***************************************************************** 07/08/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.174 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Vermont Nuke Plant Sale Is Opposed 2 US: NFS issued violations by NRC 3 Japan's Nuclear Ambition Persists; Leaders' Remarks Deemed "Calculat 4 US: Radioactive Recycling NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 US: Anti-nuclear groups try again to stop Yankee sale 6 US: Anti-nuclear groups try again to stop Yankee sale NUCLEAR SAFETY 7 US: Theft, espionage common concerns at U.S. campuses 8 Safeguarding Russia's nukes gains urgency 9 US: Hacker cripples Area 51 site for 36 hours NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 10 US: Protesters ask Senate to dump Yucca proposal 11 Security tight as nuke ship sails 12 US: Yucca Mountain Protesters Rally 13 US: Vegas rally calls on Senate to reject Nevada nuclear waste dump 14 US: Vegas rally calls on Senate to reject Nevada nuclear waste dump 15 US: Vote cast on dump was ploy, some say 16 US: Anti-Yucca Mountain rally dominated by political posters 17 US: Big loads of nuclear waste may strain U.S. rail system 18 Krasnoyarsk Sees Lenin Protest Spent Nuclear Fuel Imports 19 US: Yucca history 20 US: 'Catastrophic' radiation could be released if canisters fail 21 US: Protesters rip Yucca plan 22 US: Editorial: Just what exactly will pop his cork? 23 US: Final Yucca lobbying under way 24 US: Yucca, Skull Valley Spell Trouble for Utah, Critics Say 25 US: Nuclear waste risks mapped for Valley 26 US: In Nuclear Waste Site Debate, Visions of Transport Disaster 27 US: Durbin now backs storage plan 28 US: Build national nuclear waste depot in Nevada 29 US: Put waste at Yucca Mountain Safer to store nuclear trash in 30 US: Waste from uranium plant was mislabeled 31 US: Our position:* The Yucca Mountain vault is needed, but so is its 32 US: Large amount of nuclear waste could pass through area, analysis 33 US: Hodges to argue his case 07/10/02 34 US: Nuclear waste plan raises Morris' fears 35 US: Ad in 'Chronicle' is irresponsible 07/10/02 36 US: Yes to Yucca Mtn. 07/08/02 37 US: Other sites rejected in search for alternative to Nevada waste d 38 US: Scientific questions linger over Yucca Mountain 39 US: Transporting Nuclear Waste Is A Mistake 40 US: Dry cask storage provides an alternative solution 41 US: Plant adds space for nuclear waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS 42 Europe stunned by Pasko verdict 43 US: Ambitious Nuclear Arms Pact Faces a Senate Examination US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 FROM CARSON CITY: DOE has a death grip on the evidence OTHER NUCLEAR 45 UK spearheads world search for 'dream energy' of nuclear fusion ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Vermont Nuke Plant Sale Is Opposed July 07, 2002 Las Vegas SUN MONTPELIER, Vt.- Two anti-nuclear groups launched a last-ditch bid to stop the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, claiming the buyer, Entergy Nuclear, can't be trusted to follow state regulations. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Citizens Awareness Network want the Public Service Board to host a new set of hearings on the proposed sale. Coalition attorney James Dumont said the request is an attempt to cover all bases to protect ratepayers before the reactor is out of the hands of state regulators. The board approved the sale to Jackson, Miss.-based Entergy Nuclear with conditions on June 13. But one of those conditions - that any extra money in the plant's decommissioning fund be returned to ratepayers - prompted Entergy to ask the board to reconsider. At a hearing this past week, Entergy said if the board refuses to remove the condition from its approval of the deal it may ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to overrule the state's decision. Dumont said that if the condition on the decommissioning fund can be brought before a federal agency, there's a chance any portion of the deal could be contested later. "It is painfully clear that (Entergy) intends to pick and choose which parts of the board's order it intends to comply with, and at some future date, when push comes to shove, it will ask FERC to set aside those parts it does not like," Dumont wrote in his motion to the board. When he raised a similar argument at Tuesday's hearing, Entergy lawyer Victoria Brown said that that the company would honor any of the commitments it had made in the deal - but added that those commitments did not include giving all the extra money in the decommissioning fund to ratepayers. During sale proceedings, the board asked Entergy if it would pursue federal pre-emption of state regulation. The company, in its memorandum of understanding, agreed to waive it - but only in matters related to relicensing the plant. Entergy spokeswoman Jill Smith said the company's lawyers were still analyzing Dumont's filing. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 NFS issued violations by NRC Nuclear material, criticality issues cited Elizabethton Star - Online Edition By Kathy Helms-Hughes STAR STAFF khughes@starhq.com Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. in Erwin has been issued two Notices of Violation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for inadequate control over access to strategic nuclear material and for failure to conduct testing of its criticality detection and evacuation alarm system in March. According to a June 24 letter from David A. Ayers, chief of the NRC's Fuel Facilities Branch, to NFS President Dwight Ferguson, the notices were issued following an inspection conducted by the NRC senior resident inspector and region-based inspectors from April 14 through May 25. The violations are of concern because the first identified by the NRC concerned a procedural violation that should have been recognized by management, according to Ayres, and the second, although identified by NFS staff, was not entered into the company's EventTrac system until the NRC made the request. NFS has 30 days from receipt of the notification letter to issue a written response or explanation to the NRC. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NFS's Physical Safeguards Plan requires certain measures to access to strategic special nuclear material. In part, the plan states that access to all highly enriched uranium containers having more than 50 grams of Uranium-235 shall be controlled through the use of tampersafe devices and locked cages except when in use and personally attended, or when inside processing equipment and hoods, with the exception of liquid waste in the laboratories. Contrary to the safeguard plan, on May 16, the NRC inspector observed weighing of materials received by NFS and the use and control of tampersafing seals. The material was placed in a temporary storage area within the material access area which was properly posted with nuclear criticality safety limits. However, the inspector noted that the material was neither locked nor personally attended and that the potential for diversion of nuclear material was increased due to construction activities in the immediate area. According to the NRC, NFS agreed that the regulation was not being followed but was slow to initiate corrective action. The NRC also noted that the required monthly test of NFS's criticality alarm system was not performed in March 2002 and that at least one individual unit was not checked, as is to be done monthly on a rotational basis. NFS identified the deficiency at the end of April and performed the missing test in May following the NRC inspection. However, the inspector noted that failure to perform the required test was not recorded in EventTrac, NFS's system for problem identification, corrective actions and resolutions, at the time it was identified. Prior and subsequent tests showed the system was operable, however, failure to record the deficiency was significant because the probability of establishing effective corrective action and preventing a recurrence was reduced, the NRC said. The facility was operated safely and in accordance with regulatory and license requirements with the exception of the two violations. The NRC found that gas cylinder storage was usually adequate, although the inspector observed one occasion where several cylinders were not adequately restrained. The NRC inspector also was able to observe NFS's fire brigade response during an incident May 13, when a small fire occurred in the area used for uranium recovery. The fire started when one of the heater mounts' neoprene insulation ignited. There was no special nuclear material involved and no criticality safety issues. NFS is conducting an investigation into the cause of the fire. According to NRC, the fire brigade responded in a timely and appropriate manner and command and control of the fire brigade was effective. The NRC also cited an Unresolved Item stemming from a March 3 investigation into an alarm in Area 500, during which NFS found a keyswitch in the disabled position. In this state, the switch disables the control that shuts down the vacuum pumps for the area during an alarm. The keyswitch had not been properly documented, according to the NRC, and was found only in an electrical diagram, so operators were unfamiliar with its function. The incident is under review. During review of selected environmental monitoring and sampling results for the year 2001, the NRC observed that radioactivity levels in Banner Spring Branch downstream sediment samples continued to be elevated, or greater than the action limit of 25 picocuries per gram, ranging from 38 to 73 pCi/gram for gross alpha activity. The elevated radioactivity levels were due to past processing and present onsite decommissioning activities, according to the NRC, which stated that NFS is aware of the contamination and has scheduled the area to be cleaned up as part of its North Site Decommissioning Project. In addition, the inspector noted that gross alpha activity levels were elevated in Martin Creek downstream sediment samples during First Quarter 2001 but returned to expected levels during the remainder of the year. Cause of the elevated results is still under investigation. The NRC also noted that gross beta radioactivity levels from vegetation sample locations in the Nolichucky River during Second Quarter 2001 were all elevated. However, analysis for specific radionuclides did not indicate the presence of licensed material used by NFS. The company indicated that approximately half of the radioactivity was due to the presence of naturally occurring Potassium-40. Future samples with elevated results will be monitored closely to ensure that no significant changes have occurred. The NRC has asked NFS to collect and split with them six onsite groundwater samples for later comparison. The Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education will perform the analysis for the NRC. The Environmental Protection Agency and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation have required NFS to clean up onsite groundwater to drinking water standards. The NRC has directing NFS to closely monitor the concentrations of radioactive contaminants in the groundwater. Sampling results for offsite groundwater monitoring wells have shown low levels of technetium-99, which the NRC says has been attributed to past operations, "probably uranium hexafluoride cylinder cleaning activities." Trace amounts of plutonium also have been found in selected offsite wells. "The reported data were near or below the detection level for the instruments used," the NRC said. NFS was unable to reach a definite conclusion on the origin of the reported plutonium, according to NRC. Copyright © 1996 - 2002 Elizabethton Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Japan's Nuclear Ambition Persists; Leaders' Remarks Deemed "Calculated" By Staff Reporter A long-standing taboo on discussing Japan’s nuclear options was broken, as Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda Yasuo told a press conference on May 31 that Japan’s war-renouncing constitution does not prevent it from possessing nuclear weapons. His remark not only rekindled fears and protests among Japan’s neighbors but also stirred up criticism among the opposition camp in Japan. In a bid to quell such fears and criticism at home and abroad, Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro reiterated that he would strictly adhere to Tokyo’s long-established three non-nuclear principles of non-manufacture, non-possession and non-permission of entry of nukes into Japan, while Fukuda tried to explain it away by stressing he was "misquoted." However, Fukuda’s remark is not an isolated incident. His aide, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo had told university students earlier that Japan’s so-called Peace Constitution does not forbid Japan’s possession of nuclear arms if they are small and of a tactical nature. Later, Abe told the daily “Asahi Shimbun” that such a view was just the same as the one the then-prime minister Kishi Nobusuke had articulated in 1959 and 1960. Kishi is Abe’s grandfather, and a Class-A war criminal. And Fukuda Yasuo is the son of the late Fukuda Takeo, ex-prime minister, who had belonged to Kishi’s faction. Ironically, it was Sato Eisaku, Kishi’s younger brother, that first initiated the “three non-nuclear principles” in 1967, for which he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1974. Self-styled “reformist” Koizumi Junichiro himself also used to be among Fukuda’s men. Koizumi is well known as one of the advocates of Constitution revision. Despite the long-standing non-nuclear policy, successive Tokyo government leaders have revealed their ambitions to have access to nukes since the early 1990s. In 1993, the then-foreign minister Muto Kabun declared that it was important for Japan to possess nukes should Washington withdraw its nuclear umbrella. In the following year, the then-prime minister Hata Tsutomu, called a dove, said that his country possessed the ability to produce nuclear arsenals. In 1999, in his interview with a magazine shortly after his appointment as deputy minister of the Defense Agency, nationalist lawmaker Nishimura Shingo said that Japan’s nuclear capability would prevent it from being “raped.” Most recently, Ozawa Ichiro, president of the opposition Liberal Party, warned China that Japan possesses enough plutonium to manufacture 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads. His provocative remark reminds ones of a 1995 statement by a senior government official that Japan could produce a nuclear weapon within 183 days if it wished to. It is said that Japan possesses already as much as 118 tons of plutonium in all, explaining it is all for “electric power generation.” Japan’s present inventory of 55 tons of separated plutonium alone is enough to manufacture 10,000 nuclear warheads. Tokyo governor Ishihara Shintaro, a well-known ultra-rightist and xenophobe, reportedly rushed to call Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda Yasuo on the telephone and encouraged him, saying: “Japan can have nuclear weapons.” Fukuda’s remarks aroused higher vigilance against Tokyo among its neighbors. “An endless string of remarks made by the Japanese authorities about Japan’s ability to have access to nukes clearly suggest that the Japanese reactionary forces are becoming more undisguised in their moves to turn Japan into a military power and go nuclear,” the Korean Central News Agency said on June 4. In its June 6 signed article, “Rodong Sinmun,” organ of the Workers’ Party of Korea, said that Fukuda’s remarks are as much as nullifying the ‘exclusively defensive’ and three non-nuclear principles and declaring nuclear armament.” “The Japanese militarists, buoyed up by the idea of revenge and ambition for overseas expansion, are keen to realize their criminal aim with nukes,” it said, adding: “Their main arrow is turning toward Korea.” “We are opposed to any of Japan’s attempts to possess nuclear weapons,” commented an official at South Korea’s Foreign Affairs-Trade Ministry. “Japan has been attempting to foment an atmosphere favorable to the development of nuclear weapons by gradually countering possible criticism,” the Korea Times quoted another ministry official as saying. “We urge Japan to smash such historically retrogressive and peace-disrupting attempts once and for all,” said a spokesman for the conservative opposition Grand National Party on June 2. Diplomatic sources suggested that Fukuda’s statement had been “calculated to gauge the response at home and abroad, rather than act as an expression of real intention to develop nuclear weapons,” the English daily said. “Japan might want to use talk of nuclear arms to justify the need to join the United States’ Missile Defense (MD) program,” the Korea Herald quoted a South Korean researcher at an institute as saying. Copyright © 2002 The People's Korea. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Radioactive Recycling If the Department of Energy has its way, the nation's nuclear garbage could end up in everyday items like bicycles, frying pans, and baby strollers. Motherjones.com -- Magazine by [mojowire@motherjones.com?subject=HEADLINE HERE] July/August 2002 From the air, the East Tennessee Technology Park looks like clusters of enormous Wal-Marts, sprawling across 4,700 acres in the rural countryside west of Knoxville. But for decades the Oak Ridge complex had a more ominous name -- the K-25 site. Its mission: to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Today, the facility contains tons of contaminated junk -- machinery, metal, concrete, and tools -- some of which will remain radioactive for generations. Faced with a massive cleanup, the Department of Energy has come up with an ingenious plan to get rid of the slightly radioactive scrap: "recycle" the metal and sell it for reuse. Both the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are quietly revising rules that would allow millions of tons of radioactive garbage at the nationÕs weapons facilities and nuclear reactors to be converted into consumer products and building materials. Under the plan, the leftover metal could end up in baby strollers, bikes, frying pans, engine blocks, and I-beams. "This scrap is an asset," says Val Loiselle, former director of the Association of Radioactive Metal Recyclers. "Until now, we've literally been burying our assets." Most low-level radioactive materials are currently disposed of in secure, government-licensed landfills. But as former weapons plants are cleaned up and aging reactors are decommissioned, the volume of nuclear junk is expected to soar. The DOE already has 1.6 million tons of slightly radioactive metals at weapons installations across the country, and the NRC expects to have 8.9 million tons of contaminated steel and concrete to dispose of by 2030. In the past, both the DOE and NRC have recycled such materials on a case-by-case basis. At K-25, for example, approximately 6.6 million pounds of slightly radioactive material left Oak Ridge's gates before sales were halted in 2000. The material was treated no differently than any other scrap, and nobody made any effort to keep track of where it ended up. But with the nuclear scrap heap mounting, federal agencies and industry officials want a formalized recycling program in place to speed up the disposal. The plan calls for setting an exposure standard below which irradiated metals would be deemed "safe" and suitable for release. Because radiation levels would be low, the reasoning goes, there would be no need for labels identifying that the materials came from nuclear reactors or weapons facilities -- even if they end up in homes, offices, and schools. If the changes are implemented, they would end a decades-long policy against the intentional release of radioactivity into the general populace. Opponents of the plan say it could jeopardize public health, exposing consumers to materials previously deemed too contaminated to use. "One day it's hazardous, the next day it's safe," says David Ritter, a policy analyst with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. "They just change the definition." Some of the most vocal opponents of the plan are those who would be on the receiving end of the "released" materials. "The DOE and the nuclear community cannot use us as a dumping ground for their waste," says Thomas Danjczek, president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, which processes 70 million tons of recycled material a year. "We worry about damaging the public perception of steel being a safe material. If this goes through, it would kill our market." In the past, such concerns have been enough to block attempts to redefine what constitutes radioactive waste. Since 1980, the NRC has twice proposed rule changes declaring some irradiated material as "below regulatory concern," meaning there would be no limits on its reuse or disposal. Congress eventually intervened to block the rules. In 2000, hoping to gain support for its newest recycling plan, the NRC contracted with the National Research Council to convene a panel to review its recommended changes. But in March the panel declined to endorse the wholesale release of radioactive materials, observing that the NRC has "failed to convince any environmental and consumer advocacy groups that the clearance of slightly radioactive solid material can be conducted safely." Radioactive recycling efforts at the DOE have also run into sharp criticism. In 1999, a federal judge in Washington ruled that not enough was known about the dangers of releasing radioactive materials at the K-25 site. "The potential for environmental harm is great, especially given the unprecedented amount of hazardous materials which [officials] seek to recycle," U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler declared. Despite the widespread opposition from consumer advocates, steel manufacturers, and scientists, federal officials appear determined to proceed with recycling. The reason? Dollars and cents. If decommissioned debris from the nation's 103 nuclear plants must be buried in secure landfills, costs to the utility industry may hit $12 billion. If the rubble can simply be carted to the nearest landfill or scrap metal broker, the price could be as low as $300 million. History offers some indication of what can happen when radioactive materials find their way into consumer goods. In the early 1980s, contaminated metal from unknown sources was fabricated into jewelry (wearers developed cancer and lost their fingers) and restaurant table legs (most were detected prior to delivery, but some patrons and employees may have been exposed to radioactive cobalt 60). In 1998, occupants in Taiwanese apartment buildings made with radioactive steel beams began reporting health problems, and a Michigan manufacturer was forced to recall hundreds of La-Z-Boy recliners after learning that the rocker springs contained radioactive metal. Despite the health risks, global trade in radioactive materials is thriving. The European Union has already set standards allowing the release of materials contaminated with what it calls "trivial" amounts of radiation, and industry trade groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute are pressuring the United States to follow suit. "Consistency with standards set by other nations and international agencies is important," the NRC declared in a 1999 report, "because materials can be both imported and exported between the U.S. and other countries, and differing standards could create confusion and economic disparities in commerce." Officials at the Department of Transportation are currently revising rules on radioactive shipments to conform to international guidelines. But with so much of the current regulatory focus on economics and commerce, consumer advocates worry that a simple fact of physics is being overlooked: Any dose of radiation, no matter how small, increases the risk to public health. And if a host of recycled products ßoods the market, there will be no way to measure the effects of multiple doses. "When it comes to ionizing radiation, you can't draw some line and say anything above that line is dangerous and anything below is safe," says Ritter, the policy analyst with Public Citizen. "You have to ask: What is avoidable, what is preventable?" All letters to the editor are for publication and may be edited for length © FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS ***************************************************************** 5 Anti-nuclear groups try again to stop Yankee sale The Concord Monitor online edition Monday, July 8, 2002 MONTPELIER, Vt. - Two anti-nuclear groups have launched a last-ditch bid to stop the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, saying the buyer can't be trusted to follow state regulation. