a three-day demonstration in the Nevada desert against a plan to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The Western Shoshone and Citizen Alert leaders said the Mother's Day weekend protest begins Friday. Kalynda Tilges, nuclear issues coordinator for Citizen Alert, predicted up to 300 people would attend. Activists will gather in a peace camp across U.S. Highway 95 from the Nevada Test Site, where the nation tested nuclear weapons from 1951 until 1992. The Energy Department is planning a high-level nuclear waste repository at nearby Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive wastes. The Western Shoshone people are prepared to walk around the Test Site to reach the peace camp on Saturday. On Sunday at noon mothers will lead a procession to the main gates of the Test Site. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 League of Women Voters opposes Yucca Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 9:46:01 PDT By Mary Manning The League of Women Voters of the United States is opposing a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The league, a civic organization that generally encourages voting participation, said that it supports Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the Yucca Mountain repository project, which would store 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. The group cited two safety issues. First, the scientific evidence does not support building a repository at this time, the league said. It said it based its conclusion on reports of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which said the Energy Department's science was "moderate to weak," and on a General Accounting Office report that said 293 scientific and technical issues remained in question. Among the scientific issues in question are how fast water flows through the waste site and how quickly the buried waste containers will leak radioactivity into the ground water, the league's statement said. In addition, the league noted that volcanic activity could occur after the waste is buried at Yucca Mountain. "Decisions about storing this waste must ensure that public health and the environment are protected," the league wrote. "Yet, the science behind Yucca Mountain is not sound." Second, the league said that transporting nuclear waste across country to Yucca Mountain could be hazardous to those living along road or rail routes. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 O'Neil says Nevada should get compensation for Yucca Las Vegas SUN Today: May 08, 2002 at 9:02:36 PDT By Erin Neff There's no suspense in today's House vote on Yucca Mountain for congressional candidate Pete O'Neil. Nevada will lose big today, he says, and will also lose in July when the U.S. Senate takes up the matter. "We're not pro-nuclear, we're not pro-Yucca Mountain," O'Neil said Tuesday on the steps of the George Federal Building downtown. "We're pro-Nevada and if our great state is being asked for this new burden, we should be compensated." O'Neil believes there is still time to negotiate for goodies he highlighted on a chart illustrated with clip art of a hand grabbing a bag with a dollar sign and other symbols of the benefits he believes Nevada should get. "Politicians in Nevada have been playing this losing game and have lost sight of the most important needs to our state -- the protection and compensation," O'Neil added. Former Gov. Robert List, who now lobbies for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he senses an "undercurrent of acceptance" in Nevada for the repository. "There's been a change in moods particularly now that Nevadans see how outnumbered we are in Washington, D.C.," List said. "At every group I talk to, there's a growing sense that we should negotiate now." O'Neil said Nevada could "reasonably" get $300 million a year from a fund of money utilities with nuclear power plants have collected from their ratepayers as fees for waste storage. The money could be siphoned to the state's general fund beginning in 2003 for use any way the state deems fit, he said. O'Neil said he does not support a per-person payment because of Nevada's growth rates. "That would give people another reason to move here," O'Neil said. O'Neil said he thinks Nevada could also negotiate for: + Construction of by-pass roads and rails to keep shipments out of the Las Vegas Valley. + Construction of a Super Speed Train between Las Vegas and Southern California. + BLM land deals for new parks. + Additional fresh water rights from the Colorado River pact. + Construction of new bridges over the Colorado River. + Establishment of a state-controlled safety commission to monitor the repository. But O'Neil's proposal fell flat in Washington, D.C. where Nevada's delegation is hoping today's House vote gives them more reason to hope for a successful outcome in the Senate. "It's not only no, it's Hell no," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of negotiating. "That makes it harder to win in the Senate," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. "We have to be unified." O'Neil's major-party opponents said they thought the Independent candidate's proposal was "ill-informed." "The health and economic security of Nevadans is not for sale at any price," Democratic candidate Dario Herrera said. "We will win this fight. "Even if we're not successful in the Senate we have a lot of legal ammunition to win this in court," he added. Mike Slanker, campaign manager for Republican candidate Jon Porter, said negotiating is not an option. "The second we start saying what-if, we're going to lose the Senate fight," Slanker said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 No Thanks to Goshute Waste site The Salt Lake Tribune -- Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Nuclear power plants back on the East Coast apparently generate tons of burned out nuclear cores. Those same power plants want to ship their waste to Utah and Nevada. For what reason? They don't have some place on their property to dig a hole in the ground and bury the stuff? They made the stuff. Let them keep it in their own backyard. Let the citizens who benefit from the use of nuclear power deal with the nuclear waste. We don't ship our waste to their states to bury, do we? Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe we do. But it seems to me that we are already dealing with another kind of waste that is potentially hazardous and that is the chemical weapons developed and stored at Dugway Proving Ground and we are destroying those huge stockpiles here in our own state. I'm sorry for the Goshute people, but it's just wrong for someone to make a hazardous material like nuclear waste and then try to dump it in someone else's backyard. Unless they want to trade the destruction of our chemical weapons for the next 10,000 years for the nuclear waste which could contaminate Utah and make it a "glowing" state for the next 10,000 years. To you nuclear waste producers, I say, "No thanks." And to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I say, "Whose payroll are you on!" STEVE PATTERSON Salt Lake City © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 44 Nevada Aims Ads at Utah The Salt Lake Tribune -- Wednesday, May 8, 2002 BY GLEN WARCHOL THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Hoping to sway Utah's senators into opposing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, Nevada officials will begin running an anti-nuclear TV advertisement Thursday in Salt Lake City. "It's an awareness piece for the people of Utah and a call to action to their senators," said Dana Pretner, public relations director for Brown and Partners. The Las Vegas agency was hired by a coalition of dump opponents that include the state of Nevada, its gaming industry and environmentalists of all stripes. The 30-second spot, which will run for about two weeks, will warn Utahns that Nevada is not the only state at risk from the relocation of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from 131 temporary storage sites. Activists say the deadly waste will funnel into Utah in casks aboard trucks and trains, which they call "Chernobyls on wheels," after the Ukrainian city that was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. The ads will emphasize the vulnerability of the shipments to accidents and terrorist attacks, Pretner said. Greg Bortolin, spokesman for Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, said his state wants Utah to know "this is not just a Nevada problem." "If you are going to get the waste to Nevada, you are going to have to go through Salt Lake City," Bortolin said. Meanwhile, supporters of the Yucca Mountain project told Nevada reporters they plan to run a counter ad. A spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Sound Nuclear Policy said the anti-Yucca ad will probably be misleading and alarmist. Utah's congressional delegation, with the exception of Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson, favors the Yucca Mountain project. The House is expected to overwhelmingly approve the project today. But opponents see their best chance in stopping the project in the Senate, where they hope Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett will be swayed by public opinion. Private Fuel Storage LLC, a consortium of nuclear power companies, signed a lease with Utah's Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in 1997 to build a $3.1 billion waste facility on reservation land to store up to 4,000 concrete casks of spent nuclear-power plant fuel. If Utah leaders hope Yucca Mountain will ensure that the Skull Valley dump will be only temporary, they are being shortsighted because 90 percent of the nuclear waste will pass through Utah, say nuke dump opponents. "Utah's delegation is really shooting itself in the foot," says Kevin Kamps, a spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Center. "In trying to try to dodge the bullet by sticking it to Nevada, the delegation is sticking Utah, too." Hatch spokeswoman Heather Barney said the senator has supported the Yucca Mountain project because that is "where all the money [has been spent] and science has been done to determine it is the best site." "But he will look at it with fresh eyes based on his opposition to Skull Valley," Barney said. Steve Erickson, director of Citizens Education Project, says Utah anti-nuke organizations will follow up the ad campaign by bringing high-profile Nevadans to Salt Lake City. "They will educate business and community leaders about the negative impacts of the Yucca Mountain project on their interests," Erickson said. Despite the majority stance of Utah's delegation, Bortolin says Nevada appreciates the support of Matheson, who has spoken in opposition to Yucca Mountain, evoking the memory of the nuclear weapons testing in Nevada that may have damaged the health of thousands of Utah downwinders. "I think the rest of the Utah delegation could learn much from him," Bortolin said. "We don't want to see what happened in the 50s happen again." © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 45 BNFL has unveiled its new look website. ManchesterOnline - Business - EBusiness Nuclear power giant unveils new website BNFL at Warrington The online arm of the Warrington based nuclear fuel giant has relaunched [http://www.bnfl.com/] , which it says has cleaner and easier-to-use graphics. Navigation throughout the site has also been simplified to provide visitors with clutter free clear options. The power portal contains news and information about BNFL's worldwide business interests in what is described as "easily digestible" form. Visitors to the site can find out about the company's performance, career opportunities and work undertaken by its research and technology unit. There is also a corner for younger surfers in the Learning Zone. Nearly every page of the site contains a link on how to contact the company with comments or queries. Corporate affairs director Philip Dewhurst said: "It's a great new design, incorporating the most recent design features of the company style. "It should help website visitors to find the information they require more easily." Links to other web sites www.bnfl.com © Copyright 2002 GMG Regional Digital. ***************************************************************** 46 Hazardous waste from Taiwan to be dumped in Solomon Islands Go Asia Pacific Breaking News Pacific - [http://www.abc.net.au/ra] Hazardous waste from Taiwan to be dumped in Solomon Islands A Solomon Islands Cabinet Minister has confirmed that industrial waste containing lead, murcury and arsenic will be dumped onto coastal lowlands at Makira Island. Makira is largely untouched and heavily-wooded, and is also known as San Cristobal. Solomons Agriculture Minister, Steven Paeni, says the Taiwanese company, Primeval Forest, will be granted a license to dump 10-thousand tonnes of garment factory waste at a time on Makira Island - up to a total of three million tonnes. Meanwhile, the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation claims the country is one of four being considered as a nuclear waste store for the Taiwan Power Company - which is state-owned. The other countries are Russia, mainland China and North Korea. Taiwan has to relocate 97-thousand barrels of low-radiation nuclear waste it has been hoding since 1982 on Orchid Island, 44 kilometres off Taiwan's south-eastern coast. The AFP news agency says the toxic and nuclear waste deals appear to violate regional treaties signed by the Solomons. However the country is one of the few nations in the world with diplomatic ties to Taiwan, and is deeply in debt to Tapei which has kept the Solomons economy going with loans. 08/05/2002 20:06:19 | ABC Radio Australia News ***************************************************************** 47 IEER | COGEMA: Above the Law? IEER [http://www.ieer.org/index.html] | Publications [http://www.ieer.org/pubs/index.html] Concerns about the French Parent Company of a U.S. Corporation Set to Process Plutonium in South Carolina Annie Makhijani* Linda Gunter** Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.* May 7, 2002 * Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ** Safe Energy Communication Council Acknowledgements We would like to thank Didier Anger and Jean-Luc Thierry for their reviews of this work. We also greatly appreciate the fact checking and review performed by IEER's librarian, Lois Chalmers. This report is a joint effort of the global outreach project of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and of the Safe Energy Communication Council. IEER's global outreach project is funded by grants from the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and by general support grants for IEER's work on nuclear issues from the Ford Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Financial Services, the New Land Foundation, and the Colombe Foundation. Outreach in the United States of this work will be carried out as part of IEER's U.S. program, which, in addition to general support grants, is funded by the Public Welfare Foundation, the John Merck Fund, the Ploughshares Fund, the Town Creek Foundation, and the Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust. We thank them all for their generous support of our work. The Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC) is a national, non-profit coalition of ten environmental and public interest media groups. Since 1980, SECC has educated the public and the media about energy efficiency and renewable energy's potential to produce a larger share of our nation's energy, as well as the economic and environmental liabilities of nuclear power. SECC provides local, state and national organizations with technical assistance through media skills training and outreach strategies. Originally established as the environmental community's response to the nuclear industry's public relations campaign following the Three Mile Island accident, SECC collaborates with and draws on the expertise of its diverse member groups to affect energy policy at the national, state and local level. The Council works to empower grassroots activists through information dissemination, technical assistance and media training. SECC's media consultation and/or training services have been used by energy, environmental, agricultural, consumer, and public interest activists in all 50 states. COGEMA: ABOVE THE LAW? Concerns about the French Parent Company of a U.S. Corporation Set to Process Plutonium in South Carolina "[E]nforcement [of French nuclear waste law] comes into conflict with a technocratic structure [COGEMA] that considers itself above the law." - Christian Bataille, French parliamentarian and author of the French law on the management of nuclear waste.1 "Whatever their record in Europe, good, bad or indifferent, it isn't going to affect our decisions." - Melanie Galloway, Enrichment Section Chief, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.2 Introduction COGEMA Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of COGEMA (the French Compagnie générale des matières nucléaires) the largest nuclear reprocessing company in the world, is currently poised to begin major work as a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, fabricating fuel from surplus weapons plutonium to be used in U.S. commercial reactors. COGEMA is part of a new giant conglomerate, AREVA, which includes a wide-ranging combination of nuclear energy services. AREVA is about 79 percent owned by the French government's Commissariat à l'énergie atomique, France's atomic energy commission. An additional seven-percent belongs to other government or government-owned entities.3 COGEMA, Inc. is already part of a consortium responsible for designing a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel made of weapon-grade plutonium derived from the nuclear trigger component in nuclear weapons. The consortium, Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster (DCS) includes Duke Power, COGEMA, Inc. and Stone & Webster. There are also three more members: Duke Engineering and Services, an affiliate of Duke Energy Corporation, Framatome COGEMA Fuels, and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. COGEMA, Inc. is the only company in the consortium whose parent corporation COGEMA is currently manufacturing MOX on an industrial scale. Therefore, the experience of its parent company is central to the reason that COGEMA, Inc. is part of the MOX fuel consortium in the United States. The record of the parent corporation is especially important in relation to legal, scientific and regulatory issues. The refusal of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to acknowledge this importance led us to prepare this report. The proposed location for the MOX fuel fabrication plant is the DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. A permit request for construction of this plant was submitted on February 28, 2001, the operation license request will be submitted in July 2002 and a final environmental impact statement (EIS) is expected by September 2002. Although COGEMA has experience with the manufacture of MOX fuel from plutonium derived from commercial reactor spent fuel, the proposed project will be the first to process weapon-grade plutonium into a reactor fuel on an industrial scale. Members of the public and some policymakers in the United States are concerned about the possible environmental and health impacts of both MOX manufacturing and preprocessing of weapons pits. Given the past poor environmental performance at the Savannah River Site, many members of the public as well as South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis have asked the DOE to thoroughly investigate and make public the home environmental and safety record of COGEMA in France.4 According to the NRC, as represented by the remarks of its then enrichment section chief, Melanie Galloway, quoted above, COGEMA's record in France is unimportant and irrelevant. The NRC is willing to accept COGEMA's participation as long as it adheres to U.S. standards.5 The NRC has not expressed concern about company culture at COGEMA regarding French and European law or COGEMA's attitude towards compliance with European environmental protection requirements. Instead, the NRC claims that the record of the French parent company is not relevant even though the project relies to a considerable degree on personnel from France. COGEMA's past and recent brushes with the law in France, its arrogation of the power to decide on science relevant to public health as described below, as well as the NRC's own pattern of lax oversight, cast some doubt on that assumption.6 The findings of this report show that COGEMA has not only tried to set itself above the law, but also above regulatory decision-making and established scientific conclusions regarding radiation risk. This includes both European and international scientific bodies and accepted regulatory risk estimation procedures as well as corresponding science and regulations in the United States. This report provides a partial analysis of COGEMA and its actions. We have omitted many allegations of problems elsewhere due to lack of investigative resources. COGEMA's reprocessing operations in France The large commercial reprocessing plant (consisting of two units, UP2 and UP3) which extracts plutonium from spent nuclear power plant fuel is at the center of COGEMA's nuclear business in France. It is located at La Hague on the Normandy Peninsula. Every year hundreds of million of liters of radioactive liquid waste, a byproduct of the reprocessing operation, pour out of the discharge pipe from La Hague into the English Channel. In 1996, 500 million liters were discharged into the sea, containing a total radioactivity of 285,000 curies.7 The radioactivity concentration of the liquid discharges coming out of the pipe averages about 570 microcuries per liter, on a volumetric basis. This corresponds to about 570 nanocuries per gram and clearly fits the definition of low-level radioactive waste. For instance, according to U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, if this liquid waste were put into a container, it would require a special permit for transportation as radioactive waste because it far exceeds the limit of two nanocuries per gram defining such waste.8 It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that if the liquid waste coming out of the pipe were put into a container and then dumped into the open ocean, this action would violate the 1992 OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, signed by 15 European countries and the European Communities. Its Article 3 subparagraph 3(a) says that: The dumping of low and intermediate level radioactive substances, including wastes, is prohibited.9 However, France and Britain, both signatories to the 1992 OSPAR Convention, were allowed to continue to discharge radioactive wastes into the sea: As an exception to subparagraph 3(a) of this Article, those Contracting Parties, the United Kingdom and France, who wish to retain the option of an exception to subparagraph 3(a) in any case not before the expiry of a period of 15 years from 1st January 1993, shall report to the meeting of the Commission at Ministerial level in 1997 on the steps taken to explore alternative land-based options.10 The issue of radioactive waste dumping and discharges into the seas was taken up again by OSPAR at its July 1998 ministerial meeting in Sintra, Portugal. At this meeting, Britain and France agreed formally to abide by subparagraph 3 (a) of the 1992 OSPAR Convention. In its statement the OSPAR Commission states: We welcome the announcements by the French and United Kingdom Governments that they wish to give up future exemptions from the ban on the dumping of low-level and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.11 Specifically, at the July 1998 meeting increasing concerns expressed by European governments were considered in more detail. These related to the serious level of pollution from the dumping of radioactive liquid wastes into the sea from onshore facilities, notably by COGEMA and BNFL. The Commission adopted a strategy to address this issue by stating that: We shall ensure that discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances are reduced by the year 2020 to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from such discharges, emissions and losses are close to zero.12 However, since July 1998, a technical loophole defining away the problem that the liquid wastes dumped into the sea are regarded as "discharges" and not "wastes" has allowed COGEMA and its British counterpart, BNFL (wholly owned by the British government), to circumvent their obligations. At its 2000 meeting on contamination of the oceans, the OSPAR commission tightened this strategy. As a result a zero release policy was adopted by 12 of the countries: ...a binding decision on the reduction and elimination of radioactive discharges, emissions and losses, especially from nuclear reprocessing, was adopted by 12 states. This requires the urgent review of current authorisations for discharges and releases of radioactive substances from nuclear reprocessing plants, with a view to implementing the non-reprocessing option for spent nuclear fuel management at appropriate facilities, and taking preventive measures against pollution from