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Citizens Awareness Network are asking the Public Service Board to host an entirely new set of hearings on the proposed sale. Coalition attorney James Dumont said the request is an attempt to cover all bases to protect ratepayers before the reactor is out of the hands of state regulators. The board approved the sale to Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear with conditions on June 13. But one of those conditions - that any extra money in the plant's decommissioning fund be returned to ratepayers - has prompted Entergy to ask the board to reconsider. At a hearing this past week, Entergy said if the board refuses to remove the condition from its approval of the deal, Entergy may ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to overrule the state decision. Dumont argues that if the condition on the decommissioning fund can be brought before a federal agency, there's a chance any portion of the deal could be contested later. "It is painfully clear that (Entergy) intends to pick and choose which parts of the board's order it intends to comply with, and at some future date, when push comes to shove, it will ask FERC to set aside those parts it does not like," Dumont wrote in his motion to the board. When he raised a similar argument at Tuesday's hearing, Entergy lawyer Victoria Brown replied that that the company would honor any of the commitments it had made in the deal - but added that those commitments did not include giving all the extra money in the decommissioning fund to ratepayers. During sale proceedings, the board asked Entergy if it would pursue federal pre-emption of state regulation. The company, in its memorandum of understanding, agreed to waive it - but only in matters related to relicensing the plant. "We were all looking at the safety issues involved in the sale and not at the decommissioning fund so much," Dumont said. "I guess none of us ever imagined that Entergy would buy the plant and then 10 or 20 years later challenge the board's order." Entergy spokeswoman Jill Smith said the company's lawyers were still analyzing Dumont's filing. © Concord Monitor [http://www.concordmonitor.com] and New Hampshire Patriot P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 ***************************************************************** 6 Anti-nuclear groups try again to stop Yankee sale The Concord Monitor online edition Monday, July 8, 2002 By MONTPELIER, Vt. - Two anti-nuclear groups have launched a last-ditch bid to stop the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, saying the buyer can't be trusted to follow state regulation. The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Citizens Awareness Network are asking the Public Service Board to host an entirely new set of hearings on the proposed sale. Coalition attorney James Dumont said the request is an attempt to cover all bases to protect ratepayers before the reactor is out of the hands of state regulators. The board approved the sale to Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear with conditions on June 13. But one of those conditions - that any extra money in the plant's decommissioning fund be returned to ratepayers - has prompted Entergy to ask the board to reconsider. At a hearing this past week, Entergy said if the board refuses to remove the condition from its approval of the deal, Entergy may ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to overrule the state decision. Dumont argues that if the condition on the decommissioning fund can be brought before a federal agency, there's a chance any portion of the deal could be contested later. "It is painfully clear that (Entergy) intends to pick and choose which parts of the board's order it intends to comply with, and at some future date, when push comes to shove, it will ask FERC to set aside those parts it does not like," Dumont wrote in his motion to the board. When he raised a similar argument at Tuesday's hearing, Entergy lawyer Victoria Brown replied that that the company would honor any of the commitments it had made in the deal - but added that those commitments did not include giving all the extra money in the decommissioning fund to ratepayers. During sale proceedings, the board asked Entergy if it would pursue federal pre-emption of state regulation. The company, in its memorandum of understanding, agreed to waive it - but only in matters related to relicensing the plant. "We were all looking at the safety issues involved in the sale and not at the decommissioning fund so much," Dumont said. "I guess none of us ever imagined that Entergy would buy the plant and then 10 or 20 years later challenge the board's order." Entergy spokeswoman Jill Smith said the company's lawyers were still analyzing Dumont's filing. © Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 ***************************************************************** 7 Theft, espionage common concerns at U.S. campuses Universities must learn to guard valuable data, discoveries, experts say By Michael Stroh Sun Staff Originally published July 7, 2002 Even if someone had spied them, roaming campus before dawn with Styrofoam cartons in hand, it's unlikely that Jiangyu Zhu and Kayoko Kimbara would have drawn a second look: Just two young Harvard University scientists scurrying home from an all-nighter in the lab. But according to FBI agents who spent 18 months investigating the married couple, it wasn't hard work they had on their minds in December 1999 - it was theft. Over the Christmas holidays on the mostly deserted campus, investigators allege, Zhu and Kimbara looted the laboratory, which was full of genes with "significant commercial potential." The genes, which the couple had helped discover and which Harvard was in the process of patenting, were thought to hold promise as new anti-rejection drugs for organ-transplant patients. By the time their colleagues returned, Zhu and Kimbara had vanished, allegedly with more than $300,000 worth of biological and research materials. Harvard's genes, meanwhile, had been put on an airplane to Japan. It sounds like something from a novel - and until recently the scenario would have seemed like fiction to most academic scientists. But as universities make more discoveries with commercial potential in fields from engineering to molecular biology, some experts believe that theft and economic espionage may become more common. "This is something all universities are probably going to have to learn to live with," said Mark S. Frankel, director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington. Zhu and Kimbara are scheduled to appear in federal court in Boston this month on charges that they violated the Economic Espionage Act by stealing trade secrets from Harvard and transporting them across state lines. If convicted, the couple could be sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined as much as $750,000. The case is just one of several recent tales of scientific theft on campus that have resulted in criminal charges. In May, a University of California scientist was arrested when campus police raided his home and discovered 20 vials of experimental proteins and a plane ticket to China. His supervisors became suspicious of the 40- year-old Chinese-American man after the proteins went missing and he began to chirp about setting up a biotechnology company overseas. Last year, a Japanese neuroscientist was indicted on charges that he swiped vials of DNA and other proprietary materials from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and took them home with him to Japan. The Japanese government is considering a U.S. request for extradition so he can be tried for allegedly violating the Economic Espionage Act. *'This is a business' * University administrators say they worry less about someone swiping genes or other potentially profitable discoveries than they do about terrorists stealing deadly bacteria, nuclear materials or other sensitive items from laboratories. Still, it's an issue that some experts say universities can't ignore. "Ten or 15 years ago everybody used to think of universities as ivory towers," said Lawrence Sung, a specialist in intellectual property at the University of Maryland School of Law. Now, "people recognize this is a business." In 2000, American universities and research institutions collected more than $1.2 billion in licensing fees, according to the latest survey from the Association of University Technology Managers. They announced 13,000 discoveries and filed 6,400 U.S. patent applications, 3,800 of which were approved. The growing efforts to commercialize scientific discoveries made on campus have put some institutions in a quandary: how to balance traditions of academic openness and sharing with the desire to protect potentially lucrative discoveries. Drug makers and other commercial researchers use a variety of legal and technological measures to safeguard their trade secrets. They conduct employee background checks and enforce strict rules about taking sensitive data or materials off the work site. Scientists must sign nondisclosure agreements about laboratory activities. Research notebooks often have bar codes - similar to those on cereal boxes - to track their whereabouts. And some labs are secured with door locks that recognize a palm print. "That's foreign to the academic world," said Alvin Thompson of the American Society for Industrial Security. Universities rarely conduct background checks on scientists. Some universities have adopted legal tools to try to prevent their scientists and other researchers who borrow materials from stealing discoveries. But most institutions have little more than locked doors to protect their valuables. "You can secure microscopes and computers," said Thompson, who also heads security at the University of Maryland's College Park campus. "Intellectual property is a different story. Five or 10 years from now, we'll probably discover that most of the secrets have been stolen." Graduate students take home data or materials all the time. And when they finish school or get a new job, schools often permit them to take their research even though the university owns it, says Lita Nelson, director of the technology licensing office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It crosses the line when someone tries to commercialize it," she said. Few U.S. companies would want to risk being caught stealing a discovery or an invention from an institution, Nelson says. In one notorious case, biotech pioneer Genentech agreed in 1999 to pay the University of California at San Francisco $200 million to settle a lawsuit over its blockbuster human growth hormone drug, Protropin. A Genentech scientist - and former UCSF graduate student - admitted that he stole a key bioengineered bacterium in a midnight raid on his old laboratory. But foreign companies and governments are more worrisome. Some countries such as China are known for flouting U.S. intellectual property laws, especially when it comes to software and other technology. It's not out of the question, security experts say, that a foreign student could be planted in an American laboratory to take home secrets. Thompson, the University of Maryland security chief, recalls a case some years ago in which a Chinese student with a part-time job as a building monitor was frequently seen nosing around a research building he wasn't assigned to inspect. Thompson never turned up evidence of espionage or theft. But the student was given a different job. Other schools share the concern about scientific theft by foreign researchers. "We worry about it," conceded Dr. Chi Dang, vice dean for research at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. But, Dang said, monitoring foreign scientists - who conduct an increasing share of U.S. research - is almost impossible. Many scientists and administrators are loath even to discuss the subject out of fear of opening themselves to accusations of racism and bias. And officials are quick to say that foreign-born scientists bring valuable experience and contacts to U.S. campuses. *Awaiting trial * Jiangyu Zhu, 30, a native of China, arrived at Harvard in 1997 after receiving degrees from Beijing University and Temple University in Philadelphia. Kayoko Kimbara, 32, received her doctoral degree from Tokyo University in Japan and went to Harvard a year after Zhu. They worked in the lab of Frank McKeon, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School. Soon after they arrived, the pair were given routine paperwork to sign agreeing that any discovery they made at Harvard belonged to the university. One of McKeon's goals was finding new drugs to prevent the rejection of organs in transplant patients. Using techniques developed by their mentor, Kimbara had discovered two genes by early 1999 that looked especially promising, a find for which Harvard filed a patent a few months later. And, according to an FBI affidavit, that is when things started to change. Soon after finding the genes, the pair began going to the laboratory at night and avoiding McKeon. The result was "increasing tension in the lab," the affidavit said. (McKeon and Harvard declined to talk about the matter because of the criminal charges filed against the couple.) Suspecting that something might be going on behind his back, McKeon combed a genetic database and discovered that Zhu and Kimbara had found at least seven other genes, which they hadn't told him about. One of them looked as promising as the two that Harvard was trying to patent. By fall 1999, Zhu was secretly talking to the University of Texas about a job. He received an offer from the university in December, and the next day he sent an e-mail to a Japanese pharmaceutical company about the genes he and Kimbara had found. In the e-mail, he told the company that he hoped to commercialize the genes once settled in Texas and asked for the company's help. Just before Harvard's Christmas holiday, tension between the two scientists and their boss came to a head. McKeon "confronted Zhu and Kimbara about the unauthorized work they were doing under the auspices of his lab and demanded an explanation," according to the affidavit. The document says the two scientists remained mum about plans to go to the University of Texas, which had offered them jobs. During the holiday, the pair quietly removed more than 30 boxes of biological materials, books and documents and shipped them to Texas. They are also accused of taking several cartons filled with genes and proteins. When McKeon and their colleagues returned, they found that many items in the lab "had been mislabeled or otherwise corrupted," the affidavit said. In June 2000, Harvard recovered "a significant percentage" of its material. The Japanese company that received Harvard's genes cooperated with the FBI. Later that year, Zhu and Kimbara left Texas and moved to California, where Kimbara worked at the Scripps Research Institute and Zhu at the University of California at San Diego. They were arrested last month after authorities became concerned that they might leave the country. The couple's next court date is scheduled for July 17. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 8 Safeguarding Russia's nukes gains urgency The News Tribune - Tacoma, WA James Rosen; News Tribune Washington Bureau MOSCOW - On a frigid day this past February, three men flew to the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, rented a car and drove 60 miles northeast to a small village called Atamanovo. In Atamanovo, the men paid a fisherman 1,500 rubles - about $50 - to take them across the Enisei River. Once across, they trudged through snow along a forest road to the mammoth complex at the heart of Zheleznogorsk, one of 10 still-closed "nuclear cities" that designed the missiles, produced the plutonium and built the bombs for the Soviet arsenal during the Cold War. As the men neared the Mining and Chemical Combine, two guards in a passing car gave them a glance and drove on. Within an hour, the men had gone through a hole in the dilapidated fence around the combine, scaled a wall and entered a building that stores highly radioactive spent fuel from a nearby reactor. The infiltrators were not terrorists. But they could have been. Ten and a half years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the fate of nuclear weapons and materials in Russia has acquired fresh urgency in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Warheads aimed at the United States for decades and the deadly pools of plutonium that fueled the bombs now pose a different - and in some ways more frightening - threat should they fall into the hands of anti-American terrorists or governments. Adding to the concern about Russia are the breakdown of central controls, a decline in military morale, crumbling physical facilities, economic woes and official contacts continued from the Soviet era with Iran, Iraq and other nations that are deemed rogue states in Washington. "The accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," President Bush informed Congress on June 18. The Americans and the Russians are once again in an arms race, only now they are on the same side, working together to avert catastrophe. "The fire next time when the terrorists attack us again could be chemical, nuclear or biological," Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, told proliferation experts in Moscow recently. While all weapons of mass destruction are frightening, the atom bomb holds a special terror. Americans who dove under desks as children in civil-defense drills know with an instant, chilling recall that a nuclear detonation would incinerate everything in its wake and send a torrid wave of destruction for miles around. "A nuclear explosion is the ultimate of all the bad things that can happen," said Sigfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab in New Mexico. Americans' fear of nuclear attack has been aggravated in recent weeks by reports that terrorists may use "dirty bombs" - lower-grade radioactive materials dispersed by conventional explosives - and the arrest of an al-Qaida operative charged with plotting to set off such a device. The focus on Russia as a giant toolbox for terrorists arises from two main concerns: the breakdown of totalitarian weapon controls since the collapse of communism and the extraordinary volume of nuclear materials spread over a vast territory covering 11 time zones. Sergey Mitrokhin, a member of the Russian parliament from the liberal Yabloko opposition party, was among the group that infiltrated the Zheleznogorsk nuclear complex in February. He was joined by environmental activists who wanted to prove that security is lax at Russia's sprawling nuclear facilities. When Mitrokhin returned to Moscow, he sent a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who then met with Grigory Yavlinsky, the opposition party's leader. Putin promised, according to Yavlinsky, to arrange a meeting on nuclear security with Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Minatom, the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry. That meeting has yet to take place. Instead, in late May, Rumyantsev declared that guards had been ordered to fire warning shots at anyone trying to break into a nuclear complex. "It's good if they start shooting," Mitrokhin said a few days after Rumyantsev issued the decree. "That would mean that Minatom has started paying attention to this problem. But I am not sure that firing shots is a long-term solution." Russia's nuclear materials cover a broad spectrum of potency, from assembled warheads - including thousands of smaller, tactical ones built for battlefield use - to plutonium and enriched uranium extracted from dismantled bombs, spent fuel from reactors and a bewildering array of radioactive junk