accidents. France and the United Kingdom abstained, and are not therefore bound.13 The French and British governments that had previously agreed to the strategy for the elimination of the man-made radioactive releases abstained from the vote. In an attempt to assuage the concerns voiced by the 12 European governments without actually eliminating waste discharges, COGEMA has adopted a policy of "zero impact" on the environment, rather than a policy of "zero release". The company has described its "zero impact" policy as follows: COGEMA has made a commitment that impacts from COGEMA-La Hague operations, regardless of the processing campaign involved or the type of material processed, will never exceed the threshold dose of 30 microsieverts per year to reference members of the public. Experts consider this dose level to be synonymous with "zero impact", and it is the working translations of the zero release concept.14 (Emphasis in original) It is our view that by making this claim, COGEMA has set itself above the entire process by which science is integrated into regulations. COGEMA becomes an arbiter of science and law In responding to the OSPAR demand for zero discharges with the goal of "zero impact," COGEMA has taken upon itself the role of deciding what parts of the science of the biological effects of radiation are important. It has decided that there is no impact below a threshold of 3 millirem (30 microsieverts) per year. Therefore it has equated zero releases with its own idea of "zero impact" even though the releases are easily quantifiable and are clearly not zero. The most important fact in understanding the difference between COGEMA's use of the phrase "zero impact" and zero discharges is that European and U.S. radiation protection regulations are based on the scientific hypothesis that every increment of radiation exposure creates a corresponding increment in radiation risk. This approach to radiation protection is based on many official reviews of the scientific literature. As such it has long been the accepted basis of radiation protection regulations. These reviews acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty about the actual risks at low doses, but they have all, to date, concluded that all increments of exposure to radiation produce some increment of cancer risk. For example, this is the view expressed in the most recently published scientific report of the committee of the U.S. National Research Council charged with assessing the effects of ionizing radiation. The committee's conclusions published in 1990 form the basis of U.S. radiation protection regulations.15 Similar work by the International Commission on Radiological Protections (ICRP) forms the basis of radiation protection regulations in other countries. Yet, COGEMA has stated: The most recent studies by international radiation protection experts establish a threshold of 30 microsieverts [per year] below which human beings are exposed to negligible risk. This threshold may therefore be viewed as a working definition of zero impact.16 This declaration has no basis in current regulations or the science on which it is supposedly based. So far as we can determine, it appears to have its origin in a 1999 scientific review by one scientist, Roger Clarke, the Chairman of the ICRP. In his review of the literature, he put forward his opinion that: At the lowest level, doses of a few tens of microsieverts [a few millrems] would be considered to be so low as to be beneath regulatory concern. There would be no need to involve any system of protection below these limits.17 The actual number of 30 microsieverts (3 millirem) is given in Figure 1 of the article. However this statement is only one opinion, albeit from the Chairman of the ICRP. While this opinion by Clarke is shared by some others, there is currently no consensus even in the ICRP, much less in the scientific community as a whole, that there should be any threshold at all at which risk should be considered as effectively zero. In fact, the most recent comprehensive review of the literature, published in 2001, by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) of the United States reaffirmed the need for a non-threshold approach for radiation protection by concluding that: . . . although the evidence for linearity is stronger with high-LET [Linear Energy Transfer]18 radiation [alpha and neutrons radiation] than with low-LET radiation [beta and gamma radiation], the weight of the evidence, both experimental and theoretical, suggests that the dose response relationships for many of the biological alterations that are likely precursors to cancer are compatible with linear-nonthreshold functions. The epidemiological evidence, likewise, while necessarily limited to higher doses, suggests that the dose-response relationships for some, but not all, types of cancer may not depart significantly from linear-nonthreshold functions. The existing data do not exclude other dose-response relationships. Further efforts to clarify the relevant dose-response relationships in the low-dose domain are strongly warranted.19 A more recent reaffirmation of the linear non-threshold hypothesis is far stronger. It comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In an August 2001 report, the CDC/NCI reviewed the "conclusions and summaries derived by these national and international expert groups" which included the United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the ICRP, and the NCRP. Based on this review, the CDC and NCI concluded that "[t]he data do not suggest the existence of a threshold below which there is no excess risk."20 Further, the CDC and the NCI explicitly dismissed those who assert that there is a threshold for radiation risk in the following words: Some think that there may be a threshold, that is a dose below which there is no risk, though as noted previously (Section 4.2.1), this hypothesis is not supported by currently available data.21 (Emphasis added) This CDC/NCI report is a "predecisional draft." It has been submitted to the National Academy of Sciences for review. There remain some uncertainties of course, but these cannot controvert the fact that the no-threshold hypothesis is both generally accepted by official scientific bodies and is the basis of current regulations. The next review of the subject by the National Research Council is scheduled to be completed in 2003 (this will be the "BEIR VII" report). There are, of course, many people in the nuclear industry who would like to see a threshold declared below which zero impact can be assumed. There are also some who think that some level of radiation exposure is beneficial (the "hormesis" hypothesis). On the other hand, there are others who believe that radiation risk is far higher than the official reviews indicate. It is precisely because there are conflicting claims, some of them put forward by those who might profit by their views, that official bodies have been constituted and many reviews have been conducted to the accompaniment of much public debate. One might personally hold views on radiation risk that are different from those on which regulations are based, but that cannot be the basis for actions that impact on health and the environment, such as those that occur when plutonium is processed for instance. A dose of 30 microsieverts (3 millirem) would certainly not be regarded as zero impact under current U.S. regulations. For instance, U.S. safe drinking water regulations limit the dose to the critical organ from exposure to various radionuclides as a result of drinking contaminated water. The rule for most beta-emitting radionuclides, such as iodine-129, is that concentration in drinking water should not exceed a level that would cause a dose of more than 4 millirem per year to the critical organ. For many or most radionuclides, this would translate into a dose of less than 3 millirem per year whole body dose equivalent (which COGEMA regards as "zero impact"), though that is not uniformly the case. For instance, consider the case of iodine-129, for which the critical organ is the thyroid. The weighting factor for thyroid is 3%. Thus a dose of 4 millirem per year to the thyroid corresponds to a whole body effective dose of about 0.12 millirem per year. If U.S. drinking water were contaminated with I-129 to a level that would produce a whole body dose of 3 millirem, COGEMA's own level of "zero impact," the corresponding water contamination would exceed allowable levels by a factor of 25. Hence, what for COGEMA would be "zero impact" for I-129 pollution of the water would be in gross violation of U.S. regulations for safe drinking water. Because European regulations are similar to those in the United States, COGEMA's assertion of "zero impact" for 30 microsieverts radiation dose flies in the face of established regulations both in the European Union as well as in the United States. And while it has not named the experts it relies on, there is evidence that COGEMA has simply used an opinion of a single scientist, who happens to be the chair of the ICRP. To have taken one opinion in the face of a contrary view taken by established regulatory and advisory scientific bodies has means that COGEMA has taken both the science and regulation of radiation protection into its own hands.) Leukemia near La Hague, France A study conducted by Dominique Pobel and Jean-Francois Viel around COGEMA's La Hague reprocessing plant concluded that children and young people who played on beaches near La Hague and ate the local seafood had a higher risk of contracting leukemia. Pobel and Viel's findings were published in the British Medical Journal in 1997.22 Although the authors did not claim to have definitive scientific proof that the leukemia clusters were caused by La Hague's radioactive discharges into the sea, their findings naturally caused concern in the surrounding communities. Subsequently, the Health and Environment minister of France set up a task force named the Radioecology Group of the Nord-Cotentin Region to investigate these findings. The task force conducted its own study and concluded that the impact of the reprocessing plant on the number of leukemias was negligible.23 COGEMA has used this conclusion to adopt its policy of zero impact on the environment in saying that: All of the epidemiological and radiological studies performed to date, and particularly the recent work by the Radioecology Group of the Nord-Cotentin Region [...], have detected no significant impact on public health and safety from these releases.24 However, another recent study, published in the July 2001 issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has also found an increase in childhood leukemia around La Hague. The researchers concluded: This study indicates an increased incidence of leukaemia in the area situated at less than 10 km from the plant. Monitoring and further investigations should be targeted at acute lymphoblastic leukaemia occurring during the childhood incidence peak (before 10 years) in children living near the La Hague site and maybe other nuclear reprocessing plants.25 One of the researchers, Alfred Spira of the French Medical Research Institute, was chosen in mid-1997 by the Ministers of Health and Environment to monitor the incidence of leukemia around La Hague.26 The difficulties of definitive statistical evidence regarding relatively rare diseases in small populations are well known. But while there may be uncertainties in the interpretation of the data, it is, we believe, improper for COGEMA to categorically rule out causation. COGEMA's flat denial that its discharges might be responsible,27 even thought there is some evidence for this (admittedly not definitive) effectively puts the burden of proof on the victim instead of the perpetrator of the pollution. In effect it puts the prerogatives of the polluter above the responsibilities of corporations to the communities in which they are located. Storage of foreign nuclear waste in France Article 3 of the 1991 French law on the management of nuclear waste specifically deals with the management of foreign nuclear waste.28 Under the law, it is illegal to store nuclear wastes of foreign origin on French soil beyond a certain period once these wastes have been reprocessed. Implicit in this language is that the storage of imported nuclear spent fuel is illegal if reprocessing is not intended or if the authorization to reprocess has not been sought or issued. A number of lawsuits and objections have been made that contend that COGEMA is in violation of the spirit and the content of the law by accepting spent fuel without proper reprocessing contracts and through its slowness in returning nuclear waste. Three lawsuits have been brought against COGEMA: CRILAN/Anger versus COGEMA regarding the storage of foreign nuclear wastes29 A lawsuit filed on December 31, 1993 by a non-governmental organization in Normandy, CRILAN (Comité de Réflexion, d'Information, et de Lutte Anti-Nucléaire or the Committee for Reflection, Information, and Anti-Nuclear Struggle), alleges that COGEMA is violating Article 3 at its La Hague reprocessing plant. The complaint was amended in 1997 to include a charge of endangerment of public safety, since a law passed the previous year allowed individuals to file suit if they believed their safety was being endangered due to illegal activities.30 Didier Anger, who represents CRILAN and is also a former member of the European Union Parliament, is the plaintiff for the amended charge. The activities alleged to cause public endangerment were nuclear waste storage on the site in general and, specifically, the illegal storage of foreign nuclear waste. The judge in charge of the case, Frederic Chevallier searched COGEMA's headquarters near Paris in September 1999 and seized the contracts between COGEMA and its foreign clients. He conducted the search because COGEMA had delayed handing over the documents he had requested.31 The examination of the contents of these contracts clarified the agreements regarding the repatriation of the processed wastes.32 Even before the examination of the contracts, Christian Bataille, a member of the French parliament and the author of the waste law had said: "I take my hat off to this young judge who has the guts to insist that the law should be obeyed. At that time [the passage of the law] all sorts of pressures were put on me so that Article 3 would not be voted on. It interferes with many commercial contracts and COGEMA is a business enterprise. Today its enforcement [Article 3] comes into conflict with a technocratic structure that considers itself above the law."33 The very first contracts signed in 1976 between COGEMA and its German and Belgian clients stipulated that the plutonium and the uranium would be returned to them but the rest of the waste would be the property of COGEMA.34 According to Anne Lauvergeon, the President of COGEMA, the next contracts signed in the 1980sstipulated that the high-level radioactive waste was to be sent back to the countries of origin.35 However, in a newspaper interview, Didier Anger said that the documents found by the judge show that the contracts signed in the 1980s contained loopholes on the question of the return of the wastes: . . . some contracts contained the option to return [the wastes] or the option [for the country of origin] to be fined if the returns did not happen. Moreover, even after the 1991 law, decisions were taken by COGEMA that postponed waste return36 Since 1995 a few small waste return shipments have taken place: one to Switzerland, three to Belgium, four to Germany and seven to Japan.37 Subsequently, two more lawsuits have been introduced against COGEMA pertaining to the import of nuclear waste: Greenpeace versus COGEMA regarding the shipment of Australian reactor spent fuel38 On March 15, 2001 a French court forbade the unloading of a ship carrying irradiated highly enriched uranium (HEU) reactor fuel from the Lucas Heights research reactor in Australia, destined for COGEMA's reprocessing facility at La Hague. In order to process this fuel, COGEMA was required to have special authorization from the DSIN (Direction de la Sûreté des Installations Nucléaires), France's Nuclear Safety Authority, the nearest equivalent of the U.S. NRC. Greenpeace, which filed suit against COGEMA before the ship docked at Cherbourg, first brought attention to this issue. The Cherbourg court found in favor of Greenpeace, ordering COGEMA to pay all court costs and threatening large fines for any fuel rods illegally unloaded. COGEMA took the case to the appeals court at Caen arguing that the authorizations for transporting, receiving and stocking the irradiated fuel had been given. As a result, the initial order was stayed in early April. Greenpeace has reintroduced the suit before the Cherbourg court asking it to rule on the merit of the case: whether COGEMA can import nuclear material without the authorization to reprocess. COGEMA claims that the Cherbourg court is not competent to judge the case and has appealed to another tribunal to rule on the competence of the court.39 CRILAN versus COGEMA regarding the shipment of non-irradiated scrap MOX fuel40 In March 2001 CRILAN took COGEMA to court for accepting four shipments at La Hague of German non-irradiated MOX fuel scraps from the Hanau MOX fuel fabrication plant that is being dismantled. The shipments arrived during the summer of 2000. These scraps are slated to be reprocessed. However, COGEMA must have a special authorization from the DSIN to reprocess it, but it has not applied for such authorization. Furthermore, these shipments occurred without the knowledge of the French Ministry of Environment and in spite of the fact that for the last two years the French government has declared that no more imports of spent fuel from Germany would be accepted until Germany takes back its wastes from La Hague. The Ministry of Industry claims that the shipments were legal since the fuel is not irradiated and the contract was signed in 1997, before the 1998 ban on transports from Germany to France.41 The court ruled that CRILAN did not have the standing to bring this case to court. Another organization, Manche-Nature, has reintroduced the case in court arguing, as does Greenpeace, that this MOX material should have the status of waste and is therefore illegally stored at La Hague. As in the case with the Australian reactor fuel, COGEMA has appealed to another tribunal to rule on the competence of the Cherbourg court. The legality of the storage of these special fuels was examined in a report authored by Christian Bataille. . In the report, Mr. Bataille acknowledged that the section of the law dealing with foreign fuel, while clear on the subject of the status of nuclear waste after reprocessing, is not precise enough in addressing the fate of the nuclear material before reprocessing. However, the report also stated: At the time [of the enactment of the law] what the legislator [Bataille] wanted was very clear: the continuation of the reprocessing activities, while at the same time preventing the La Hague plant from becoming the 'nuclear dump' of Europe . . . The contracts passed with the foreign utilities are for reprocessing and reprocessing only. COGEMA has no business in offering storage services, even if some countries are obviously ready to pay in order to get rid of a problem that they do not know how or want to solve.42 He adds that these fuels could very well have stayed in their country of origin until COGEMA was legally and technically able to proceed with reprocessing. Close to 50 metric tons of German MOX spent fuel resulting from the irradiation of mixed plutonium dioxide-uranium dioxide fuel in German reactors and shipped between 1988 and 1998, is believed to be illegally stored at La Hague.43 Since this spent fuel does not have a permit to reprocess it, and since it contains far more plutonium and other transuranic radionuclides than spent uranium fuel, it is being stored in violation of the spirit of the 1991 waste law, according to the parliamentarian who is its author. When asked about this issue in an interview with France's daily newspaper, Le Monde, the parliamentarian Bataille said: The [1991] law allows storage of wastes after reprocessing only for the time needed to cool the wastes. It did not foresee storage of un-reprocessed spent fuel for an extended period, awaiting reprocessing. This practice is contrary to the spirit of the law. Storage of wastes not intended for commercial reprocessing is not allowed. As the author of the law, I declare that the spirit of the law is being flouted by this practice.44 Principal Findings and Recommendations Our principal finding is that the record of COGEMA in its home country France warrants careful investigation before any assumption can be made that its U.S. subsidiary will scrupulously abide by U.S. laws and radiation protection regulations. COGEMA has had several brushes with the law and faces lawsuits in France regarding its nuclear waste storage practices at its main reprocessing plant at La Hague. The most troubling issue for the operations of its U.S. subsidiary is that the parent company COGEMA has decided to arrogate the authority to decide that there is a threshold of radiation dose, 3 millirem, that can be considered as a "zero impact" dose. This flies in the face of all accepted official conclusions on which prevailing health and environmental regulations are based. While there continue to be uncertainties and debate on radiation risk, all official bodies, including those that have recently reviewed the risks of radiation exposure, have concluded that the best hypothesis is that there is no threshold below which there is no risk. Moreover, COGEMA's suggested threshold of 3 millirem whole body dose would in some cases violate U.S. regulations. In the case of iodine-129, for instance, the implied contamination of drinking water at 3 millirem whole body equivalent exposure is 25 times the allowable safe drinking water limit. COGEMA's rejection of the very basis of U.S. radiation protection regulations and the science that underlies it, is a major challenge to the integrity of U.S. radiation protection regulations. We recommend that the DOE, NRC, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require that COGEMA, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of COGEMA, explicitly and formally assures the NRC , the EPA, and the DOE that it adheres to the no-threshold hypothesis and, as a corporation bound to obey U.S. laws and regulations, accepts the science underlying the no-threshold hypothesis for radiation risk so long as this forms the basis for U.S. regulations. Our second recommendation is that the NRC, EPA, and DOE should jointly conduct a thorough investigation of the home country record of COGEMA regarding its compliance with waste storage laws, European regulations, and the environmental concerns of its neighbors. . Public input should be sought in such an investigation in France, in other European countries, and in the United States. The results of that investigation should be public. Finally, we recommend that until these two conditions have been met, COGEMA, Inc. should not be allowed to process weapons-usable materials in the United States or to continue to be a part of the design consortium for the MOX plant or any of the associated facilities. + Cogema on Trial for Illegal Radioactive Waste Storage [http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-3/crilan.html] (in Science for Democratic Action vol. 9 no. 3, May 2001) Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org [ieer@ieer.org] Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Posted May 7, 2002 Endnotes 1 Matthieu Ecoiffier, La mise en examen de la Cogema, Un juge dans l'antre du nucléaire, Libération, July 13, 1999. Article 3 makes it illegal to store nuclear wastes of foreign origin on French soil beyond a certain period once these wastes have been reprocessed. 2 Brandon Haddock, "Mox plant scrutinized by residents", Augusta Chronicle, July 14, 2000, at http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071400/met_051-5368.000.s html [http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071400/met_051-5368.000. shtml] . 3 AREVA, at http://www.arevagroup.com/areva/uk/reussir/reussir.htm [http://www.arevagroup.com/areva/uk/reussir/reussir.htm] . 4 Letter from Senator Phil P. Leventis to Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson. April 12, 2000. 5 Brandon Haddock, "Mox plant scrutinized by residents", Augusta Chronicle, July 14, 2000, at http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071400/met_051-5368.000.s html [http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071400/met_051-5368.000. shtml] . 6 Testimonies of David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists; Testimony on nuclear power before the Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, May 8, 2001 and National energy policy: the future of nuclear power in the United States before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, United States House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, June 8, 2000. 7 Michèle Rivasi, Rapport sur les conséquences des installations de stockage des déchets nucléaires sur la santé publique et l'environnement. (Assemblée Nationale, Onzième Legislature, No 2257, Sénat, Session ordinaire de 1999-2000 No 272 Paris: Office parlementaire d'évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, March 2000, p.104. 