from hospitals, factories and military bases. One hundred decommissioned nuclear submarines drift in the Arctic seas of northern Russia and in the Russian Far East, each a floating reactor with enough uranium to make a small armory of weapons. "You're worried about terrorists getting the nuclear bomb or nuclear material?" asked Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "Go to Russia. The biggest threat is not a terrorist embarking on a 20-year program to build a nuclear bomb and put it on top of an ICBM. The biggest threat is the material lying around Russia that somebody could go get. And we know people are trying to get it." Bush and his homeland security team appear to have gotten the message. The first budget Bush sent to Congress decreased annual spending on U.S. programs to secure and reduce Russian weapons of mass destruction to $800 million; his second budget, submitted after the Sept. 11 attacks, seeks to boost such spending to $1.2 billion. Meeting in Washington and Texas last November, Bush and Putin said stopping terrorists from securing weapons of mass destruction had become their governments' top priority. And in Moscow six weeks ago, they set up a working group of experts to accelerate control of Russia's nuclear stockpiles. On June 27, overcoming pre-Sept. 11 resistance, Bush and Putin persuaded other leaders of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to fund an unprecedented $20 billion initiative to help Russia diminish its nuclear, chemical and biological stockpiles over the next decade. But a Harvard University report concluded in May that the United States' commitment to securing nuclear weapons and materials in Russia is inadequate. Matthew Bunn, a co-author of the Harvard report, said helping Russia control its nuclear stockpiles is no less critical for the United States than all the domestic initiatives getting momentum and money under the unified Homeland Security Department proposed by Bush. Since the Soviet Union ceased to exist in December 1991, the United States has spent about $8 billion helping Russia consolidate and gradually reduce its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, with the bulk of the money going for nuclear security. A key early success was transporting nuclear warheads to Russia from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus in the early 1990s after those former Soviet republics gained independence. Not all the U.S. money remains in Russia. Scores of American defense firms have landed lucrative contracts helping Russians dismantle nuclear submarines, cut up intercontinental ballistic missiles, destroy silos and upgrade plutonium storehouses. Broadly put, U.S. programs aim to control three elements of the Russian nuclear enterprise: warheads, fissile material and scientists offered jobs in peaceful pursuits to prevent them from working for hostile governments. There is broad consensus on both sides of the Atlantic that Russia's nuclear stockpiles, thanks in large measure to the U.S. aid, are more secure than they were a decade ago after the Soviet Union collapsed. And there is general agreement that Russian warheads are better protected than the large stores of plutonium and highly enriched uranium - and that those fissile materials, in turn, are more closely watched than spent fuel reserves and still lower-grade radiological materials. But the consensus breaks down over how much of a threat Russia still poses as a potential nuclear grocery store for terrorists or unfriendly governments, with Russian military and political officials more likely than their American counterparts to pooh-pooh the dangers. There are no known cases of missing warheads of any size or type, from Russia or any other nuclear power. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 18 cases in which weapons-grade nuclear material was stolen - most of them in the former Soviet Union - but virtually all was recovered. Since Sept. 11, a number of senior U.S. government officials and arms control analysts have cited alleged attempts by al-Qaida operatives of Osama bin Laden to acquire bomb-making material. But experts who closely track the nuclear black market are puzzled by their inability to prove such a link. Within Russia, U.S. programs have focused on replacing a human-based nuclear security system that worked well enough under Soviet rule - "guns, guards and gulags," as Hecker, the former Los Alamos director, put it - with technological controls more suitable for an open society. American money has paid for barbed-wire fences, computerized accounting systems, radiation detectors, video surveillance cameras and a host of other high-tech improvements. In the urgent atmosphere since Sept. 11, some more remote storehouses have seen low-tech quick fixes such as bricking up windows and cutting back brush that could hide infiltrators. Former Sen. Sam Nunn, who with Sen. Richard Lugar co-sponsored the legislation that started the nonproliferation programs, said 40 percent of Russia's nuclear facilities have received upgrades, with half of those now meeting U.S. standards for permanent security. (Published 12:30AM, July 8th, 2002) The Interactive Media Division of The News Tribune © 2002 ***************************************************************** 9 Hacker cripples Area 51 site for 36 hours 06/07/00- Updated 07:49 PM ET [area51.jpg (14747 bytes)] A more terrestrial conspiracy. The Web site displaying aerial photos of the Air Force's Area 51 base was knocked off line by hackers. (AP) RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - A hacker disrupted service for 36 hours to [http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth737.htm] , the top-secret Air Force site in Nevada. Raleigh-based Aerial Images Inc. said the hacker struck six hours after five images of the desert proving ground were loaded Monday night onto the site, [http://www.terraserver.com] . The attack, combined with traffic 10 times what the site usually bears, meant millions of people had difficulty accessing the site or could not connect with it at all, company officials said. Service was disrupted until Thursday. ''I won't tell you it's completely solved,'' said John Hoffman, Aerial Images president. ''We've taken steps to mitigate its effect. It's almost a fact of being online these days.'' Hoffman declined to provide details of the attack, citing an ongoing investigation. The Air Force only recently acknowledged that Groom Dry Lake Air Force Base even exists. Among UFO aficionados, it has long been known simply as [http://www.nauticom.net/users/ata/resources.html] , the base's designation on old Nevada test site maps. They believe that unidentified flying objects from other worlds are hidden there. Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ***************************************************************** 10 Protesters ask Senate to dump Yucca proposal deseretnews.com World/nation Monday, July 8, 2002 E-mail story By Ken Ritter* Associated Press writer LAS VEGAS ? Opponents of a plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada rallied Sunday and called on the U.S. Senate to reject the Yucca Mountain proposal during a vote that could come this week. "This is a huge public health issue for the entire country," said Deborah Huber, one of about 175 protesters. "They talk about homeland security, but transporting this across the country is a terrorists' dream come true." The government has spent $7 billion over two decades studying Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the preferred site to bury 77,000 tons of waste accumulating at nuclear power reactors in 31 states. A final decision on whether the project will go forward or be scrapped rests with Congress. The House already has sided with the Bush administration's conclusion that the project is scientifically sound. The Senate plans a vote this week. Critics say they're concerned about the danger posed by hundreds or thousands of waste shipments, most of them from the eastern third of the nation. They also fear radioactivity will inevitably leak into groundwater and may contaminate the air. If approved, and pending a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the repository could open by 2010. "We all know this is not a science issue," said Paul Brown, southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. "It's a political issue," he added. "And it's just plain wrong." World & Nation © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 11 Security tight as nuke ship sails World News 05.07.2002 TAKAHAMA - A ship carrying nuclear material from Japan to Britain prepared sailed last night despite opposition from anti-nuclear activists, who said the cargo was a theft and attack risk. The sailing of the Pacific Pintail, carrying a weapons-usable mix of plutonium and uranium oxides (MOX), has raised tension as it coincides with the United States' Independence Day and comes after US warnings of the continuing potential for terrorist attacks. An air of watchfulness surrounded the pier in the looming shadow of Takahama's nuclear power plant 300km west of Tokyo. Police with dogs surrounded two massive, 100-tonne nuclear transport casks trucked to the pier for loading, 20 security guards stood on the ship's deck and plant security kept protesters out of the area. The Pacific Pintail and 12 Japanese coast-guard escorts had slipped into serene Uchiura Bay, past the Greenpeace International protest ship Arctic Sunrise. The MOX fuel is being returned to state-owned British Nuclear Fuels after Japan's Kansai Electric Power Co Inc discovered that data for a 1999 shipment from Britain had been deliberately falsified. Kansai was to use the fuel in commercial reactors. As a security measure, the Pacific Pintail, which had a machine gun, was to sail with another ship, the Pacific Teal. Greenpeace deployed two inflatables to fly 12 yellow kites spelling out "Stop Plutonium" when the Pacific Pintail entered the bay. "Security concerns are a major issue to countries along the tens of thousands of kilometres between Japan and the United Kingdom," Greenpeace said. The ships were slow, lightly armed, and vulnerable to armed attack. The plutonium in the cargo was sufficient for 50 nuclear weapons if stolen. - REUTERS ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 12 Yucca Mountain Protesters Rally July 07, 2002 Las Vegas SUN LAS VEGAS- Opponents of a plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada rallied Sunday and called on the U.S. Senate to reject the Yucca Mountain proposal during a vote that could come this week. "This is a huge public health issue for the entire country," said Deborah Huber, one of about 175 protesters. "They talk about homeland security, but transporting this across the country is a terrorists' dream come true." The government has spent $7 billion over two decades studying Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the preferred site to bury 77,000 tons of waste accumulating at nuclear power reactors in 31 states. A final decision on whether the project will go forward or be scrapped rests with Congress. The House already has sided with the Bush administration's conclusion that the project is scientifically sound. The Senate plans a vote this week. Critics say they're concern about the danger posed by hundreds or thousands of waste shipments, most of them from the eastern third of the nation. They also fear radioactivity will inevitably leak into groundwater and may contaminate the air. If approved, and pending a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the repository could open by 2010. "We all know this is not a science issue," Paul Brown, southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. "It's a political issue," he added. "And it's just plain wrong." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 Vegas rally calls on Senate to reject Nevada nuclear waste dump Las Vegas SUN July 07, 2002 LAS VEGAS (AP) - Opponents of a proposed national nuclear waste repository in Nevada rallied here on Sunday, highlighting what they call fatal flaws in the plan and calling for the U.S. Senate to reject it in a crucial vote that could come this week. "I'm not a scientist, but I don't see sound science," said Robert Couch, a retired school administrator and Las Vegas resident. He watched as elected officials, political candidates and leaders of a coalition of environmental groups summed up 20 years of opposition to the Yucca Mountain project. "We all know this is not a science issue," Paul Brown, southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said from the sun-drenched outdoor podium at the Clark County Government Center. "It's a political issue," he said. "And it's just plain wrong." Couch and Brown referred to assurances from federal officials, Yucca Mountain project administrators and President Bush that entombing 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in tunnels 1,000 feet beneath an ancient volcanic ridge will be safe. The site - at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas - is expected to remain radioactive for more than 10,000 years. Critics say radioactivity will inevitably leak into groundwater and may contaminate the air. They predict accidents while shipping spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from more than 100 commercial and government sites in 39 states. The Energy Department has said no decision has been made on transportation methods or routes, but that safety will be assured. Bush has said two decades and nearly $7 billion worth of study show the project is scientifically sound. The House has endorsed the president's decision. The Senate plans a vote this week. If approved, and pending a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the repository could open by 2010. "I'm not sure we can stop it," Couch said, standing with his wife beneath a shady tree on a 104-degree day. About 175 people turned out to urge the opponents' uphill battle toward its crest on Capitol Hill. "Democrats and Republicans have bought into this," Couch said, "and the funding is there to overwhelm the opposition." Nevada Sens. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and John Ensign, a Republican, have been trying to marshal 51 votes to uphold Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the project. "This is one more time to tell people to contact their senators," said Couch's wife, Peggy Evans-Couch, a member of the League of Women Voters in southern Nevada. "Everyone should have their families all over the states contact their senators." Deborah Huber, a registered nurse and member of the Nevada Nurses Association, distributed "Coming Soon to Roads Near You" posters showing the nation crisscrossed with proposed rail, highway and barge radioactive waste transport routes. "This is a huge public health issue for the entire country," Huber said. "They talk about homeland security, but transporting this across the country is a terrorists' dream come true." "We've only got a couple of days," she added. "We may run out of time." The Senate vote may be the last legislative action on the Yucca Mountain repository, but Nevada has already filed lawsuits to stop the project. A Las Vegas resident, Jonathan Galaviz, also filed a lawsuit against the president and the government last week in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. Galaviz alleges the plan to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain discriminates against minorities. "Nuclear waste would be primarily shipped through low-income neighborhoods," Galaviz said after addressing Sunday's rally. "Any senator who votes for Yucca Mountain is voting to inflict great harm on minority communities nationwide." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Vegas rally calls on Senate to reject Nevada nuclear waste dump Associated Press [online@rgj.com] 7/7/2002 03:00 pm Opponents of a proposed national nuclear waste repository in Nevada rallied here on Sunday, highlighting what they call fatal flaws in the plan and calling for the U.S. Senate to reject it in a crucial vote that could come this week. "I'm not a scientist, but I don't see sound science,"said Robert Couch, a retired school administrator and Las Vegas resident. He watched as elected officials, political candidates and leaders of a coalition of environmental groups summed up 20 years of opposition to the Yucca Mountain project. "We all know this is not a science issue,"Paul Brown, southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said from the sun-drenched outdoor podium at the Clark County Government Center. "It's a political issue,"he said."And it's just plain wrong." Couch and Brown referred to assurances from federal officials, Yucca Mountain project administrators and President Bush that entombing 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in tunnels 1,000 feet beneath an ancient volcanic ridge will be safe. The site _ at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas _ is expected to remain radioactive for more than 10,000 years. Critics say radioactivity will inevitably leak into groundwater and may contaminate the air. They predict accidents while shipping spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from more than 100 commercial and government sites in 39 states. The Energy Department has said no decision has been made on transportation methods or routes, but that safety will be assured. Bush has said two decades and nearly $7 billion worth of study show the project is scientifically sound. The House has endorsed the president's decision. The Senate plans a vote this week. If approved, and pending a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the repository could open by 2010. "I'm not sure we can stop it,"Couch said, standing with his wife beneath a shady tree on a 104-degree day. About 175 people turned out to urge the opponents'uphill battle toward its crest on Capitol Hill. "Democrats and Republicans have bought into this,"Couch said,"and the funding is there to overwhelm the opposition." Nevada Sens. Harry Reid, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and John Ensign, a Republican, have been trying to marshal 51 votes to uphold Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the project. "This is one more time to tell people to contact their senators,"said Couch's wife, Peggy Evans-Couch, a member of the League of Women Voters in southern Nevada."Everyone should have their families all over the states contact their senators." Deborah Huber, a registered nurse and member of the Nevada Nurses Association, distributed"Coming Soon to Roads Near You"posters showing the nation crisscrossed with proposed rail, highway and barge radioactive waste transport routes. "This is a huge public health issue for the entire country,"Huber said."They talk about homeland security, but transporting this across the country is a terrorists'dream come true." "We've only got a couple of days,"she added."We may run out of time." The Senate vote may be the last legislative action on the Yucca Mountain repository, but Nevada has already filed lawsuits to stop the project. A Las Vegas resident, Jonathan Galaviz, also filed a lawsuit against the president and the government last week in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. Galaviz alleges the plan to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain discriminates against minorities. "Nuclear waste would be primarily shipped through low-income neighborhoods,"Galaviz said after addressing Sunday's rally."Any senator who votes for Yucca Mountain is voting to inflict great harm on minority communities nationwide." © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Vote cast on dump was ploy, some say Monday, July 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal GOP congressman changed position on Yucca Mountain By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- In May, 13 of 222 Republicans in the House voted against siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. One of the 13 votes came from Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the chief campaign fund-raiser for House Republicans. Davis had voted consistently in favor of nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But when the House approved the Yucca Mountain Project by a margin of 306-117 on May 8, Davis was the only member of the GOP leadership to oppose it. He leads the National Republican Congressional Committee. "I think some people change their minds," Davis said. "I think we still need to look at some alternatives, and frankly, the last several Congresses haven't had a chance to look at any other places." But others saw a bit of politics in the decision. Davis is one of the GOP's fund-raising liaisons among Nevada casinos. Democrat Dario Herrera, a Clark County commissioner running for Nevada's new congressional seat, said Davis' vote was intended to provide political cover for his opponent, state Sen. Jon Porter, R-Henderson. "The Republican leadership already has dumped a truckload of pro-Yucca cash into my opponent's campaign," Herrera said. "Davis has said he will spend a couple of million dollars on this race." Davis, 53, said his vote was based on the merits of arguments presented to him by Nevada Republicans Rep. Jim Gibbons, Sen. John Ensign and Gov. Kenny Guinn. "If it helps (Porter), fine; but that wasn't why I voted the way I did," Davis said. Mike Slanker, Porter's campaign manager, said Herrera is trying to make Yucca Mountain a partisan issue. "At the end of the day, this is a Nevada fight, and we need to stay together. This isn't about what the party back in D.C. is doing," Slanker said. Amy Walter, who covers House races for The Cook Political Report, said she does not think Davis' vote will be a significant factor in the campaign for Nevada's new congressional seat. "That's asking a lot of voters to make a connection between a Virginia congressman's vote and a race in Nevada," Walter said. "How many people in Nevada know who (Davis) is or care who he is?" Republican and Democratic sources in the Nevada congressional delegation said Davis' vote will soften the perception that the GOP is the pro-Yucca party. Also, Davis' vote may be a sign of reluctance to alienate Nevada's casino industry, which schedules fund-raisers every year in Las Vegas for leaders of both parties. Nevada casinos contributed $3.9 million to Democrats and Republicans in 2000, according to the congressional watchdog group Public Citizen. The casinos oppose the nuclear waste project. Holly Bailey, a researcher and writer for the Center for Responsive Politics, said Republicans receive more money than Democrats from the gambling industry. "This is just speculation on my part, but Davis may have been sensitive to that and wanted to keep the Republican advantage," Bailey said. Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Authority Project, said the patterns of influence are difficult to track, "but the casino industry has been very creative in wielding its influence both to Republicans and Democrats." Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, said the next Las Vegas fund-raiser will be for Republican leaders this summer. Asked whether he thought the casino industry's contributions to the GOP might have influenced Davis' vote on Yucca Mountain, Fahrenkopf said, "I don't think there's a connection." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 16 Anti-Yucca Mountain rally dominated by political posters Monday, July 08, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Environmental leaders, Democratic candidates take stage By K.C. HOWARD REVIEW-JOURNAL Environmentalists staging a Yucca Mountain Project protest Sunday had their message upstaged by political paraphernalia at the Clark County Government Center Amphitheater. About 60 people listened to speeches from environmental leaders and Democratic candidates Vonne Chowning, John Hunt and Dario Herrera about the detriments of transporting 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Chowning is running for re-election in Assembly District 28. Hunt, a Las Vegas attorney, is campaigning for attorney general. Herrera, the Clark County Commission chairman, is a candidate for Nevada's new 3rd Congressional District seat. With the U.S. Senate expected to vote this week on an override of Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto, a few anti-Yucca Mountain signs and fliers stood out in the crowd. But the majority of posters were of the election variety, with about 15 Herrera signs and one sign supporting Hunt's campaign. "We had determined this was not going to be a political event, but that kind of happens," Peggy Maze Johnson, Citizen Alert executive director, said before introducing Hunt as a speaker. Citizen Alert volunteer Kimberly Chapman stood out in the crowd, holding the largest anti-Yucca Mountain poster, one of only three homemade signs at the rally. A member of the Green Party, Chapman said she would have preferred a less Democratic event. "If there is a nuclear waste accident on the road, it's not going to matter if you voted for Bush, Gore or Nader," Chapman said. "Everyone's going to be fleeing for their lives." Although the majority of signs had Herrera's name on them, the congressional candidate said he was there to fight the Yucca Mountain Project as the Clark County Commission chairman. "That's the most important issue here today, regardless of everything else," Herrera said. Republican Jonathan Galaves, a Las Vegas resident who recently sued the U.S. government on grounds that the Yucca Mountain Project violates the 14th Amendment, spoke at the rally. "This is not a political issue," Galaves said. Citizen Alert, which sponsored the event, had planned to block the northbound Interstate 15 onramp from Grand Central Parkway with protesters. Group leaders changed their agenda and opted opting for a safer protest against the Yucca Mountain Project at the amphitheater. After speaking with the governor's office and Las Vegas police officials this week, Johnson said the group realized the protest would have endangered lives. "Our message is we don't want to put anyone's life at risk," Johnson said. "So we decided to take the high road." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 17 Big loads of nuclear waste may strain U.S. rail system Train derailments decrease in Idaho Poor track maintenance costs lives, money Train derailments year by year WASHINGTON The Energy Department hopes to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, Nev., in rail cars that would be about 40 percent heavier than today´s largest rail cars, which could put more strain on the nation´s aging railroad infrastructure. Coal cars weighing 143 tons are about the heaviest cargo that moves in non-specialized trains over mainline track, which carries the bulk of the country´s railroad traffic. The industry is moving to make that size the standard for all railroad cars. Short line and small regional railroads, which operate the lines that connect far-flung customers to the mainlines, say that will require billions of dollars in track upgrades. The Energy Department´s preliminary plans for hauling nuclear waste to a proposed central repository at Yucca Mountain envision using rail cars weighing more than 200 tons. So far, neither the Energy Department nor the rail industry is considering whether the nation´s railroad infrastructure will need to be further overhauled to handle these extra-heavy nuclear waste cars, which are still in the design stage. If the Senate and Nuclear Regulatory Commission approve the plans, about 77,000 tons of nuclear waste would be transported to Nevada starting as soon as 2010. Nearly a quarter of the nation´s track is owned and maintained by about 550 short line and regional railroads. A study two years ago by the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association and the Federal Railroad Administration found these small railroads will need $6.9 billion to rehabilitate their equipment to handle the new 143-ton cars. A bill that would give the railroads $350 million a year for three years to help upgrade tracks and bridges is awaiting action in Congress. The big railroads and most of the mainlines can probably handle the Energy Department´s nuclear waste shipping campaign without spending a lot of money, said Allan Zarembski, an engineering consultant to the railroads. "Where the concern would be is the branch lines where the track is not in tip-top shape," he said. Frank Turner, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, said his group has not looked at whether small railroads will have to do more upgrades later if they´ll have to handle nuclear waste shipments. The Federal Railroad Association is now evaluating bridges owned by the short line and regional railroads to see whether they can handle the new 143-tons cars. "I don´t know how many nuclear waste sites are located on or near short lines," Turner said. "That would be a completely separate issue from our (new 143-ton car) issue." Power plants already ship some nuclear waste across the country on trains ? about eight shipments a year between 1979 and 1997. But current-day nuclear waste rail cars weigh about 113 tons. Edition Date: 07-06-2002 ***************************************************************** 18 Krasnoyarsk Sees Lenin Protest Spent Nuclear Fuel Imports KRANOYARSK, CENTRAL SIBERIA - Crowds gathered and some among them cheered as a coordinated pair of environmentalists scaled a statue of Lenin and climbed scaffolding on this city’s central administrative building to unfurl banners protesting the import of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) to the region. Krasnoyarsk, SNF Charles Digges/Bellona Charles Digges, 2002-07-07 21:24 The yellow banner with black letting that draped the city administration building read “Say No to the Import of Nuclear Waste.” The statue of Lenin — which according local residents is one of the last standing in a major Siberian city — was wrapped in a banner that said “What will be the cost of the people for spent nuclear fuel?” The banners were hung by Dr Sergei Avdeev, of Chelyabinsk and Oleg Podosyonov, of Yekaterinburg, who are experience mountain climbers. The action lasted less than 45 minutes and involved no police intervention, said Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman of the Russia-based Ecodefense!, one of the organizers of the protest, despite the presence of dozens of police officer — even though the action was not sanctioned by the local administration. Slivyak, in fact, said in an interview with Bellona Web after the banner-hanging that he and about15 activists waited 45 minutes for police to move in and arrest them, but they never did. “We consider the action a success — no one was arrested or hurt and we go out message out to the people,” said Slivyak. The environmentalists have been staying in a camp close the road to Zheleznogorsk — a closed city that houses one of Russia’s three remaining plutonium reactors and an incomplete reprocessing plant — for almost a week, where they have strung various anti-nuclear banners. Zheleznogorsk is also a favoured site for building a 20 tonne-capacity dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (SNF). The camp — which included tent-dwellers from more than 10 Russian cities — dispersed Saturday. “We wanted to show that people from different cities can come together for an environmental protest like this — that we are not just isolated,” sad Slivyak. “We also wanted to say to the people [campaigning to] replace [the late Governor Alexander] Lebed have to pay attention to this issue,” said Slivyak. At present, Alexander Us, a deputy of Lebed’s — and who is considered the forerunner in the elections schedules to take place later this summer, is both fulfilling Lebed’s post as well as running for Lebed’s old office. ”Us is trying to duck the issue — public opinion is against the import [and interment] of SNF in the Krasnoyarsk region means big money for the nuclear industry, but he cannot talk about SNF for fear of loosing votes. Us was not available for comment Friday, and refused to speak with journalists who came to his office. One of his secretaries said, in confidentially, that Us had seen the environmental banner — which flew on the administration building for about 45 minutes, because it “was blocking his view” of the city’s central square. A host of other candidates for Lebed’s job have been similarly evasive on the question of nuclear imports, refusing in chorus to comment on the issue. None of them — including Anatoly Bykov, who was recently cleared of economic crimes but nonetheless campaigned from jail — were available for comment. Charles Digges/Bellona Why Krasnoyarsk? Krasnoyarsk has been the site of a heated struggle between city officials, the federal government and environmentalists, the latter of whom want to force the question of SNF imports — both foreign and domestic — to a local referendum. Last winter they very nearly succeeded in doing so by collecting the 40,000 signatures necessary to put the question to a popular vote in this region of 1.5 million residents. The local election commission threw out more than 35,000 of these collected signatures as invalid based on a federal law requiring signatories to sign not just their names, date of signing and passport information. Prior to that time, in February 2001, in Krasnoyarsk, name and date were sufficient. On Monday, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court handed down a decision saying that the referendum signatures were collected legally, under then-current legislation, but booted the question of what to do with the waste imports to Moscow. A number of local politicians from — like Sergei Besedin of the Union of Righteous Forces (SPS) as well as Greenpeace members Ivan Blokov and Maksim Shingarkin said they would appeal the decision to Moscow’s Supreme Court. The litigants were pleased, however, that Judge Sergei Polentsev removed the ban on collecting local referendums, which was implied in the February verdict. What Krasnoyarsk thinks As passers-by stopped to read the slogan still dangling from the statue of Lenin — which had been slightly twisted by a light wind — all were wholly in support of the sentiment. Olga Urayevskaya, 52, on her way home from work, said putting the question to a real referendum, “not one that will be manipulated by the authorities,” would put the question to rest. Why should our region have to live next not only domestic — which is our responsibility in the end — but foreign waste as well?” Yelena Volodina, 19, who stopped to read the banner while walking across the square with her boyfriend Sergei Spirin, 25 said: “What will the cost be to us? I want my children to grow up here — how can I raise them near a harmful nuclear waste dump?” she said. Spirin agreed: “We’re not just talking about one generation but hundred,” he said. “How can we leave that legacy to our children and theirs?” ***************************************************************** 19 Yucca history Las Vegas SUN July 08, 2002 A chronology of developments on a national nuclear waste repository: 1978 -- First test hole is dug at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as part of a nationwide search for a nuclear waste site. 1982 -- Congress orders development of a permanent national disposal site for waste from commercial nuclear power reactors and the government's nuclear weapons program. 1986 -- Government pledges to take responsibility for high-level nuclear waste from commercial plants by 1989 and narrows potential sites to Nevada, Texas and Washington state. 1987 -- Congress designates Yucca Mountain as the only site to be studied. 1994-96 -- Utilities sue the Energy Department for not taking wastes as promised. Federal court sides with industry and says government must pay damages if waste is not taken. 1998 -- Energy Department fails to meet deadline for taking waste. 2001 -- Interim Energy Department report finds no "showstoppers" in scientific review of Yucca Mountain site. Estimated cost for construction, operation and monitoring over 100 years is put at $58 billion. February 2002 -- President Bush concludes Yucca Mountain is scientifically sound and announces plans to seek a permit for the waste site. April -- Nevada vetoes Bush's decision as allowed under federal nuclear waste law. May -- House votes 306-117 to override Nevada's veto. What is ahead: July -- Senate expected to vote, possibly as early as this week, on whether to override Nevada objection, clearing the way for the project to proceed. 2003 -- Courts likely to rule on first of six lawsuits already filed by Nevada challenging the Yucca project if it proceeds. 2004 -- Energy Department plans to apply for construction permit. Licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission likely to take up to four years. 2010 -- Construction expected to be completed. 2010-2034 -- Shipments of 3,200 tons of waste a year to arrive at the Yucca site. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 'Catastrophic' radiation could be released if canisters fail Study on failure of canisters to be used to persuade senators Las Vegas SUN July 08, 2002 By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- New research suggests that "catastrophic" amounts of radioactivity could be released into the atmosphere at Yucca Mountain due to a failure of the canisters that would be holding high level nuclear waste there. State Solicitor General Tony Clark says the scientific study will be used to persuade members of the Senate to vote against Yucca Mountain, in the legal fights in federal courts and in hearings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must license the repository. The Senate is expected to vote this month on the plan to send the nation's nuclear waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Clark, of the state Attorney General's Office, said the two-year 688-page report is "another prong in the attack" to stop the project. State Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa contracted with a company called TRAC Corp., headed by Dr. Charles Archambeau, an environmental expert, to conduct the research on Yucca Mountain. The researchers say that an earthquake could occur at Yucca Mountain, sending large quantities of hot underground water up through fractures in the mountain and into the tunnels where the casks of nuclear waste will be stored. This would lead to "the rapid deterioration of the integrity of all engineered barriers," such as metal being used to protect the canisters from damage. "The releases of radioactivity, directly into the atmosphere, could be very large, potentially attaining catastrophic proportions," the scientists said. In dispute is whether minerals found at the site were due to rainfall or from the "upwelling" of the water deep within Yucca Mountain. Archambeau said the Energy Department and President Bush made their decisions on findings assuming that rainfall was responsible. The present study, he said, provides evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt that the deposits were deposited by episodes of upwelling water which began millions of years ago and have continued essentially to the present." Joining in the report were Jerry Szymanski, a former scientist for the Energy Department; Dr. Tim Harper from England; and Drs. Yuri Dublyansky Sergey Smirnov, Sergey Pashenko and G.P. Palyanova, all from Russia. Research completed by UNLV geologist Jean Cline in November 2000 backed the Energy Department's assumption that the evidence of geothermal water at the proposed site was 2 million to 5 million years old. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 Protesters rip Yucca plan July 08, 2002 By Christina Littlefield LAS VEGAS SUN It was high noon at the Clark County Government Center amphitheater Sunday, and several community groups were taking what they called their last stand against Yucca Mountain before the U.S. Senate votes on the proposed nuclear waste dump this week. "It is kind of a showdown," Sierra Club spokeswoman Leana Hildebrand said. "We are at an impasse at this point and we are not going to waver from our stand." Leaders of the "This Land is Our Land -- It's Not a Waste Land" protest hoped that the 90-plus gathering of politicians, activists and concerned citizens, combined with similar protests across the nation, would be noticed in Washington. They also hoped that the rally would start a ripple effect of Nevadans calling friends and family in other states to encourage them to call their senators. "We need to call other states and get help with other senators," Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, said. "Our senators are doing great." The rally started and ended with a version of the American classic "This Land is Your Land," rewritten by Peter Ediger, a community activist for Pace e Bene Franciscan Non-Violence Center in Las Vegas. The song, with lyrics such as "We all say, 'No Way!' to the nuclear highway," focused the rally around the issue of transportation. The protest, organized primarily by Citizen Alert, originally was going to take place on the Interstate 15 North on-ramp near Grand Central Parkway and Charleston Boulevard to demonstrate that the community organizations are willing block nuclear waste from coming onto Nevada freeways if the fight gets that far. "What we're hoping is that it won't get anywhere near Nevada, that we can stop it at the gates of the (nuclear power plants)," Citizen Alert organizer Peggy Maze Johnson said. The mood of the rally -- which featured county commissioner and congressional candidate Dario Herrera and Attorney General candidate John Hunt -- was that Nevadans have not yet begun to fight. "People in Nevada need to know that this is not a done deal, it's not inevitable," Treichel said. Both Treichel and Johnson said they hope Nevada can still win in the U.S. Senate, but Hunt said the state would continue to fight the waste site in court for as long as it takes. The protesters cheered Jonathan Galaviz, who last month sued the Energy Department and President Bush to stop Yucca Mountain, claiming the transportation routes unfairly target minority groups. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 Editorial: Just what exactly will pop his cork? Las Vegas SUN July 08, 2002 Today's pop quiz on current events, editorial page readers, involves answering what policy dispute prompted Gov. Kenny Guinn to say the following to a reporter from the Associated Press: "Sure, I'm disappointed. But I still use the old theory of Ronald Reagan -- that when somebody agrees with you 80 percent of the time, they are your friend, not your enemy. In this case, I just happen to disagree with him." Who was the individual and what was the policy that Guinn referred to? A. Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins and the medical malpractice crisis. B. President Bush and the Yucca Mountain project. C. Health and Human Services' Secretary Tommy Thompson and new Medicare rules. If you picked A or C, you're wrong. Guinn actually directed those nice words at President Bush, a fellow Republican, who wants to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in Nevada. We know Guinn prefers accommodation to confrontation, but it is dumbfounding that he would be so understanding about someone who wants to bury man's deadliest waste in his state. If that's friendship to Guinn, we'd hate to see what qualifies as being an enemy to the governor. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Final Yucca lobbying under way Senate could begin debate over dumpsite on Tuesday By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN July 08, 2002 WASHINGTON -- This week, the U.S. Senate is expected to take up the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, drawing years of congressional wrangling over the project to a close. The Senate is expected to debate and vote on putting the waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, with the debate starting as soon as Tuesday, congressional sources said. The Senate vote is the last congressional action required for approval. The House approved the site earlier this year after President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site. In a last-minute flurry of lobbying, the Bush administration is expected to further pressure Utah's two Republican senators to support Yucca today in a White House meeting. "This shows how close a vote the other side thinks it will be," said Traci Scott, spokeswoman for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "It's fourth and goal and we are not going to give up." Ensign also spoke to Utah Sens. Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch today, Scott said. But she would not disclose the content of the conversation or say how the Utah lawmakers are expected to vote. Bennett and Hatch requested the afternoon meeting with White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Abraham, according to a Bennett press release. In an attempt to rally a majority of the Senate against the repository, Nevada officials have been pressuring Bennett and Hatch, among others, to oppose the controversial dump project. The state paid for anti-Yucca television commercials that ran in Utah in May. A nuclear industry group, the Alliance for Sound Nuclear Policy, ran competing commercials. Aides for the Utah senators were not available for comment today. Nevada officials have been fighting the plan to make Yucca a national nuclear waste dump for years. They say it will endanger state residents, and those along waste transportation routes. Nuclear industry officials and other Yucca advocates say scientific study has proven the project safe. "The plan would store the waste safely in the remote Nevada desert and get it out of our communities," said a pro-Yucca television commercial that ran in 13 states last week, paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's a common sense plan." Senate Republican advocates of the dump today and tomorrow are outlining a strategy to bring the issue to the Senate floor as early as Tuesday, said Will Hart, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a leading Yucca supporter. It's not clear yet which GOP senator will call for debate, Hart said today. "We have several members who are interested in bringing it up," Hart said. Most Congress-watchers expect the Senate to pass Yucca, but an exact vote count has been difficult to predict because a number of senators have not publicly stated how they intend to vote. Craig and other Republicans have joined industry lobbyists -- and the president -- in urging GOP senators to support the project. They need 51 votes to approve it. They also need 51 votes to defeat a procedural maneuver planned by Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Ensign designed to block a vote from happening at all. The Nevadans plan to argue that only Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has the right by tradition as the Senate agenda-setter to call for a vote on an issue. But Yucca advocates point to a provision in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that specifically allows any senator to call for action on Yucca. Of course the Nevadans have been lobbying, too. One of their chief arguments in recent months has been that it would be dangerous to launch a massive waste shipping campaign, inviting accidents and terrorist attacks. Yucca advocates in Congress and in the nuclear industry say high-level waste shipping is safe, proven by a history of nearly 3,000 high-level waste shipments nationwide since the 1960s, with few accidents and no radiation releases. Waste is shipped by train and truck in robust steel containers and the chances of a radiation release are tiny, industry experts say. And given the abundance of attractive terrorist targets in America, it's highly unlikely terrorists would go to the trouble of attacking a waste shipment, they say. But Nevada senators in the last two weeks won over at least two more allies using the transportation argument. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said she decided to oppose Yucca because it's possible waste could be transported on barges on Lake Michigan during its long trek from Michigan's shore-line nuclear plants to Nevada. Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., will oppose Yucca because much of the waste would travel through St. Louis and Kansas City. The Senate vote is the final congressional hurdle for Yucca, the first project of its kind in the world. The House approved the project 306-117 on May 8. Inside the Capitol, Yucca advocates led by Sens. Craig, Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., have matched the lobbying efforts of the Nevada senators. The Yucca backers have publicly and privately urged their colleagues to promptly approve Yucca. Outside the Beltway, both pro- and anti-Yucca groups launched intensive public relations and lobbying campaigns. The state of Nevada spent about $2 million on anti-Yucca advertising, running television commercials in Vermont, Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Nevada officials also hired two high-profile lobbyists, former President Clinton adviser John Podesta, and former President Reagan adviser Ken Duberstein, to work on their behalf. Gaming industry groups are paying the bulk of their salaries. The state is spending millions more on legal efforts to kill the project. Nevada officials have long acknowledged they had a better chance of derailing Yucca in the courts than in Congress. Meanwhile environmental groups nationwide in recent months have energized their support bases, urging allies to email, phone and write letters to their senators, inundating some offices. Activists hauling mock nuclear waste containers cruised the nation's highways to trumpet the dangers of transporting waste from sites nationwide to Nevada. Leading anti-Yucca group Public Citizen led many of the efforts, even enlisting the star power of Hollywood actors and musicians, a few of whom personally contacted senators. As recent as last week, rockers from the bands Midnight Oil, the B-52s and Indigo Girls urged people at an anti-Yucca rally in Chicago to pressure Illinois senators. Pro-Yucca nuclear industry lobbyists, led by the influenctial Nuclear Energy Institute, spent millions to assure Yucca's passage. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce led by high-profile lobbyists Geraldine Ferraro and John Sununu also pressured lawmakers. The chamber also paid for week-long pro-Yucca radio commercial campaign in 13 states that ended today. The industry group Alliance for Sound Nuclear Policy has nearly matched the Nevada television commercials, running pro-Yucca spots wherever anti-Yucca commericals were airing. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 Yucca, Skull Valley Spell Trouble for Utah, Critics Say The Salt Lake Tribune Monday, July 8, 2002 [PHOTO] Kimberly Chapman of Las Vegas protests the planned storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain during a rally at the Clark County (Nev.) Government Center on Sunday. (K.M. Cannon/The Associated Press) BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository as soon as Wednesday, Utah has become a key battlefield in a national fight over the site. A dvocates and critics of the hotly contested Nevada waste site want Utahns to pressure Republican Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who have supported Yucca Mountain in past votes but now call themselves undecided. The two were asked to meet in the White House with U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. One reason for the Utah senators' recent uncertainty: They don't know how Yucca will affect another proposal -- strongly opposed by many Utahns -- to build a nuclear-waste storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in the desert west of the state's most populous cities. Leaders of the Skull Valley band have signed a contract with a consortium of utilities to store spent nuclear fuel in steel-and-concrete casks on the reservation. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still deciding whether to approve the facility. State leaders and environmentalists are fighting the Skull Valley facility on safety and environmental grounds, while the consortium, Private Fuel Storage (PFS), insists it would be safe. Now that fight has been drawn head-on into the larger and long-brewing political war over where mounting stockpiles of nuclear waste are to be kept, and over plans for getting the waste there. President Bush and the U.S. House of Representatives already have overridden Nevada's veto of the federal repository at Yucca Mountain. The Senate's upcoming vote could allow work to proceed in Nevada, setting the stage for casks with up to 77,000 tons of waste to be rolled into the underground dump by 2010. If federal nuclear regulators approve a 40-year permit for the Skull Valley site, up to 44,000 tons of depleted nuclear-plant fuel will be stored in above-ground and unsecured casks on concrete pads in the west Utah desert 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. No one is sure whether speeding the waste to Nevada will get the Utah project scrapped, as some have said, or whether stopping Yucca Mountain nixes the nation's entire complex scheme for high-level radioactive waste, including the Skull Valley site. One thing is for sure: If waste goes to Yucca Mountain, Skull Valley or both, casks will be hauled along Utah's roads and highways to reach their destination. That prospect has led opponents to redouble their attacks on the U.S. Energy Department's waste-transportation plans, which, in Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's words, are "preliminary." Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, visited Utah in June on behalf of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to argue that Washington has no business moving waste anywhere until it has sensible plans for shipping it. "Tragedies happen when there isn't proper planning," said Hall, the former head of the federal agency charged with preventing accidents, who led the $7 billion cleanup of an Oak Ridge, Tenn., defunct uranium-enrichment plant site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has estimated that eight trucks of waste will be put on U.S. highways every day for 38 years, and that the Salt Lake and Utah valleys can expect a cask of deadly waste to roll through at least once a week, Hall noted. "In both scenarios," he said, "the citizens of Utah are at risk." Hall said the shipping casks have not had any real-world testing for fire, sabotage, immersion, puncture and crashes. Nor has there been a post-Sept.11 study of the security risk from possible terrorist attacks. "As a nation, we can't be putting blinders on to the risks," he said. Supporters counter by pointing to the nuclear industry's record of transporting waste over the past 30 years without a single radiation-related death. Lobbying efforts on both sides have been aimed at local governments and at swaying U.S. senators. A flurry of television ads aired by both sides of the Yucca Mountain controversy has prompted about a dozen calls daily to the office of Hatch, spokeswoman Heather Barney said. The senator may be rethinking his position on Yucca Mountain, but Hatch remains strongly opposed to the Skull Valley site, she said. The governing bodies of Salt Lake City, West Valley City and Summit County have passed resolutions objecting to the Yucca Mountain plan. Salt Lake County and the state Legislature have yet to take public stands. Last week, 18 state legislators also urged Utah's Senate delegation to hold off on Yucca Mountain and focus instead on devising a more comprehensive solution for nuclear-waste disposal. The bipartisan group said the current Yucca proposal "places a disproportionate burden of risk and cost on Utah without effectively solving the nuclear-waste problem." "Transportation routes, methods and risks -- especially the risks of terrorist attacks -- have not been sufficiently analyzed," the legislators said in a letter to senators. "Transport casks have not been fully tested, and the costs for emergency preparedness and response -- and who will pay those costs -- have not been identified." The nation's nuclear utility companies and other proponents of Yucca Mountain are also requesting appointments with senators, who are tentatively scheduled to take the up-or-down vote on the Yucca Mountain repository Wednesday. Under its rules, the Senate must vote on the matter no later than July 29 -- or the issue is dead. Approval of Yucca Mountain is "long past due," said PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin. "It's critically needed, and every year it becomes more critically needed." Martin said the Skull Valley storage will be needed no matter what happens with Yucca Mountain. Nuclear plants in 35 states are running out of on-site storage and need to begin moving the waste soon if they are to keep producing badly needed electricity. And the sooner underground disposal is ready at Yucca Mountain, the sooner waste that might come to Utah could be moved out of the above-ground storage on the Skull Valley desert floor, she added. "If they vote against Yucca Mountain," Martin said of the senators, "they are, in effect, ensuring the need for a centralized facility in Skull Valley . . . [and] it prolongs the need for a facility like this." © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 25 Nuclear waste risks mapped for Valley Group uses computers to simulate aftermath of shipping accident. From The Morning Call -- July 8, 2002 By Jeff Miller Call Washington Bureau Jul 11, 2002 *WASHINGTON* | -- As the Senate prepares to vote on burying the nation's nuclear waste inside a Nevada mountain, an environmental group is using computer modeling to show how shipping accidents could expose thousands of people to deadly radiation. In one scenario targeted at the Lehigh Valley, a rail accident in Bethlehem breaches the seals of a protective cask and releases a plume of cesium that drifts into New Jersey. Firefighters and other first responders take the worst hit, but others farther from the crash site also develop latent radiation-related cancers. Within a year, 353 people are dead. Officials with the Environmental Working Group said their grim ''what if'' scenarios aren't the worst that could happen but represent the consequences of a ''moderately severe'' accident during a typical day in 2020, about 10 years into the Yucca Mountain shipments. ''The goal is to let as many people know as we can of the potential risk of shipping nuclear waste through their city for the proposed 38 years the wants to ship it,'' said Richard Wiles, senior vice president with the environmental group. The group's study is at odds with figures from the Energy Department, which predicts such an accident would result in ''less than one latent cancer fatality'' in an urban center. At this point, however, it's not certain that any of the waste would travel through the Lehigh Valley. ''They are trying to develop some transportation routes,'' said Nick Tylenda, Northampton County's emergency management coordinator. ''But we're comfortable with some of the planning and precautions that have been taken'' with previous shipments. The accident scenario alarmed neither Tylenda nor John Conklin, Lehigh County's emergency management director. ''It's probably just a scare tactic,'' Conklin said. ''I personally think it's very safe.'' The Environmental Working Group made headlines this year by creating a database that enabled anyone with an Internet connection to learn who received government farm subsidies. The group's computer modeling is helping those trying to scuttle the storage plan argue that shipping the waste is too risky. The House already has voted overwhelmingly to nullify Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the site. The Senate is expected to follow suit. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said it's more dangerous to keep nuclear waste stored at more than 100 sites around the country than it is to send it to Yucca Mountain. ''In 30 years of shipping nuclear waste, there's never been an accident that resulted in the release of radiation that would have been harmful to the public or the environment,'' Davis said. ''We take every precaution to ensure that it won't happen.'' Wiles contends that the government is downplaying the risks when it should be educating people about the potential harm that could come from shipping 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country by train, truck and barge. So far, the Energy Department has published only preliminary routes. The maps are buried in Appendix J of the environmental impact assessment for the site. (On the Internet at http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis?a/vol?2/eis?j?bm.pdf.) The maps show the major highways and railways connecting nuclear power plants, including Limerick, Susquehanna and Three Mile Island. But the only cities marked are state capitals. ''The department clearly didn't want people to know where the waste was going, so they made these sort of stick-figure maps,'' Wiles said. ''They left off basically every major city in the country.'' The environmental group used mapping software to identify population centers along the routes. Like its farm data, the routes are available over the Internet at www.mapscience.org. According to the group, the preliminary routes would have nuclear waste travel southwest through the Lehigh Valley along a rail line south of the Lehigh River. In its accident scenario, the crash happens where the track crosses Route 378. Wiles said the spot was picked at random. The environmental group used computer models developed at government laboratories to determine how far the leaked radiation would travel and what health consequences would follow after 12 months. Wiles said the Energy Department's studies are statistically so broad that they minimize the actual risk that a particular city would face. ''They've produced these same accident scenarios, they just haven't told the public what would happen if the accident happened in their town,'' he said. Davis reiterated that the department considers it a greater risk to leave the waste where it is. He also said the department plans to mount ''an aggressive transportation education campaign'' before the shipments begin and to help state and local officials prepare for any emergency. Davis said the state will be notified before shipping begins. But the shipments will be moved ''in a secure, armed classified manner,'' meaning average citizens won't know about them. Copyright © 2002, The Morning Call ***************************************************************** 26 In Nuclear Waste Site Debate, Visions of Transport Disaster Yucca Mountain's Foes Cite Fears of Terrorism and Spills By Eric Pianin and Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 8, 2002; Page A03 Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says her "worst nightmare" has terrorists blowing up a truckload of lethal nuclear waste and contaminating a heavily populated stretch of Interstate 15 between Los Angeles and Nevada. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) sees danger in moving thousands of tons of nuclear waste through Chicago's dense hub of railways and highways or, "God forbid," on barges crossing the Great Lakes or traveling on the Mississippi River. And Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) dreads a repeat of last year's Baltimore rail tunnel accident and fire, but this time conceivably involving spent fuel from Maryland's Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. "We cannot risk this happening with nuclear cargo," she said. As early as this week, the 20-year debate over whether to consolidate much of the nation's spent nuclear waste will come to a head when the Senate votes on whether the Bush administration should move ahead with plans to build a permanent repository 1,000 feet beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Conceding they face an uphill fight, opponents are pinning their hopes on wavering senators who worry about the long-term risks of launching the largest cross-country transfer of highly radioactive material in the nation's history. For years, the major concern was the safety of the Nevada facility's design and the possibility of groundwater contamination. Now, lawmakers and environmentalists are focusing on the problems associated with shipping as much as 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste from 131 above-ground nuclear power plants and facilities in 39 states to Nevada over a quarter-century. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has played down the risks, saying the United States has an "enviable" record of transporting more than 2,700 loads of spent nuclear waste over 1.6 million miles since the 1960s "without one accident resulting in the harmful release of radiation." Administration officials also say the proposed repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is far superior to the alternative offered by Nevada officials and other opponents -- which is to store the waste where it is, in leak-proof steel and concrete cylinders, under increased security. "We have an incredible track record," said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Energy Department. "The amount of shipping would increase, but we think we could safely and securely continue to move it." Still, the scope of the administration's preliminary plans for moving waste to the proposed $58 billion repository would dwarf anything attempted before. The government intends to ship at least 11,100 large casks of radioactive waste on 4,600 trains and trucks through 44 states, according to the Energy Department. Critics say the plan will significantly increase the risk of accidents and spills while presenting an enticing array of moving targets for terrorists with explosives or shoulder-held missiles. Moreover, they say, the project won't solve the nuclear waste problem. Waste shipped to Yucca will be replaced by an almost equal amount of new waste generated by nuclear power plants in the coming decades, according to government figures. Because Congress limited the storage capacity of the Yucca project to 70,000 tons, additional space -- at Yucca or another site -- will be needed around 2034 at the earliest. The spent fuel from nuclear plants, among the deadliest substances known to man, will be solidified into ceramic pellets secured inside an assembly of strong, multilayered metal tubes. Ninety percent of the material would be shipped by rail in containers weighing about 140 tons, and the rest would go by truck, as envisioned by the Energy Department. Each rail shipment would carry 240 times the amount of long-lived radioactive material that was released in the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who opposes the Yucca project, says transportation problems are a "huge concern" to his colleagues, especially the handful of Democrats undecided on the issue. Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) recently announced she would oppose the repository after learning there probably would be more than 19,000 truck shipments and 4,000 rail shipments of nuclear waste through her state in the coming 24 years. "I don't want Missouri to become the nation's nuclear waste superhighway," Carnahan said. The House voted overwhelmingly in May to affirm President Bush's decision to seek a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the massive repository. A majority of senators appear to favor the project, although Senate Majority Whip Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) are trying to change some votes by exploiting nagging concerns about transportation. James E. Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and now an adviser to a group of opponents, said it would be "irresponsible" for the administration to proceed with the project before completing a risk assessment, a detailed transportation plan and full-scale testing of containers. Opponents say the casks could become ready-made "dirty bombs" in the hands of terrorists. The NRC requires the Energy Department to conduct scale-model testing and computer simulation to determine how well the casks would withstand sudden impact, punctures, fire or immersion in water. However, NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve said in April that his agency is "considering certain full-scale testing focused on cask performance in severe accidents," such as last summer's train derailment and fire in Baltimore. Temperatures in the Howard Street tunnel reached 1,000 degrees to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, according to news reports. A study last September by Lamb & Resnikoff, a radioactive waste management firm, concluded that a similar accident involving a nuclear waste shipment would result in a "massive" failure of the transportation cask that could lead to thousands of cancer-related deaths. However, Meserve has told Congress that a preliminary NRC staff analysis concluded that a nuclear waste cask would have survived a comparable fire without "any melting of the fuel." The Environmental Working Group, Public Citizen and other environmental organizations have fanned concerns about nuclear waste traffic by disseminating data and detailed maps of the potential transportation routes based on an Energy Department environmental impact study. Colorful maps on EWG's Web site, for instance, show that more than 2.7 million people in Illinois live within one mile of a likely nuclear transportation route, while there are 153 schools and three hospitals within one mile of the proposed transportation routes through the District. There would be daily shipments of nuclear waste through Atlanta, Cleveland and San Bernardino, Calif., according to a U.S. Public Interest Research Group analysis. Trucks or trains carrying the cargo would rumble through Chicago every 15 hours, through St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver every 13 hours, through Des Moines and Omaha every 10 hours and through Salt Lake City every seven hours. "If the terrorists miss the 10:30 truck, they can pick up the 1:30 truck -- it will be that simple," said Fred Dilger, a transportation and anti-terrorism adviser to Nevada's Clark County. But administration and congressional advocates say existing, stationary stockpiles of nuclear waste pose far more inviting targets to terrorists than would secretly scheduled, heavily guarded shipments to Yucca Mountain. "Without Yucca Mountain, companies with nuclear waste stored in temporary containers near waterways and population centers nationwide will begin contracting with private storage outfits to ship the waste to off-site locations" at even greater risk to the public, Abraham said last week. Energy Department officials also stress that it will take years before a final transportation plan is developed, and that state and local officials will be consulted on specific routes. The government hopes to begin shipments in 2010. Most of the nuclear waste is in the East; trips to Yucca would average 2,000 miles. More than 123 million people live in the 703 counties traversed by the Energy Department's potential highway routes, and 106 million live in counties along potential rail routes, according to analyses of government figures. Between 10.4 million and 16.4 million people will live within half a mile of a transportation route in 2035. Few states are likely to be traversed by more rail and highway shipments than Illinois. Durbin, who is undecided on Yucca, has peppered the Transportation Department and other agencies with questions about how the government would ensure the safety of shipments. How will the routes be selected? Are tests for the casks tough enough in light of post-Sept. 11 risks? He has gotten some answers but wants more. The transportation risks have a special meaning for Chicago, Durbin says. "Chicago grew and prospered because of transportation, so we're honeycombed with railroad yards, railroad crossings, interstate highways," he said. "It has been a blessing for us in many respects and a challenge for us in others." In Nebraska, Sens. Ben Nelson (D) and Chuck Hagel (R) view the transportation risks through different lenses. Nelson was governor in 1996 when an Energy Department tractor-trailer carrying nuclear warheads ran off U.S. Highway 83 in Nebraska, slid down an embankment and overturned during an ice and snow storm. Although no one was injured and there was no contamination, the incident left its mark on Nelson. Among his concerns is that the small farming town of Gibbon, with a population of about 1,500, would become a major crossroads for waste shipments. "It doesn't take much imagination" to figure what could happen if something goes wrong on either the highway or rail lines," Nelson said. "Tom Clancy could write quite a story about it." Hagel, however, discounted the transportation risk in a recent Senate speech. "There is risk with everything we do," he said. "What is important is that the risk is acceptable in order to accomplish the objective. In this case, the risk is absolutely acceptable, because it is a risk we can control." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 27 Durbin now backs storage plan BY TAMMY WILLIAMSON BUSINESS REPORTER The U.S. Senate could vote as early as this week on whether nuclear power plant owners will be allowed to move radioactive waste to a central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada--and in a new turn of events, a formerly reluctant Illinois senator will now vote for the plan. In a turnaround, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is expected to announce today that he will vote for the Yucca bill, after voting against the central nuclear storage location in 1997 and 2000. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) has previously said he would support the bill, and a spokes-man Friday reaffirmed that. Durbin had voted against the earlier bills on concerns involving groundwater contamination and radiation--concerns that he says have been resolved. However, Durbin will introduce a new bill that will address other unresolved issues, such as how the casks containing the nuclear fuel are tested. For instance, they are currently tested for car crashes up to 30 miles per hour. Durbin wants them tested for crashes at higher speeds, an aide said. Also in the bill, Durbin will require that states be notified about all routes that will be used to transport the fuel, given that a good deal of it will go on Illinois' roads or rails. President Bush has vowed to sign the bill, assuming it passes the Senate. Observers say passage is likely, despite opposition from Nevada officials. Copyright 2002, Digital Chicago Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 Build national nuclear waste depot in Nevada PJStar.com - Peoria Journal Star Online July 5, 2002 The question is simple, so it’s a wonder the answer’s proven hard: Would America be better off if its nuclear waste were buried 1,000 feet beneath a deserted Nevada mountain or . . . kept at 131 sites around the country, most under private control, some at power plants no longer in operation? Just in case you’re having trouble with that one, try this: Would Illinoisans be better off it their nuclear waste were buried in Nevada or . . . kept at 11 privately owned sites, several of which, including Morris, LaSalle and Clinton, are in the central part of the state and one of which, Zion, is close to Chicago and Lake Michigan? Would it influence your answer to know that Illinois’ power plants produce more nuclear waste and Illinois has more of it - 6,000 metric tons - in "temporary" storage than any other state? That fact should prove persuasive with Illinois’ two senators, who likely will be asked next week to vote to give the radioactive gunk a decent and safe burial. The Energy Department, which has studied Yucca Mountain for 20 years, says it is safe. There aren’t many people around; Las Vegas is 90 miles away. There is very little rain, so danger of seepage is minimal. The material would be stored 800 feet above any aquifer. There would be just one place to guard instead of 131, and Nellis Air Force Base is near. You can’t say this for Illinois. You can say this: The waste would have to be moved to Nevada, and much of it would go through Illinois on its way west. Opponents argue that since it can’t be transported safely, it should stay where it is. No endeavor is worry-free, but the nation is accustomed to moving nuclear fuel around. The Nuclear Energy Institute says 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel have taken place in the United States in the last 40 years. And what’s the other choice? To keep doing what we’re doing is not acceptable. Congress voted in 1982 to move all of the nation’s nuclear waste to one well-constructed and safe location where it would pose far less of a threat to the nation’s well-being. It began taxing the nuclear power industry to build the site. But politics - Nevada understandably isn’t happy, and its Democratic senators are powerful - have kept it from happening. When Congress gave the go-ahead two years ago, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Lawmakers are trying again. In May the House approved President Bush’s recommendation that Nevada get the fuel. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Last time out, Sen. Dick Durbin said no. The vote appeared more in support of his Democratic friends in Nevada than in the interest of his Illinois constituents. But there has been one major change since last time, besides the man in the White House: Sept. 11 and the fear it brings that terrorists could attack storage sites or steal spent fuel. That makes this no longer an issue of Illinois vs. Nevada, if it ever was, but a clear matter of national interest. It is not in the national interest to treat radioactive waste as cavalierly as we have. The answer to the simple questions posed at the outset is to vote to build the national repository at Yucca. And begin soon. ©, Peoria Journal Star ***************************************************************** 29 Put waste at Yucca Mountain Safer to store nuclear trash in Nevada than at 131 sites across the nation PJStar.com - Peoria Journal Star Online©, Peoria Journal Star July 7, 2002 By BARCLAY G. JONES Now it's up to the U.S. Senate to put an end to the decades-old nuclear waste saga. It needs to override Nevada's veto of President Bush's selection of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site. A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted in support of using the Yucca Mountain site by an overwhelming margin. The geologic repository that would be built there for spent fuel from nuclear power plants and for highly radioactive defense waste would be the first such facility anywhere in the world. Billions have been spent on evaluation of the Yucca Mountain site, and it has been determined to be geologically stable and very well suited for this purpose. Transporting the material to Yucca Mountain, a site far removed from any population centers, makes a lot more sense than continuing to store it indefinitely at 131 sites in 39 states. The material would be far safer at Yucca, stored in chambers thousands of feet beneath volcanic rock and protected by tight security at nearby Nellis Air Force Range, than spread across the country at scores of reactor sites and nuclear weapons facilities. America has the technology - and, more importantly, the experience - to ship the material to Nevada safely. We've been moving highly radioactive material around this country for 40 years, whether it's spent fuel from nuclear plants or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered submarines. In fact, there have been more than 3,000 shipments of spent fuel since the early 1960s, without a single accident that caused a release of radiation. It's not by chance that the shipment of spent fuel has an unblemished safety record. Casks used for carrying the material - which is produced in the generation of electricity - are thick cylinders with tons of shielding material to prevent the release of any radiation. Those designed for truck transportation weigh between 25 and 40 tons. Railroad casks weigh up to 120 tons and are built to take the toughest punishment. They must be safe before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will certify and license their designs. A series of rigorous tests demonstrates their invulnerability to impact at high speeds, extremely hot fires, submersion or a possible puncture. The casks have not failed. Although spent fuel has been stored safely in steel-lined water pools and dry casks at nuclear plants for many years, long-term storage has become unacceptably risky, especially in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. There are too many storage sites, maintained by different power companies. Besides, many of the waste facilities are near the Great Lakes, rivers or the ocean, each one compounding the risk. Nevertheless, some politicians and pundits claim it would be safer to leave the spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste where it is. Can they be serious? Is it really safer to store 72,000 metric tons of the material at widely dispersed sites than at one underground repository? Nearly 6,000 metric tons of spent fuel are stored at nuclear plants in Illinois. The risk of terrorism makes a central and secure repository all the more urgent. The issue is critical because storage capacity for the waste from nuclear energy and weapons has become increasingly limited. The Bush administration's energy plan, released in April, demonstrated strong support for the use of nuclear power as a supplement to more traditional fuel sources. Thus, the amount of spent fuel in this country could increase considerably in the not too distant future, and the opening of a repository has become a top priority for the federal government. The primary concern of those who oppose the plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is that radiation could seep through groundwater and into the above-ground environment. Yes, the probability of some water moving through the arid repository is real, but the area receives only seven inches of rainfall each year and most of that evaporates and runs off the desert slope. Scientists say that only one-sixth of an inch will trickle through the cracks in the volcanic rock, and most tunnel placements will be engineered to avoid the known faults, which are the largest paths for water to travel. It is hard to imagine that the trivial amount of water the Nevada desert sees could move much material anywhere. To further protect the containers in the event this minute amount of water reaches the repository, titanium drip shields will protect the containers by funneling the drops of water to the tunnel floor. With the repository more than 1,000 feet below ground, yet still about 800 feet above the region's aquifer, seepage of any significant amount of material is just about incomprehensible. Besides, groundwater at Yucca Mountain flows into Death Valley, which is a "closed" basin that does not flow into any river or ocean and is isolated from the aquifer used by Las Vegas 100 miles away. The Energy Department's analysis demonstrates that annual radiation exposure to citizens closest to Yucca Mountain will be equivalent to eating a dozen bananas. The engineered precautions of the Yucca Mountain project, together with the geology itself, provide numerous barriers between the radioactive material and the environment. Precisely this approach is necessary if the idea of permanent disposal of nuclear waste from the nation's civilian and military reactors is to be realized. The future demands something different than neglect. The Senate should vote to approve the repository at Yucca Mountain without delay. Barclay G. Jones is a professor in the Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ***************************************************************** 30 Waste from uranium plant was mislabeled Contaminated soil may be removed from Nevada landfill By James Malone The Courier-Journal PADUCAH, Ky. -- Taxpayers could get stuck with a $200,000 bill to dig up several shipments of mislabeled waste sent last fall from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to a Nevada landfill. Bechtel Jacobs LLC, the U.S. Department of Energy's primary cleanup contractor at Paducah, determined this spring that 127 containers of tainted soil sent to the Nevada Test Site landfill were mislabeled and may have to be removed and buried elsewhere. The dirt came from a 1991 excavation near a drainage outfall, an area where ditches or pipes leaving the uranium processing plant empty into creeks. Records show the dirt was taken by truck to an Energy Department landfill in Nevada in four shipments between Sept. 28 and Nov. 19 of last year. Although the waste was identified as radioactive, the paperwork accompanying it failed to disclose that the soil also had been exposed to a hazardous degreaser, said Greg Cook, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs. Thousands of gallons of the toxic degreaser trichloroethene, or TCE, leaked for three decades from a fractured industrial drain at the plant's primary maintenance building into the ground. The solvent was used at Paducah for 40 years until 1993, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TCE leaks have contaminated an estimated 10 billion gallons of groundwater under the plant, according to the federal General Accounting Office. Federal waste regulations say if the soil originated from an area where it came into contact with the degreasing fluid, it is presumed to contain the fluid and should be classified as hazardous, Cook said. Federal law has different standards for disposal of radioactive waste that is mixed with hazardous waste, and disposal costs are higher. The Nevada Test Site, which accepted the Paducah waste, is not permitted to take mixed waste, Nevada officials said. Nevada officials have determined that the waste -- buried but still sealed in metal boxes -- does not pose an immediate health or environmental threat. ''If we had made that determination, there would be a removal program under way already,'' said Paul Liebendorfer, chief of the bureau of federal facilities in the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The Energy Department, which owns both the Nevada Test Site and the Paducah plant, has estimated the cost of a full excavation at $200,000, Liebendorfer said. It was unclear whether that would include the cost of reburying the waste at another landfill. Richard Abraham, a Paducah city commissioner who monitors cleanup efforts at the Paducah plant, said the problem represents ''another example of not making sure of what you are doing, of not crossing the t's and dotting the i's.'' Such lapses only weaken the public trust in the government's ability to do the job right, Abraham said. But Cook said of the problem, ''I would not call it a mistake. I think we call it taking action after we received additional information.'' Liebendorfer said it's the first time he can recall that improperly labeled waste has been buried at the Nevada Test Site. Two previous shipments from other states were refused, either in transit or before burial, he said. Nevada officials have issued a formal ''finding of alleged violation'' for the burial of the Paducah soil and say they will take steps starting July 15 to determine what to do with it, Liebendorfer said. The finding required the Energy Department to provide additional information about the shipment. Cook said initial testing for solvent in the soil has proved negative. But Liebendorfer said those tests were looking only for a certain threshold. If the government can't say what's in the waste, it could mean removal starting in August ''and having Paducah come and get it,'' he said. Bechtel Jacobs has asked the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection for a determination that the soil was clean. But Mark York, a spokesman for the state agency, said Kentucky regulators believed it was an issue for the Energy Department to resolve with Nevada regulators. Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 31 Our position:* The Yucca Mountain vault is needed, but so is its waste's safe transport. EDITORIAL Nuclear safety Posted July 8, 2002 For nearly half a century, the United States has accumulated a massive stockpile of radioactive waste -- most of it scattered throughout the nation in temporary storage sites at the nation's nuclear-power plants. And after nearly a quarter century of debate and nearly $4 billion worth of study, the U.S. Senate will decide in coming weeks whether to continue the permitting process for permanent disposal of the highly toxic material in a vault beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. With some critically important caveats, senators should move the Yucca Mountain project forward. The federal government, after all, has a recognized responsibility to dispose of the waste -- most of it generated by nuclear-power facilities and nuclear-powered ships and submarines. A single facility with the potential to store indefinitely most of the nation's nuclear waste makes eminent sense -- from a security standpoint, from an engineering standpoint and from a public-safety standpoint. How that waste gets to Nevada, though, is another question altogether. For all the money that has gone into studying and planning Yucca Mountain, the safe and secure transport of the dangerous waste from 131 different facilities in 39 states remains a work in progress. And that's a generous assessment. Indeed, the Department of Energy's final environmental assessment of the project pointedly notes that, in the wake of Sept. 11, the department and other agencies have yet to develop a transportation plan that considers potential terrorist attacks. That's a startling admission. And it demands congressional intervention. Concurrent with Senate approval of Yucca Mountain, both houses should pass a new law requiring development of a detailed plan for transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. And that plan should be subject to congressional approval. Already, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- which will review the Yucca Mountain proposal if it passes Senate muster later this month -- has pooh-poohed transportation-safety concerns. Testifying before a Senate panel in May, in fact, two NRC commissioners downplayed the threat of a terrorist attack on a transport convoy. What a troubling predisposition -- particularly because the NRC is supposed to pass muster on the safety and quality of transport plans for nuclear waste. Congress should have the final say. Leaving nuclear waste on site simply isn't feasible. The U.S. Department of Energy expects that at least 40 of the 131 temporary storage sites will require additional space by 2010, when Yucca Mountain is scheduled to open. That could spawn a cottage industry of additional off-site storage facilities. And those facilities will require transportation plans, too. A better option is to have a government-operated, secure site at Yucca Mountain -- with appropriate transportation safeguards in place. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, for example, is demanding community-specific response plans in the event of a disaster -- and the money to finance such plans. That's more than reasonable. Freight transport is a concern, as well, given historical maintenance problems on the CSX tracks that crisscross Florida. Community leaders, too, should be notified well in advance of road closures, the timing of shipments and the routing of shipments. And all transport plans should be cleared by the new federal Office of Homeland Security, following exhaustive analysis of how vulnerable nuclear waste convoys might be to terrorist attack. More than 2 million Floridians live within one mile of a proposed nuclear-transportation route, and 1,035 schools are similarly situated. Public safety may not worry government bureaucrats. But it should be of paramount concern to Congress. Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel ***************************************************************** 32 Large amount of nuclear waste could pass through area, analysis shows Sunday, July 7, 2002 By James R. Carroll The Courier-Journal WASHINGTON -- Starting in 2010, much of the nation's highlevel radioactive waste could be rolling by truck or train through Indiana and Kentucky on its way to storage in the West. The potential shipments are based on an analysis by a consultant to the state of Nevada, which is fighting a $57 billion federal plan to shuttle all of the nation's nuclear waste for permanent burial under Yucca Mountain. The waste has piled up for decades at commercial nuclear power plants, atomic research laboratories, Navy bases where nuclear-powered ships are based and other facilities. There is no single storage site in the United States for radioactive waste, and most of it is kept where it was used. Most Kentucky and Indiana officials say transporting the waste is acceptable as long as adequate safety measures are taken. But Sen. Evan Bayh, DInd., citing the Energy Department's admission that accidents would be inevitable, said he had ''serious concerns about the safety'' of the shipments. Aloma Dew, chairwoman of the Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission, said she was ''appalled'' by the idea of carrying all of the waste to one place, exposing so many people along the shipping routes to the potential hazard. ''The taxpayers and citizens of this country should not be jeopardized and their safety compromised to help out the nuclear industry. That's what's going on here,'' she said. The volume of radioactive material that could move through Kentucky and Indiana came to light as the Senate prepares to decide, possibly as early as this week, whether to endorse the Yucca Mountain plan. Using a Department of Energy draft plan released in February that outlines the Yucca Mountain storage plan and identifies potential rail and road routes for the shipments, Nevada consultant Robert Halstead developed a computer model that maps how nuclear waste could travel to the desert location. ''If the shipments started tomorrow, do we know with a high level of confidence what routes would be used? Yes, we do -- 95 percent of the routes the DOE uses'' in its draft plan, said Halstead, a specialist on nuclear waste transportation issues for 24 years and an adviser to Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects since 1988. But Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said talk about routes is speculation and that the department's data suggests possible routes. ''People opposed to Yucca Mountain know we have a sound scientific basis for moving forward. They are using scare tactics to move the Senate in a certain way,'' Davis said. According TO Halstead's analysis, if the Department of Energy used railroads, its preferred option for moving the waste, Kentucky could see 3,312 nuclear train shipments between 2010 and 2034. That would account for 34 percent of the 9,646 projected rail shipments nationwide during that period. Safety Tests While shipments of nuclear waste have been involved in accidents, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says none resulted in ''an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material.'' The steel casks, lined with lead, that are used to hold the waste have been tested to withstand a 30-foot fall, a 40-inch fall onto a steel rod six inches in diameter, a 1,475-degree fire for 30 minutes, and submergence for eight hours under 50 feet of water. Accident tests in the 1970s and '80s ran a tractortrailer carrying a container into a concrete wall at 80 mph without rupturing the cask, the Nuclear Energy Institute reported. The containers also survived being rammed by a 120-ton locomotive at 80 mph and a nearly half-mile fall onto hard soil, the NEI said. But the newly-designed steel alloy casks that would be used for Yucca Mountain haven't been manufactured yet, and all testing has been by computer. People can find out how close to their homes nuclear waste shipments might pass by checking [http://www.mapscience.org] -- the Web site for the Environmental Working Group, a nuclear industry watchdog organization. The rail routes include a Norfolk Southern line through Danville, Louisville and into Southern Indiana, and a CSX line in Western Kentucky through Hopkinsville and Henderson into Southern Indiana. The rail plan also could mean 5,980 shipments through Indiana over 24 years -- nearly 62 percent of total waste shipments. If the waste moved primarily by truck, Kentucky could get 18,435 nuclear shipments on Interstate 64 -- which passes through Louisville and Lexington -- and along I-24, which runs through Paducah. Those shipments would amount to nearly 35 percent of the 52,786 truck shipments nationwide, Halstead's analysis found. For Indiana, a mostly truck scenario could send 17,258 nuclear shipments across the state's highways, including I-64 in Southern Indiana. That is nearly a third of all truck shipments nationwide. By contrast, five to 10 nuclear shipments now cross Kentucky each year, all by truck. Indiana gets about one commercial nuclear shipment a year, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Halstead based his analysis on computer modeling using the Energy Department's estimate of how many shipments will be needed, the routes already being used and additional routes that offer the shortest distance between the waste's origin and Yucca Mountain. Kentucky and Indiana officials haven't challenged the Yucca Mountain plan, although Kentucky Gov. Paul Patton said he would have to get assurances about the safety of the shipments. ''Subject to our people evaluating the plans and assuring me that they are as reasonably safe as you could expect, I would not object,'' Patton said in an interview last week. Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon has informed the Energy Department that he does not oppose shipments of Yucca Mountain-bound waste across the state, said Alden Taylor, spokesman for the Indiana State Emergency Management Agency. Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. David Bursten said his agency does not escort truck shipments of nuclear waste through Indiana. Kentucky has quietly escorted the shipments for years without incident, said John Volpe, outgoing head of the state's Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch. Volpe said the shipments are accompanied by unmarked cars ahead and behind the trucks. The cars, carrying armed state troopers, do not have flashing lights. Travel times vary and are set by the Energy Department, and routes are not publicized, he said. ''I think we have a sound foundation for developing a transportation plan (for Yucca Mountain shipments) that will minimize the risks,'' Volpe said. Opponents are not convinced. ''They're putting Kentucky at risk by transporting this material through the state,'' said Lane Boldman, chairwoman of the Cumberland Chapter of the Sierra Club. ''We're asking for problems,'' said Jackie Green, executive director of the Coalition for Advancement of Regional Transportation in Louisville. ''How long is it going to be before someone hits a truck we would rather not get hit?'' The risk of an accident setting off a public health and environmental crisis with the spread of radiation is not the only threat, said Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council. ''Particularly after 9/11, any community where you have these types of materials traveling through is going to have a heightened concern about terrorism,'' he said. ''I'm really surprised that more people aren't up in arms about this,'' said Dew, adding that the Kentucky advisory commission would be discussing how nuclear waste would be shipped to Nevada. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., supports the Yucca Mountain project, as does Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. Bunning said the federal government ''has to come up with a place to store spent waste. The method and route of transportation will be decided when it comes time to ship it.'' Bayh intends to vote against it. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said safe transportation of the nuclear waste should be a top priority, but did not say how he would vote. The Bush administration wants to move 77,000 tons of nuclear material from 77 sites nationwide -- 72 commercial nuclear power plants and five Energy Department facilities -- in 34 states. None are in Kentucky or Indiana. The government also plans to ship waste to Yucca from 54 additional sites, including the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, but has not estimated those shipments. The waste crossing Kentucky and Southern Indiana would come from nuclear power plants in Virginia, North Carolina and other points in the Southeast as far away as Florida. The material would be stored under Yucca Mountain, some 90 miles north of Las Vegas. The storage facility, under study for decades, would be geologically secure enough to hold the waste for 10,000 years, according to the government and the nuclear industry. The plan calls for putting the radioactive material in steel alloy casks for shipment. A tractor-trailer carrying a full cask would weigh about 40 tons. A rail car and cask would weigh about 200 tons. The waste would be left in the shipment containers once in Nevada and stored in tunnels 1,000 feet underground. The tunnels would eventually be sealed. Citing environmental, safety and other concerns, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn vetoed the proposal on April 8. But the House -- including a unanimous Kentucky delegation and Rep. Baron Hill, the Democrat who represents Indiana's 9th District -- overrode Guinn a month later on a 306-117 vote. The Senate vote could give the Yucca Mountain project a critical boost, or a crippling setback. ''If it's not approved, we are back to square one. . . . We are talking about another few decades before we come up with another solution,'' said Thelma Wiggins, spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The safety of shipments to Yucca Mountain should not be a worry, Wiggins said. ''The nuclear industry has an impeccable safety record,'' she said. ''We have been transporting fuel for more than 35 years. There's been more than 3,000 shipments covering 1.7 million miles with no injuries, no fatalities and no injury to the environment.'' Wiggins said state and local governments will have a say in routing nuclear waste shipments, and Volpe said he expects efforts will be made to direct shipments away from populated areas where possible. Emergency management officials say they feel equipped to handle the shipments. ''It's going to be a challenge for any state,'' said Ronn Padgett, director of the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management. But with money from the federal government, local and state emergency agencies are making progress in improved training and better equipment to handle problems with nuclear waste, he said. Bud Fekete, assistant director of the Louisville-Jefferson Emergency Management Agency, said other hazardous materials already moving through the area pose more of a public health risk than nuclear shipments. ''I think it's a public relations and public education issue more than an actual hazard to the community,'' he said. Staff writers Tom Loftus and James Bruggers contributed to this story. Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 33 Hodges to argue his case 07/10/02 071002 metro 5 @ugusta COLUMBIA - After losing a federal court fight to block plutonium shipments to Savannah River Site, Gov. Jim Hodges' lawyers are set to make their case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today. --> Hodges to argue his case Web posted Wednesday, July 10, 2002 Associated Press [http://wire.ap.org/] COLUMBIA - After losing a federal court fight to block plutonium shipments to Savannah River Site, Gov. Jim Hodges' lawyers are set to make their case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today. "We're looking forward to our day in court," Hodges spokesman Morton Brilliant said Tuesday. The appeal turns on the argument that Mr. Hodges has made for months: The Department of Energy will break its own rules if it ships plutonium to South Carolina from Colorado. The weapons-grade plutonium is destined for SRS as the government works to close Colorado's former nuclear facility at Rocky Flats. The Energy Department plans to eventually convert the material into commercial nuclear fuel called mixed oxide. A plant to convert the material is being designed. "We will have a fair review and hearing on the matter and let the judges decide," DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. Mr. Hodges has been trying to keep the plutonium out of South Carolina until there are firm guarantees the material won't stay in the state indefinitely. The 4th Circuit last month refused to temporarily block the shipments. Mr. Hodges doesn't know whether the shipments have begun. "We don't comment on any aspect of the shipments, including when it left and when it arrived" if it was shipped, Mr. Davis said. "It's classified." Mr. Hodges' lawyers will argue the case before Judges Robert King, Emory Widener and Paul Niemeyer. In a U.S. District Court in Aiken, Mr. Hodges had argued that the agency failed to complete necessary environmental impact statements; violated the national environmental policy act; and backed out of a promise that the weapons-grade plutonium would be stored only temporarily at SRS. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said Mr. Hodges didn't provide enough proof of violations to stop the plutonium from being shipped. A group of Aiken and Barnwell leaders had asked Judge Currie to allow them to seek compensation from the Energy Department for plutonium shipments. One of their lawyers, Neil Robinson, said shipments of "the most deadly substance known to man" were tantamount to the government taking property away from citizens. All contents © [http://www.augustachronicle.com/faq/copyright.html] 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact the webmasters. [webmaster@augustachronicle.com] AugustaChronicle.com is a proud member of Augusta.com [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 34 Nuclear waste plan raises Morris' fears Daily Record News - 07/08/02 By Chris Gosier, Daily Record Trucks loaded with highly radioactive nuclear waste could travel by interstate highway through the heart of Morris County on their way to a national repository in Nevada under plans that face a crucial vote in Congress this month. The waste - spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants in New York and Connecticut - could be trucked south on Route 287 to Route 80 West in Parsippany, starting in 2010, under the federal government proposal that the Senate is considering. The government has worked for 20 years to set up a federal repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain for high-level nuclear waste, now being stored at power plants throughout the nation. Despite the government's promises of extensive safety precautions, the plan has drawn opposition from legislators and activists concerned about possible terrorism, catastrophic accidents and environmental damage. And it has spurred an awareness campaign by an environmental group that says the public hasn't been told enough about the chance of the waste being shipped through their communities. "Nobody has contacted any of the towns, that I know of, that would be along the route," said Mimi Letts, mayor of Parsippany, where the Route 287/Route 80 interchange is located. Safety concerns have a special resonance in the densely populated corridor stretching from Montville to Parsippany and west through Denville, where a Route 80 truck accident badly damaged a highway bridge last summer, setting the Den Brook on fire in the process. "The (gasoline) tanker disaster just a year ago points out the flaw in the logic of taking any kind of hazardous material through a congested area," Denville Mayor Gene Feyl said. "I think we're more apprehensive of what's going on our interstates" because of the crash, he said. "We're not aware of all the materials traveling on our interstates. This one we know, but that brings us little comfort." After reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and consultation with state governments, the shipments would start sometime around 2010 and would continue for 24 years. The trucks traveling through Morris County would be carrying waste from the Indian Point nuclear power plant in southeastern New York and from Connecticut's Millstone plant. A U.S. Department of Energy plan calls for 993 trucks, 70 feet long, to begin their journey from Indian Point in 2010. The trucks would cross the Tappan Zee Bridge and continue south on Route 287 before intersecting with Route 80. In all, 77,000 tons of the country's most radioactive waste would be taken to Nevada by truck or by rail, or possibly by barge. There would be 4,300 shipments over 24 years, or about 180 per year. The waste would be transported in multi-ton storage casks, which encase the spent fuel rods in multiple layers of lead and other materials. Typically, every ton of spent fuel is surrounded by four tons of shielding material, according to the DOE. Not all the casks would be taken by truck. Some would pass along rail lines, including a line that passes south of Morris County. Waste from New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear power plant would travel west via the CSX railroad's Lehigh Line, passing through parts of Union, Middlesex, Somerset and Hunterdon counties. The mayor of Manville, Angelo Corradino, has said he hopes to join with other mayors in the densely populated region to oppose the plan. The casks are required to pass durability tests, including a 30-foot drop onto an unyielding surface, and a puncture test in which they are dropped 40 feet onto a upraised steel rod. They also are heated to 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit. The DOE points to a safety record of more than 2,700 spent fuel shipments since the 1960s, with no harmful release of radioactive material. "We're confident, based on our history, that we can safely and securely move this waste without any problems at all," DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. But a department analysis of the project tells a different story. The department's environmental impact statement, released in February, warns that "certain adverse impacts to workers and the public from the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be unavoidable." Specifically, the truck-transportation scenario could cause as many as 21 fatalities over 24 years from causes including industrial or traffic accidents, or cancer deaths from exposure to radiation, the report says. When asked about the statement, Davis said the environmental assessment has to look at the worst possible scenarios. The document "has to take into account everything that could possibly happen, even as unlikely as it sounds," he said. Other fears center on the Sept. 11 aftermath. Some critics say the trucks would be a handy target for terrorists - "a ready-made dirty bomb," in the words of Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who