8 United States Department of Transportation regulations, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 173. 403 (definition of "Radioactive materials", October 1, 2000, p. 562. 9 1992 OSPAR Convention, Annex II, On the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution by dumping or Incineration. Text as amended on 24 July 1998, updated 14 November 2000 at http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/convention/ospar_conv3.htm [http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/convention/ospar_conv3.htm] . 10 ibid. 11 Sintra Statement: OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, July 23, 1998 at http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/md/sintra.htm [http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/md/sintra.htm] . 12 ibid. 13 Press notice : Further protection for the north-east Atlantic OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, June 30, 2000 at http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/final_OSPAR_2000pressrelease.htm [http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/final_OSPAR_2000pressrelease.htm] . 14 COGEMA's commitment at La Hague: zero impact on the environment, at http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/InstitutionUK.nsf/Environneme nt/Engagement?OpenDocument [http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/InstitutionUK.nsf/Environnem ent/Engagement?OpenDocument] . 15 National Research Council Board on Radiation Effects Research Commission on Life Sciences, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR V, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1990. 16 COGEMA's commitment at La Hague: zero impact on the environment at http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/HomeUK.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadForm &Espace=Environnement [http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/HomeUK.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadFor m&Espace=Environnement] . 17 Roger Clarke, "Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change?" Journal of Radiological Protection Vol.19 no. 2, pp.107-115. 18 Linear energy transfer refers to the rate of energy transfer (and thus damage) per unit at distance traveled. 19 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation. (NCRP report np.136) (Bethesda, MD, June 4, 2001), p. 211. 20 Center for Disease Control & Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, A Feasibility Study of the Health and Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Test Conducted by the United States and Other Nations, Volume 1 Technical Report, Predecisional Draft - For peer review and Public Comment, prepared for the U.S. Congress by the Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control & Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, (Atlanta, Georgia, August 2001), p. 131, 133. 21 op cit., p. 148. 22 Dominique Pobel, Jean-François Viel: "Case-control study of leukaemia among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: the environmental hypothesis revisited", British Medical Journal, No 7074 Vol. 314, January 11, 1997. On the internet at www.bmj.com/archive/7074pr.htm [http://www.bmj.com/archive/7074pr.htm] . 23 At http://www.ipsn.fr/nord-cotentin/gt4/chap2_5.htm [http://www.ipsn.fr/nord-cotentin/gt4/chap2_5.htm] . 24 COGEMA's commitment at La Hague: zero impact on the environment, at http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/HomeUK.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadForm &Espace=Environnement [http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/HomeUK.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadFor m&Espace=Environnement] 25 A-V Guizard, O.Boutou, D. Pottier, X.Troussard, D. Pheby, G. Launoy, R. Slama, A. Spira and ARKM; "The incidence of childhood leukaemia around the La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant (France): a survey for the years 1978-1998, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2001, Vol. 55, pp. 469-74. On the internet at: http://jech.bmjjournals.com [http://jech.bmjjournals.com/] . 26 Etude épidémiologique dans le Nord-Cotentin at http://www.ipsn.fr/nord-cotentin/page_etudepidem.html [http://www.ipsn.fr/nord-cotentin/page_etudepidem.html] . 27 A COGEMA summary of its "Impact Study" of January 2000 states that "The strict respect of these discharges authorisations by the nuclear operators provides a guarantee that the activity is free of sanitary consequences for the public and the environment." It makes this claim even though COGEMA calculates the maximum dose from its La Hague operations currently at less than 6 millirem (0.06 millisieverts), i.e. above its definition of "zero impact" and acknowledges that past doses were higher. On the web at http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/InstitutionUK.nsf/Dossier/Etu deImpactUK?OpenDocument [http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/InstitutionUK.nsf/Dossier/Et udeImpactUK?OpenDocument] 28 Loi no 91-1381 du 30 décembre 1991 relative aux recherches sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs. 29 Maxime Bono: "Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la Production et des Echanges [de l'Assemblée Nationale] sur la proposition de résolution (n0 2937) de M. Noël Mamère tendant à créer une commission d'enquête relative à l'existence et au stockage de déchets non retraitables à l'usine de la Hague, en violation de la loi du 30 décembre 1991, et sur les responsabilités de la COGEMA en la matière, (Assemblée Nationale rapport no. 3021.) Paris: Assemblée Nationale, April 27, 2001. 30 Loi no 96-393 du 13 mai 1996 relative à la responsabilité pénale pour des faits d'imprudence ou de négligence. 31 Letter from South Carolina Senator Phil P. Leventis to U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond. November 4, 1999. 32 Laurent Gouhier, Mise en examen de Cogema: Didier Anger est confiant, La Presse de la Manche, October 18, 2000. 33 Matthieu Ecoiffier, La mise en examen de la Cogema, Un juge dans l'antre du nucléaire, Libération, July 13, 1999. 34 Michèle Rivasi, Rapport sur les conséquences des installations de stockage des déchets nucléaires sur la santé publique et l'environnement. (Assemblée Nationale, Onzième Législature, No 2257, Sénat, Session ordinaire de 1999-2000 No 272) Paris: Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix scientifiques et techniques, March 2000, p.99. 35 André Lajoinie. L'énergie: repères pour demain, Auditions organisées en décembre 2000, (Assemblée Nationale, Onzième Legislature No 2907) Paris 4/2001, p.144 at http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/rap-info/i2907.asp [http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/rap-info/i2907.asp] . 36 Laurent Gouhier, Mise en examen de Cogema: Didier Anger est confiant, La Presse de la Manche, October 18, 2000. 37 The current status of the returns can be found at, http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/Home.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadForm&a mp;Espace=Video [http://www.cogemalahague.fr/LaHague/Home.nsf/DynaFrame?ReadForm& amp;Espace=Video] , by searching for "Mise à jour des données de production de l'usine COGEMA La Hague et programmes de transports." 38 Hervé Kempf, "La justice interdit le déchargement de combustibles irradiés à La Hague," Le Monde, March 16, 2001 at, http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,162344,00.html [http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,162344,00.html] ; Extrait des Minutes de Secrétariat-Greffe du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Cherbourg, Jugement rendu le 15 mars 2001. 39 Déchets nucléaires australiens, Question écrite No32209 du 29/03/2001 page 1060 avec réponse posée par Trégouët (René) du groupe RPR, at http://www.tregouet.org/senat/questions/QE%2029-03-2001%20(10).ht ml [http://www.tregouet.org/senat/questions/QE%2029-03-2001%20(10).h tml] 40 Jean-Pierre Buisson, "L'importation contestée de Mox allemand par la Cogema devant le tribunal de Cherbourg," Le Monde, March 21, 2001at, http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,165008,00.html [http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,162344,00.html] 41 Hervé Kempf: 'La France a discrètement importé des rebuts nucléaires allemands," Le Monde, February 14, 2001 at, http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,148263,00.html [http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,162344,00.html] . 42 Christain Bataille Rapport sur les possibilités d'entreposage à long terme de combustibles nucléaires irradiés, Assemblée Nationale N0 3101, Sénat N0 347, Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix scientifiques et technologiques, Paris: mai 2000, pp.113-114. 43 Hervé Kempf, "Le Mox caché de la Hague," Le Monde, March 6, 2001at, http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,155790,0.html [http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,155790,0.html] . 44 Hervé Kempf, "Le stockage en France de Mox allemand bafoue l'esprit de la loi" Le Monde, March 6, 2001, at http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,155862,00.html [http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,155862,00.html] . ***************************************************************** 48 Murtha wants off-site testing of nuclear dump in Parks PittsburghLIVE.com - Thursday, May 9, 2002 || Contact Us [Valley News Dispatch] By Mary Ann Thomas [mathomas@tribweb.com] VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Tuesday, May 7, 2002 PARKS: U.S. Rep. John Murtha is calling for off-site testing of contaminants associated with the nuclear waste dump along Route 66. Between 1960 and 1970, radiological and chemical wastes from the NUMEC nuclear fuel facility in Apollo were buried at the Parks site in unlined trenches. The burial grounds are behind the former NUMEC plutonium processing plant. The buried material is estimated to be about 23,500 cubic yards, meaning if the material covered a football field, it would be piled 11 feet high. "I think off-site testing is essential for the overall cleanup plan, and it's vital to reassure people in the community," Murtha said Monday. The Army Corps of Engineers, which took over the site cleanup by congressional mandate earlier this year, will hold a public meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Parks Volunteer Fire Department Social Hall. Army Corps officials said last week that the agency will consider off-site testing provided the public has documentation or strong evidence of contamination. But given Murtha's strong stand on testing, Corps officials are anticipating such testing. Murtha, D-Johnstown, was responsible for legislation mandating a cleanup of the site by the Army Corps instead of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has been overseeing cleanup plans for about a decade. "We recognize that off-site testing will be important in reassuring the community that the cleanup job is done right," said Richard Dowling, Army Corps spokesman. "We've all heard the stories of dumping activities in the 1950s and 1960s," he said. "What we need to examine on a case-by-case basis is the validity of these tales." Army Corps officials are asking the public to step forward with documentation or stories about off-site contamination from the former nuclear facilities in Apollo and Parks. Environmental activist Patty Ameno of Leechburg has been calling for off-site testing for more than a decade. "It's a necessity," Ameno said Monday. "Based on just looking at the Parks site and surrounding areas - including homes, businesses, major roadways, and the Kiski River - it is clear that there is more than a mere suspicion of contamination given the tenure of this facility," Ameno said. BWX Technologies, (formerly Babcock &Wilcox) holds the nuclear license for the burial grounds, while the Atlantic Richfield Co. is financially responsible for the site. BWX is near completing its cleanup of the former plutonium processing plant. The Parks site cleanup falls under the Corps' Formerly Utilized Sites Action Remedial Action Program. There are 21 such sites across the nation under the program. + Who: Army Corps of Engineers. + What: Public meeting on the cleanup of the nuclear waste dump along Route 66 in Parks. + When: Wednesday. Open house from 6 to 7 p.m., followed by a brief presentation and question-and-answer session. + Where: Parks Volunteer Fire Department social hall, Pleasant View Drive. Mary Ann Thomas can be reached at mathomas@tribweb.com [mathomas@tribweb.com] or (724 )226-4691. Back to headlines text copyright © 2002 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. PittsburghLIVE. [ekost@tribweb.com] ***************************************************************** 49 DOE blasts Hodges' plutonium ad Augusta Georgia: Technology: Web posted Wednesday, May 8, 2002 Associated Press [http://wire.ap.org/] COLUMBIA - Politics raised its election-year head again Tuesday in South Carolina's plutonium fight with the U.S. Department of Energy. The political give and take has never been far from the almost daily fray between Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges and Republicans in Washington over the DOE's plans to ship tons of weapons-grade plutonium to the Savannah River Site for conversion to nuclear reactor fuel. South Carolina officials worry the conversion program will never be funded and the plutonium will remain in the state indefinitely. Mr. Hodges sued the federal agency a week ago to halt the shipments. The politics of the plutonium debate kicked into high gear Tuesday as the DOE's spokesman blasted Mr. Hodges for using campaign money to pay for ads opposing the shipments. "It is a well-established tradition in this country that matters of national security and foreign policy are viewed as nonpartisan and certainly should never be politicized for personal gain," Energy spokesman Joe Davis said the day after the ads began airing. "Against that backdrop, it is irresponsible for Governor Hodges to use the plutonium disposition program in political television advertisements for his re-election campaign. We hope that other responsible leaders in South Carolina would disassociate themselves with this unprecedented move by the governor," he said. "This is not a national security issue," Mr. Hodges' spokeswoman Cortney Owings said. "There is ample evidence that DOE's motivation behind shipping plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina now is to help (Republican) Sen. (Wayne) Allard's re-election bid," she said. Mr. Hodges and fellow Democrats have accused Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a former GOP senator, of helping Mr. Allard's re-election chances by moving the radioactive material from Rocky Flats to SRS. Mr. Hodges is using $100,000 from his re-election funds to run a 30-second ad that takes energy officials to task for "breaking their promise" not to make South Carolina a nuclear dumping ground. The ad shows Mr. Hodges at a practice blockade that may be used in an effort to turn back the shipments that could begin as early as May 15. It urges residents to "stand with Governor Hodges" and to call Washington and tell federal bureaucrats "no plutonium dumping in South Carolina." The ads are a politically smart move by Mr. Hodges, Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen said. It gets Mr. Hodges on the air in a statewide advertising campaign in the midst of ads for Republicans seeking the gubernatorial nomination. And it's a strong message, Mr. Thigpen said. "You can't go wrong in South Carolina standing up to the federal government," he said. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., even got into the action Tuesday and asked Mr. Abraham to delay the shipments for at least a month. Mr. Thurmond, who at 99 is retiring after his current term, has introduced legislation along with Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to end the dispute between Mr. Hodges and DOE. Mr. Graham is running for Mr. Thurmond's seat. The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our privacy [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 50 Nuclear waste we battled now haunts others [The Concord Monitor online edition] Wednesday, May 8, 2002 By AMY McCONNELL Monitor staff Nevada / Hillsboro In the spring of 1986, the furious residents of Hillsboro and neighboring towns beat back the federal government's attempt to dump 13,500 tons of nuclear waste beneath their communities. This week, New Hampshire's congressmen are poised to help bury that waste - now grown to 77,000 tons and still festering at more than 100 temporary sites nationwide - in someone else's backyard. The governor of Nevada disagrees, but many scientists believe Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the right location to store radioactive waste underground, according to U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass [http://www.house.gov/bass] . It's dry, free from earthquakes and volcanoes, and remote, he said. "I believe responsible action to rid our communities of spent nuclear fuel is required for our health and safety," Bass said in a prepared statement. "It will be easier by far to protect one storage facility that is far from a commercial center, is on federal land and has been thoroughly studied." U.S. Rep. John E. Sununu also supports President Bush [http://www.whitehouse.gov] 's recommendation to bury the waste at Yucca Mountain. Congress will vote today or tomorrow on whether to override Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the proposal; supporters need only a simple majority to send the measure to the Senate, where New Hampshire Sens. Bob Smith and Judd Gregg say they will vote for it. Former White House chief of staff John H. Sununu, who opposed burying the waste in Hillsboro when he was governor of New Hampshire, is now lobbying lawmakers on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to discard it in Nevada. Yucca Mountain, like Hillsboro, was picked as one of 12 potential dump sites around the country in 1983, after Congress gave the Department of Energy the authority to build and operate the nation's first long-term nuclear waste repository. Since then, the federal government has spent more than $4 billion to study whether the area's geology, hydrology, biology and climate are right for isolating the country's spent fuel rods and military waste, according to the Department of Energy. The radioactive waste will remain dangerous for several thousand years. For all the money the government has spent, it has completed relatively few of the studies required by law before the project may go forward, according to Greg Bortolin, Guinn's press secretary. Of the 293 required studies, the government has completed 45, he said. Until they are finished, no one can know whether dumping the waste at Yucca Mountain is safe, he said. "We don't know - that's the whole point," Bortolin said. "What we think is immaterial, but they can't prove that it's safe." The mountain, he said, is only 100 miles away from an area that's home to more than 7 million of the state's residents. Soon after Guinn announced his veto on April 8, he began a public relations campaign against the push to make Nevada the nation's nuclear dumping ground. "Yucca Mountain is not suitable, it is not safe. . . . We will expose the Department of Energy's dirty little secrets about Yucca Mountain," he said, before flying to Washington, D.C., to plead Nevada's case on Capitol Hill. Guinn has asked Nevada citizens to contribute $1 each toward the cost of fighting the dump. Nevada officials are running TV ads stressing the dangers of transporting nuclear waste. But in Nevada, public outcry doesn't seem to have crystallized into the kind of grassroots rebellion that helped stop the dump in Hillsboro in 1986. That spring, Department of Energy officials released their list of 12 potential sites. Hillsboro, which rests above a deep vein of solid crystalline granite, was ranked 10th among the finalists. The proposed 78-square-mile site included parts of Hillsboro, Antrim, Bradford, Henniker, Stoddard, Washington and Windsor. The list was released just as many communities were preparing for meeting season; more than 130 communities later passed warrant articles rejecting the dump, according to news reports of the time. Protesters organized into groups whose members included archaeologists, biologists and hydrologists. The volunteers scattered across the Hillsboro area to document deep wells that would disqualify the site from consideration. Those protesters jeered Sununu - a supporter of building the Seabrook nuclear power plant - when he tried to explain state officials' attempt to fight the dump. And they cheered members of the Hillsboro Task Force on Nuclear Waste, such as Leigh Bosse. "Our charge is simple," Bosse told an audience of more than 1,000 people attending one public hearing, according to news reports. "Get Hillsboro the hell off the list. . . . We want to give the Department of Energy the information they're asking for, but they're going to get a lot more than they asked for." Hundreds of volunteers for the group ultimately drafted a 700-page report that challenged the department's findings on such subjects as wells, wetlands, population, conservation land and geology. And when the department's list was winnowed to three potential sites, Yucca Mountain - but not Hillsboro - was among them. (Amy McConnell can be reached at 224-5301, ext. 310, or by e-mail at amcconnell@cmonitor.com [amcconnell@cmonitor.com] .) Wednesday, May 8, 2002 © Concord Monitor [http://www.concordmonitor.com] and New ***************************************************************** 51 Taiwan to set up two commissions to address toxic waste dump issue BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 4, 2002 Central News Agency web site Taipei, 4 May: Economics Minister Lin Yi-fu on Saturday [4 May] promised to set up two commissions to address the concerns of aboriginal citizens on Orchid Island in an attempt to allay their anger about the government's failure to remove a radioactive waste dump site there. After hours of talks with representatives of the island's aboriginal citizens, the Tawu, Lin signed an agreement committing the government to set up one commission to work out plans to relocate the waste dump site and another commission solve the Tawu's health and medical problems. Both of the commissions should be in place within one month. The minister flew to the island off the coast of eastern Taiwan Saturday morning, and went into talks with representatives of the Tawu, who had seized the dump site for two days demanding that the government make good on its promise of shutting down the dump site and removing the radioactive waste. Seven legislators elected by Taiwan's aboriginal citizens and Lin Wen-yuan, president of the state-run Taipower Co., which runs the dump site, were also present at the talks. The government had promised years earlier to remove the dump site from Orchid Island before the end of this year, but it has been unable to find a suitable substitute site either at home or abroad. Source: Central News Agency web site, Taipei, in English 0745 gmt 4 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 52 Top-ranking U.S. diplomat heading to Moscow to hammer out arms reduction agreement details AP World - General News Top-ranking U.S. diplomat heading to Moscow to hammer out arms reduction agreement details Wed May 8, 8:57 AM ET By JUDITH INGRAM, Associated Press Writer MOSCOW - A high-ranking U.S. diplomat will return to Moscow next week to try to hammer out final details of the nuclear arms reduction agreement Russian President Vladimir Putin hope to sign at their summit later this month, the Foreign Ministry said Wednesday. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton is scheduled to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov on Monday to work on the arms deal as well as a joint statement on shared strategic goals. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will continue the talks next Tuesday and Wednesday in Reykjavik, Iceland, where they will attend a meeting intended to elaborate a new relationship between NATO and Russia. Ret. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, a hard-line critic of alleged U.S. attempts to dominate the world, told a news conference that the arms control agreement would set ceilings for reductions and would provide for a working group to elaborate further details. One looming difference is the fate of the warheads to be taken out of service under the agreement, which will call for cuts to 1,700 to 2,200 long-range warheads per side. Each country is currently allowed 6,000 warheads under the 1991 START I treaty. Moscow wants the decommissioned warheads to be destroyed, while Washington says it wants to store them in case of radical changes in the security environment in the future. Ivashov said he strongly doubted the U.S. argument. "First, the American media have raised the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in the war against terrorism. Second, if the Clinton administration used to talk about limiting the missile defense program ... today the U.S. administration won't be constrained by any limitations. There's a suspicion that the United States isn't excluding the use of the warheads in its missile defense shield," Ivashov said. He played down the significance of the arms reduction agreement, which U.S. and Russian officials have hailed as an important element in a new strategic partnership. "Objectively, the number of nuclear warheads already has been decreasing both in the United States and Russia. What is happening now is the juridical recording of this process — but there's no breakthrough here," Ivashov said. "Especially if you look at it in the context of the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the uncontrolled U.S. actions of force in the whole world." (ji/adc) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 AU: Labor accused of hypocrisy over nuclear sub The West Australian + May 08, 2002 THE Greens have accused the WA Government of hypocrisy for allowing a US nuclear submarine to dock in Perth despite the Labor Party's Web site saying it was opposed to such visits. The nuclear-powered USS Salt Lake City, with 133 crew, arrived at HMAS Stirling naval base off Rockingham, early today for five days' rest and recreational leave. The State Labor Party's Web site says "Labor will oppose the entry of nuclear-powered and nuclear armed vessels into Western Australian harbours or adjoining waters because of the hazards they create." Greens MP Dee Margetts said the Government was guilty of hypocrisy and deception by allowing the submarine to dock at Stirling. "I would think that many of their members would be wondering at which point they suddenly changed their mind and became in favour of nuclear-powered warships," she said. However a spokesman for Environment Minister Judy Edwards denied opposition to nuclear-powered ships had been part of Labor's environmental policy at last year's election. "It was not a policy commitment we took to the election, and our environmental policy was lauded by a lot of people including the Greens," he said. He was unaware of any plans to update the ALP Web site. A navy spokesman said visits by nuclear-powered submarines were routine and had been occurring since 1976. He said a series of protocols had to be followed before such visits were allowed, including Government approval. -AAP © 2002 West Australian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Oak Ridge workers want benefits raised DOE's payroll tops $767 million By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer May 8, 2002 OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge payroll totaled more than $767 million in 2001, a 6 percent increase over the previous year, the federal agency announced Tuesday. The total work force was 12,998, including federal and contractor employees at various facilities. Once again, Knox County was home to the greatest number of DOE-related employees, with 5,019 workers bringing home paychecks totaling $323,619,114. Next was Anderson County with 3,547 workers ($206.5 million) and Roane County with 2,228 workers ($124.8 million). According to DOE's annual statistical report, the primary contractors were BWXT Y-12, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, UT-Battelle, Bechtel Jacobs Co., BNFL Inc. and Science Applications International Corp. The payroll totals also include federal employees at the DOE field office, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, and the Y-12 office of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Meanwhile, DOE announced that it spent more than $646 million for contracts and procurements last year, with most of that - $491,782,982 - being in Anderson County. DOE also spent more than $117 million in Knox County. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 Lawmakers upset over proposal to aid sick nuclear weapons workers Las Vegas SUN May 07, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of Congress say an Energy Department proposal that's supposed to help Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers get compensation for their job-related illnesses instead will make it harder. The draft rule, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, allows government contractors to contest compensation claims, a provision lawmakers say runs counter to the intent of a bill they passed. "Under this rule, workers will never receive the justice that Congress - on a bipartisan basis - had intended for diseases and disability incurred while working at DOE facilities," House members wrote in a letter they planned to send Wednesday to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., planned to send a similar letter Wednesday. The rule is aimed at the thousands of workers exposed to toxic substances at Energy Department facilities run by contractors. Those workers were not included in a year-old federal program that provides medical care and $150,000 to nuclear weapons workers exposed to cancer-causing radiation or silica and beryllium, which cause lung diseases. Congress told the Energy Department to help workers file claims under state worker compensation systems, which vary and often have high burdens of proof for occupational diseases. The agency also is supposed to instruct its contractors not to fight the claims, reversing a decades-old practice. But the draft rule allows contractors to contest the findings of medical panels tasked with determining whether workers got sick from on-the-job exposures. "Their draft regulations are very contrary to what our intent was," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. He also criticized a requirement that medical panels apply different standards for determining the cause of an illness, depending on the laws in each state. Energy Department spokeswoman Dolline Hatchett said the agency would not comment on the rule until it was finalized, likely in a few weeks. The majority of DOE contractors are self-insured, and the Energy Department reimburses them for worker compensation costs. That means if a contractor pays a claim, the agency would end up paying the bill. A problem exists in cases where contractors have private insurance policies. The Energy Department has no contractual relationship with the private insurers, and cannot instruct them to pay claims. Worker advocates want the Energy Department rules to state that the agency will pay those claims too. Lawmakers also are upset that, under the proposed rule, the Energy Department would reimburse contractors for some of the costs associated with contesting a claim. "It seems to me as if it's providing an incentive to fight," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio. If it's a question of money or authority to carry out Congress' intent, Abraham should ask Congress for help, Strickland said. On the Net: Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov/ [http://www.energy.gov/] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 56 BWXT not ruling out subcontracting beryllium work The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- 05/08/02 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff BWXT Y-12 plans are to continue operating existing facilities for beryllium-related work at the Y-12 National Security Complex until new ones can be built. However, the company isn't ruling out subcontracting some of the activities. "Y-12 has an ongoing beryllium mission now and for the future," said Bill Wilburn, a spokesman for BWXT, which manages the federal facility. "To best assure that our current facilities can continue to operate, we are planning upgrades necessary to maintain them as viable." Two upgrades have recently been completed providing enhanced ventilation and a new change house, or locker room-type area, in Building 9202, and others are being planned throughout the Y-12 complex, according to Wilburn. "We are also preparing a contingency plan to subcontract some of this work in the event there is a problem with ongoing operations that cannot be readily resolved," he said. Beryllium, which is used in components for nuclear weapons, is a naturally occurring metallic element found in about 30 minerals. As an industrial material, beryllium possesses some uncommon qualities such as its ability to withstand extreme heat, remain stable over a wide range of temperatures, and function as an excellent thermal conductor. Due to security classification restrictions, officials with BWXT were extremely vague when it came to providing details about Y-12's beryllium-related work. Essentially, though, the Oak Ridge weapons plant takes what's called beryllium oxide powder, which has almost a talc-like consistency; treats and processes it; and eventually machines it to its final use form. Some Y-12 employees have voiced concern that if the work is subcontracted out, then it would be the subcontractor's responsibility to set safety rules and that neither DOE nor BWXT would have any legal responsibility to see that they do. Exposure to beryllium particles can cause chronic beryllium disease -- an irreversible and sometimes fatal scarring of the lungs. The new beryllium facilities will be part of a "special materials" complex that is expected to be constructed by 2008 and up and running by 2010. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 57 DOE ponders extending incinerator's lifespan 05/08/02 The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Department of Energy is willing to consider operating Oak Ridge's toxic waste incinerator beyond its planned closure date of 2003, according to the agency's top environmental official. In fact, Jessie Roberson, assistant secretary for Environmental Management, describes the Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator as an "important and unique resource" for DOE in a letter she recently sent to the Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board. The Site-Specific Advisory Board, which monitors DOE's local environmental activities, had requested that DOE study the impact of closing down the incinerator before actually doing so. DOE had been looking to the commercial sector to provide a type of waste treatment to replace the Oak Ridge incinerator, according to Roberson. Consequently, DOE would not be incurring the costs to develop, operate and eventually shut down the alternative method. The federal agency would then incur a per-unit cost to have waste treated. "Commercial alternatives have not materialized as anticipated, and so we are presently willing to consider operation of the TSCAI beyond 2003," Roberson wrote. "In the future, should such options present themselves, the cost of operating the TSCAI will be compared to the cost for treatment at an alternative facility." The incinerator, which is located at the Oak Ridge K-25 site, burns low-level radioactive wastes in addition to some wastes containing hazardous chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls. According to Roberson, her willingness to support continued operations of the incinerator is based on its current operating capabilities. She said the demand far exceeds the currently available treatment capacity. "Consequently, any improvement that could be made to the operational capacity of the TSCAI would be beneficial," wrote Roberson. The incinerator was shut down in November 2001 for a routine maintenance outage, and it is scheduled to start up again in the next couple of months. IT Corp. operates the incinerator under a subcontract with Bechtel Jacobs Co. -- DOE's cleanup manager for Oak Ridge. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 58 First SNS component completed on schedule 05/08/02 The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have completed the first of the Spallation Neutron Source's five major components on time and on budget. Officials said the front-end system should be shipped to Oak Ridge during the first week of June. Its four major parts will be separated for shipment. The front-end system generates a beam of negative hydrogen ions and prepares it for delivery into a linear accelerator, which accelerates them to very high energies. The ions are passed through a foil, which strips off each ion's two electrons, converting it to a proton. The resulting protons will bombard a mercury target, which is a container of liquid mercury, thus generating neutrons for use in research. Neutron scattering research has been responsible for improvements in jets, compact discs, shatterproof windshields, satellite information for weather forecasts and stronger, lighter plastics. Neutrons have also been used in medical research for such studies as determining how bones mineralize during development and how they decay during osteoporosis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is collaborating on the design and construction of the SNS with Lawrence Berkeley in California and four other Department of Energy laboratories -- Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson and Los Alamos. Construction of the front-end system began in October 1998, and the projected costs for making it were about $20 million. The system was assembled and tested, component-by-component, by a team that included more than 40 scientists, engineers and technicians. Overall, the $1.4 billion SNS, which is being built on Chestnut Ridge, is more than 40 percent complete. ORNL is managing the SNS project, which could be completed by the end of 2005. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 59 DOE payroll totals $144.3 million for OR residents 05/08/02 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff A total of 2,247 Oak Ridge residents working as federal or contractor employees for the Department of Energy's local facilities earned more than $144.3 million in salaries for calendar year 2001, officials said. However, when compared to 2000, those figures, which include residents who live in Anderson and Roane counties, dropped by 50 as regards the number of employees and dipped around $1.4 million in total salaries. Primary DOE contractors during 2001 were UT-Battelle, Bechtel Jacobs Co., BWXT Y-12, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, BNFL Inc. and Science Applications International Corp. Federal workers employed by DOE's Oak Ridge Operations, the local National Security Administration office and the Office of Scientific and Technical Information are also included in the payroll statistics. In the grand scheme of things, DOE employed 12,998 people at its Oak Ridge facilities last year, with a total payroll of $767.4 million. That's an increase over the $719.6 million total for 2000 and the $695.1 million total for 1999. z Frank Juan, a spokesman for DOE, said it's getting increasingly harder to calculate these payroll totals due to the growing number of subcontractors working for the federal agency on Oak Ridge-related projects. In fact, a change in the way the payroll figures are reported by subcontractors to DOE led to the federal agency's having to retract a press release it issued on April 24, which cited an incorrect grand total for payroll. As in years past, Knox County was the champion when it came to the largest total of employees, 5,019, and salaries, $323.6 million. Anderson County followed with 3,547 employees making $206.5 million, while Roane County finished third with 2,228 making close to $124.9 million. The total number of employees and salaries for Anderson and Knox counties were both up from the 2000 figures. Although the total number of Roane County employees stayed the same in 2001 as 2000, the annual salaries figure rose about $10.5 million over the 2000 total. Some of the other counties that fared well on the DOE payroll were the following: + Loudon -- 723 employees earning $40.6 million. + Morgan -- 371 employees earning $16 million. + Blount -- 362 employees earning $19.9 million. + Campbell -- 192 employees earning $8.9 million. In addition, during calendar year 2001, contracts and procurement associated with the DOE's operations in Oak Ridge totaled $646.8 million. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 60 DOE's worker proposal attacked - The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, May 08, 2002 The rules run counter to Congress' intent in helping sick workers get compensation, Rep. Ed Whitfield says. By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 The Department of Energy "appears to have misinterpreted the intent of Congress" in draft regulations to help sick nuclear employees and their families get workers' compensation benefits, U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield says. In a letter to be sent today to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, said the draft "fails to meet" the law's intent to ensure that people exposed to workplace toxins are compensated by DOE contractors "without a legal battle." Legislation passed in 2000 provides $150,000 and medical benefits through the Department of Labor to uranium-enrichment workers with chronic beryllium disease, silicosis and certain radiation-induced cancers. Those sickened from other workplace toxins can seek state workers' compensation benefits by providing medical evidence to DOE, which decides whether a claim should be reviewed by a special physicians' panel. If the panel approves the claim, the department will not oppose it and will direct its contractors to do likewise. Whitfield's letter, expected to be signed by other lawmakers, complains that the draft rule: Allows contractors to contest findings by the doctors' panel. "This process is not authorized in (the law) and turns the whole principle of contractors not contesting merited workers' compensation claims on its head." Allows contractors to be reimbursed for legal costs of contesting all issues except the cause of an illness. "Contractors will have an incentive to fight merited claims based on procedural barriers within state compensation systems that prevent workers from receiving benefits." Requires the panel to apply "widely different standards" for cause of an illness, depending on the state where someone worked. A "uniform and equitable federal standard" of causation is needed. Does not compel contractors to hold private insurers, state plans and predecessor contractors harmless if they pay claims, and provides no means of compensation if a contractor does not exist. That means claimants could be approved by the panel "and have no way to get paid." Requires workers or survivors to submit medical evidence of exposure-related disease, but does not say how DOE must provide "meaningful assistance" in getting the information from a doctor of choice. Energy Department spokeswoman Dolline Hatchett told The Associated Press that the agency would not comment on the rule until it was finalized, likely in a few weeks. However, in publishing the rule, DOE said the appeal process was broadened to include both the claimant and contractor "for the sake of fairness and due process." The department said it believes "it is encouraging contractors' compliance" by allowing them to be reimbursed for accepting a claim. As for varying state standards, the evidence should focus on whether an applicant "provides reasonable evidence of an illness or death," DOE said, and the law was not intended to "create federal standards that would override" those of the states. DOE said it must help an applicant obtain a medical history it if is not "reasonably available," and the law requires the department and its contractors to provide exposure records. If applicants are required to travel for panel interviews, which should be infrequent, travel costs are expected to be paid by DOE. In writing Abraham, Whitfield said the Energy Department still has not responded to a March 27 letter from him and eight other members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee asking 22 detailed questions about the regulations. Today's letter said that unless improvements are made, the regulations will provide little help to workers or their survivors beyond seeking workers' compensation benefits on their own. ***************************************************************** 61 New Members Named to Secretary of Energy Advisory Board energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: May 7, 2002 Head of Michigan State University McPherson Appointed New Chairman WASHINGTON, DC -- Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham named a new chairman and appointed 17 new members to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), bringing its membership to 38. M. Peter McPherson, the newly named chairman, is president of Michigan State University. “The new board and Chairman Peter McPherson will provide essential, independent advice and recommendations on issues of national importance for this department,” Secretary Abraham said. “Given the diverse interests of the members of this board, I am confident I will be well-served by an array of experts in areas that represent our greatest energy challenges.” Prior to becoming president of Michigan State University in 1993, McPherson was Group Executive Vice President, Investment Management Group at Bank of America. He held several other executive- level positions at Bank of America spanning from 1989 to 1993. From Aug. 1987 to March 1989, he was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Department. McPherson served as Administrator of the Agency for International Development from Feb. 1981 to Aug. 1987. McPherson holds a bachelor of science degree from Michigan State University and a MBA from Western Michigan University. He received his J.D. degree from American University Law School. McPherson is the recipient of numerous awards including the U.S. Presidential Certificate of Outstanding Achievement for continued demonstrated vision, initiative, and leadership in efforts to achieve a world without hunger, and the Secretary of State Distinguished Leadership Award for distinguished contribution to the development, management and implementation of current foreign policy. SEAB is the highest ranking external advisory board chartered in the Department of Energy and reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. The board was chartered in 1990 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide the Secretary with timely, balanced, authoritative advice on the department’s management reforms, research, development and technology activities, energy and national security responsibilities, environmental cleanup activities, and economic issues relating to energy. Members are selected by the Secretary as representatives of their affiliated organization or industry sectors on the basis of their expertise and abilities to contribute to the objectives of the Board. SEAB meetings are open to the public; opportunities for public comment are provided at each meeting. Members serve two-year terms and are eligible for extension. Other new members appointed to the board include: Harry Alford, CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Vicki Hart, Consultant, Verner, Lipfert, Bernhard, McPherson &Hand; James P. Hoffa, President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Dr. Ray Irani, Chairman &CEO, Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Thomas R. Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute; Dr. Modesto Maidique, President, Florida International University; William F. Martin, Chairman, Washington Policy &Analysis Inc.; Frederick D. McClure, Shareholder, Winstead, Sechrest &Minick; Paul Milbauer, Managing Director, Rudman Capital Management; Nancy Pfotenhauer, President &CEO, Independent Women’s Forum; Lee R. Raymond, Chairman, President &CEO, Exxon Mobil Corp.; Nathaniel E. Robinson, Wisconsin Technical College System; Christine J. Toretti, Chairman &CEO, S.W. Jack Drilling Co.; G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., President &CEO, General Motors Co.; Vin Weber, Managing Partner, Clark &Weinstock; J. Robinson West, Chairman of the Board, Petroleum Finance Co.; Michael L. Williams, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas. Chairman McPherson replaces outgoing Chairman Andrew Athy, Partner, O’Neill, Athy &Casey, PC, who will remain on the board. Media Contact: Jill Schroeder, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-079 ***************************************************************** 62 NRC says Nuclear One faces danger of cracking due to age TheCabin.net :: Arkansas News :: 05/07/02 RUSSELLVILLE (AP) -- Entergy Corp.'s Arkansas Nuclear One is among a list of power plants that are susceptible to a specific type of cracking, but plant officials say the plant is safe. "It's something that we are aware of and its an issue that the industry is watching very closely, power plant spokesman Phil Fisher said. "The plants are safe and we are making thorough inspections." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered inspections at 14 reactors nationwide after it was learned the plants were vulnerable to nozzle cracking because of age. A small crack was found in a nozzle at Nuclear One during an inspection last fall, but the crack has been repaired, Fisher said. In April, Entergy's Unit 2 was inspected and no cracks were found in its nozzles. Control rods are inserted into the nozzles to shut down the reactor in the event of an emergency. Reactor coolant, which contains acid, can cause the nozzles to corrode and crack. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************