opposes the plan. And the possible consequences of an accident are enough to keep safety fears alive, in spite of the government's assurances. In Montville, for instance, a mile-long stretch of Route 287 passes over the drainage area for the township's aquifer, Mayor John Rosellini Jr. said. "We would be extremely concerned if there was any accident with hazardous materials on the highway, over the aquifer," he said. When the trucks got to Parsippany, they would have to negotiate an interchange that is notoriously tricky for trucks. "That connection between 287 and 80, as everybody knows, is very dangerous," said Letts, the Parsippany mayor. "There are so many problems with that whole connection (between) those two highway corridors." Vehicles traveling from Route 287 South have to drive along a single-lane exit ramp that curves downward before merging with Route 80 west. "I think that we're entitled to know just how they're going to be transporting it, and what kind of security measures are going to be available," Letts said. "Are they going to have emergency personnel accompanying it?" The DOE said it has been setting up an emergency response network since the 1950s by training more than 1,200 emergency responders nationwide. The trucks would be accompanied by armed escorts through heavily populated areas and monitored by satellite. Still, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group said the public should be told more about the program before Congress approves it. A senior vice president, Richard Wiles, called the plan "a bailout for the nuclear power industry" that would let the Yucca Mountain plan move forward without creating enough incentive to take all possible precautions and notify the affected communities. "We shouldn't grant that sort of ultimate prize to the industry without making them first show all the communities along the route how exactly they're going to secure these shipments" from all possible dangers, Wiles said. The group has set up a Web site, www.mapscience.org, with information about the transport routes. Davis, the DOE spokesman, said the project faces other approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even after getting congressional approval. He said current highway routes could change entirely over the next decade or two, depending on new roads or rail lines that are built or changes that are requested by state governments. The DOE's list of interstate highways it might use includes Route 84, which passes through southeastern New York and into northern Pennsylvania. Feyl, the Denville mayor, said he prefers that route because it's more rural. Reid opposes the plan because of the possible environmental impacts, among other reasons, Hafen said. She said nearly 300 scientific studies on the project were incomplete when President Bush recommended in February that the plan proceed. "The project itself is a poorly chosen site," Hafen said. "It was never based on science. It was always based on politics." Hafen said opponents are "fighting an uphill battle" in the Senate, which must override a decision by Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn for the plan to proceed. Guinn vetoed the Yucca Mountain proposal in April, giving Congress 90 legislative days to override him. That would give the Senate until July 27, said Mike Tracy, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican who has been a leading proponent of the plan. The House of Representatives already has overridden Guinn's veto. The Senate is expected to take up the legislation when it comes back from recess this week. Tracy said the site has gotten plenty of scrutiny. "They've been looking at the site for 20 years, and studying the site for 20 years," Tracy said. "The site has been studied and studied and studied. Scientists from around the world (have) openly wished they had a site that was as suitable as Yucca Mountain." A spokeswoman for Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., said he has opposed the plan in the past but hasn't said how he'll vote this time. Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., hasn't made a decision, a spokesman said. Supporters of the plan often stress that the current Senate vote won't put the Yucca Mountain plan on an unstoppable track. "This particular vote does not put a final stamp on this," Tracy said. "This is just a step in the process." Chris Gosier can be reached at [ cgosier@gannett.com] or (973) 428-6667 . ***************************************************************** 35 Ad in 'Chronicle' is irresponsible 07/10/02 Web posted Wednesday, July 10, 2002 Letter to the Editor An ad in the June 30 Augusta Chronicle reached a new level of irresponsibility and dishonesty. The ad suggested that areas of natural beauty in the Southeast would be despoiled if the government went forward with its plans to ship spent nuclear fuel to the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Then it suggested that these shipments would somehow endanger the lives of our citizens, and that the federal government had admitted, "untold numbers of deaths are inevitable." These statements are either deliberate lies, or they represent an unbelievable level of ignorance and irrational fear. Irrational fear of anything - hobgoblins or radioactivity - is silly superstition. Tens of thousands of shipments of radioactive materials have been made in the U.S. No leaks of radioactivity have occurred, and no person has been adversely affected. The same is true in Europe and Asia. There's no reason to believe this record of unparalleled safety won't continue. That ad is one part of a well-organized and well-funded campaign by anti-nuclear zealots. What they are trying to do is stop nuclear production of electricity. Their last line of defense is to keep Yucca Mountain from opening. These people often masquerade as environmentalists, but honest environmentalists support nuclear power because it is the only clean and green way we have of making large amounts of electricity. It does not contribute to smog, acid rain, heavy metal pollution or global warming. We trust that our citizens are too knowledgeable to be taken in by such nonsense. J. Malvyn (Mal) McKibben, Aiken, S.C. (Editor's note: The writer is the executive director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness.) ***************************************************************** 36 Yes to Yucca Mtn. 07/08/02 Web posted Monday, July 8, 2002 Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff The debate about whether it's safe to transport and store 154 million pounds of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev., is over. It was settled with the 306-117 U.S. House vote earlier in the year to go full speed ahead on licensing the federal nuclear waste repository program, as urged by President Bush. Head-counters say the U.S. Senate will also pass the plan by a substantial margin when it takes up the issue this week - that is if senators are allowed a straight up-or-down vote. Majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.C., and his No. 1 lieutenant, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., are feverishly seeking a way to avoid that. They are looking to derail the Yucca Mountain project via procedural votes or parliamentary skullduggery - or by taking the focus off the rightness of the project itself and make the vote a test of party loyalty. Conscientious Democrats - more concerned about the nation's health, safety and energy needs than partisanship - will resist that strategy. In 1990s' Yucca Mountain votes Sens. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Max Cleland, D-Ga., and the late Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., showed strong bipartisan support for the permanent nuclear storage facility. We hope, with Democrat Zell Miller succeeding Coverdell, that there'll be no reduction in support. Burying high level N-waste deep in the mountain has been studied for decades by scientists inside and outside the government and the arguments against the burial have been shown to be more hysterical than substantive. Critics raise the specter of volcanoes, earthquakes or other disasters shaking the radioactive material free to poison the earth for miles around. The best scientific data indicate that's scare talk. Nothing is without some risks, but the greater risk is to leave the N-waste scattered at a hundred separate reactor sites unguarded and untreated. Lately the scare-talk has been about the hazards of transporting tons of nuclear waste from the sites to Yucca Mountain over a 30-plus year period. Well, transports are hardly unprecedented. Since 1964 there have been 3,000 safe shipments of nuclear fuel. Again, truck and train transports are not without some risks, but the evidence shows they're safer than leaving the used reactor fuel where it is. The notion that terrorists could seize N-waste material to make a "dirty bomb" is also overblown. Besides, it would be easier for terrorists to get hold of the material at one of the unguarded waste sites than to take it from a concealed and guarded truck or train. Sometimes in discussing the pros and cons of a centralized storage site, we fail to see the forest for the trees. Removing dangerous radioactive material to a safe, centralized location should open the way to build more nuclear power plants to meet the nation's ever-growing energy needs of the future without polluting the environment with fossil fuels. All contents [http://www.augustachronicle.com/faq/copyright.html] 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact the [webmaster@augustachronicle.com] ***************************************************************** 37 Other sites rejected in search for alternative to Nevada waste dump The Oak Ridger Online Story last updated at 12:32 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002 by H. Josef Hebert Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Every year the country's commercial power plants generate 2,000 tons of spent reactor fuel, creating a pile of highly radioactive waste that has grown to 45,000 tons. If the government's plan to build a central repository for the waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada runs into trouble, where will the radioactive rubble go? That is a question to which no one has an answer, at least for the long term. It also is a question many politicians do not want to confront. "What's wrong with leaving it where it is?" Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., frequently has said. He and other Nevadans are fiercely fighting the Yucca project because they do not want 77,000 tons spent reactor fuel rods shipped into the state for burial, where it will remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. The nuclear industry says the wastes are safe in pools of water at 72 operating reactor sites as well as a closed reactors in 31 states. But space in those pools is disappearing and some utilities have been putting the waste into canisters for dry storage in concrete bunkers. Richard Meserve, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says there should be no problem keeping the waste in dry storage at reactor sites for decades. In some cases waste already has been at reactors for 20 years or more. But Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, trying to marshal support for the Yucca repository, argues that keeping waste at power plant sites reactor poses environmental, safety and security risks. "More than 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of one or more of these sites," Abraham wrote President Bush in recommending he go ahead with the Yucca project. New terrorism fears have added to the uneasiness of having wastes spread around the country. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded in several reports that deep geological disposal is the best way to deal with the waste. But where? The government once considered various sites including granite rock in New Hampshire and salt domes in Kansas and Texas. It also considered the Energy Department's Hanford facility in western Washington state where plutonium was produced for the earliest nuclear bombs. All were discarded by Congress -- some say for political reasons -- in 1987 when it directed that all scientific research be concentrated on Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Other approaches were considered over the years and rejected as technically questionable, unsafe or too expensive. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 38 Scientific questions linger over Yucca Mountain The Oak Ridger Online Monday, July 8, 2002 by H. Josef Hebert Associated Press AMARGOSA VALLEY, Nev. -- In this desert where government scientists want to entomb the country's nuclear waste, nothing is harder to find than water. Yet the answer to whether tons of radioactive waste can be kept here safely for thousands of years centers on just that -- water. The irony does not escape Michael Voegele as he scans the arid landscape from atop Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock under which the Bush administration wants to bury 77,000 tons of waste accumulating at nuclear power reactors in 31 states. "All we're studying here is ways water can get through this mountain. That's the whole issue. Everything is about water," says Voegele, who has worked on the Yucca project for two decades and now is its chief scientist. On average 3 inches to 6 inches of rain falls here annually, but this year the mountain has not seen a drop. Voegele pours some water on a rock. In minutes it evaporates in the desert heat and wind that whips across the mountaintop. But 1,400 feet below, the seemingly dry volcanic tuff created 12 million years ago contains enough moisture -- and some say enough cracks through which water could travel -- to raise uncertainty over whether the waste will safely be contained thousands of years from now. Questions over the movement of water through the rocks, or whether seeping water might cause waste canisters to corrode, are unresolved -- even as the $58 billion Yucca project approaches a critical political test in Washington. In February, President Bush said 20 years and nearly $7 billion worth of study was enough to convince him that the project was scientifically sound. Pending a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the repository would be open for business by 2010. But Nevada, which sees itself as the nation's nuclear dumping ground, objected. A final decision on whether the Yucca project will go forward or be scrapped rests with Congress. The House already has sided with Bush; the Senate plans a vote this week. A work train rumbles for nearly two miles through a 25-foot wide U-shaped tunnel deep into Yucca Mountain. It stops where one day thousands of cylindrical metal waste containers, each 5 feet in diameter and 15 feet long, would be kept. Some of the isotopes will not lose their radioactivity for a million years. The government must give reasonable assurance the waste will not pose an environmental or health threat for only 10,000 years. Hundreds of boreholes and markings dot the tunnel wall, many with tags where thousands of rock samples have been taken, reflecting years of scientists' scrutiny of the mountain. Several tags belong to June Fabryka-Martin, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In 1996, she reported a discovery that altered the scientific debate over Yucca Mountain's suitability as a nuclear waste repository. In minute amounts of water along several rock faults, including one about 900 feet below the surface and close to the area where the waste would be kept, Fabryka-Martin found traces of radioactive Chlorine-36, a byproduct of nuclear bomb testing. It showed, she said, water had to have migrated from the surface within the past 50 years, evidence moisture was moving much faster than expected. Project scientists "are about evenly divided" over whether the Chlorine-36 came from nuclear testing or naturally from the rock, says Voegele. In either case, he said, "we are assuming the presence of fast pathways" for water through the mountain. To compensate, engineers altered the proposed repository design with greater reliance on manmade barriers to contain the waste, instead of depending simply on the geology of the mountain as originally envisioned. Waste canisters will be made of an exceedingly corrosive-resistant material called Alloy-22 and include titanium drip shields to deflect any moisture. While once the plan was to seal up the repository after 50 years, officials now are looking at keeping open for 300 years, primarily to observe what happens to the canisters. That has triggered another scientific dispute -- how "hot" should the repository be? As used reactor fuel decays, it gives off intense heat, as much as 360 degrees Fahrenheit. Some scientists believe heat is not a problem and will drive moisture out of the rock. Others argue if the surrounding rocks get too hot, the storage casks could be damaged. Higher temperatures "increase uncertainties and decrease confidence in the performance of waste package materials," Jared Cohon, chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and president of Carnegie Mellon University, testified recently at a Senate hearing. The board, created by Congress, repeatedly has urged the Energy Department to choose a design that would keep temperatures in the repository below boiling -- 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The board's argument is that moisture in rocks near the containers will evaporate at high temperatures. When the wastes cool after thousands of years, the moisture will condense onto the containers and contribute to their corrosion. So far the department has resisted the board's advice. Energy Undersecretary Robert Card recently told the group that a cooler design remains an option. The hotter design, however, is preferred and will be pursued, he said. Deep beneath the mountain, Voegele makes clear his preference for keeping the waste "screaming hot" and says a lengthy test program has proven that heat will drive moisture away from the wastes. Critics of Yucca Mountain are worried about other uncertainties, including volcanic eruptions. Seven dead volcanoes are within 27 miles but the last eruption was 80,000 years ago. Yucca project scientists calculate that the chance of one occurring within the waste repository over the next 10,000 years is 1 in 70 million. Relatively mild earthquakes have occurred in the area in recent years, including a tremor last month 15 miles from the mountain. Voegele said it barely registered on monitoring equipment within the tunnel. A decade ago, however, an earthquake of 5.6 magnitude 10 miles away damaged a building at the repository site. Project scientists in their computer models have assumed a hypothetical 6.5 magnitude earthquake hitting nearby and concluded the repository design "would withstand that kind of force," said Voegele. All of this amounts to far too many unanswered questions, argues Bob Loux, who heads Nevada's office dealing with Yucca Mountain. The state has filed six lawsuits challenging the project and has pledged to fight every step of the way. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 39 Transporting Nuclear Waste Is A Mistake July 8, 2002 Jim Hall The U.S. Senate is on the verge of deciding on whether to build a nuclear waste dump outside Las Vegas that will involve moving 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste with as many as 100,000 rail, truck and barge shipments. Before 9/11, transporting high-level nuclear waste through our cities and towns posed significant risks. After 9/11, those risks have multiplied, because each of these shipments has the potential to become a "dirty bomb" in the hands of terrorists. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Energy has utterly failed to address the potentially catastrophic risks associated with these potential shipments on our roads, rails and waterways. The U.S. Senate should reject this poorly planned project. Despite the increased risks, especially after 9/11, the federal government has no plan to ensure the safe and secure transportation of this material. Specifically, the DOE has not finalized modes or routes. It has not informed those living and working near potential routes. The appropriate federal agencies have not conducted full-scale tests of the containers that would be used for repository shipments. Finally, the DOE has no plan to assess the risk of human error, which is responsible for more than 80 percent of all accidents. Even more alarming in the post-9/11 world, DOE has not re-evaluated the risk of terrorist attacks on shipments. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's recent testimony that the Department of Energy is "just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan" is simply not good enough. As a member of the National Academy of Engineering's Committee on Combating Terrorism, I have been working to help the government formulate an effective and timely response to the threat of catastrophic terrorism. In the post-9/11 world, nearly every federal agency has re-evaluated its preparedness to deal with terrorist attacks and has adopted new measures to counter this new threat. The DOE, however, has not re-examined the potential terrorist threat against high-level nuclear waste shipments to a national repository. We know that terrorists view nuclear material as a weapon of choice and that they have made efforts to obtain it. Each transport container will carry enough radioactive material to create a massive dirty bomb. Terrorists could target any one of tens of thousands of shipments. We should not proceed with plans for a repository without a full transportation risk assessment Accidents could be just as devastating as a terrorist attack. DOE expects 66 truck accidents and 10 rail accidents over the first 24 years of shipments. Other experts estimate 150 truck or 360 rail accidents over 38 years. Recent accidents like the barge crash in Oklahoma that collapsed a section of Interstate 40, sending trucks and cars into the Arkansas River, are a stark example of what can happen. With the government and other experts telling us that accidents will occur, the next question becomes "How bad will it be?" The straightforward answer is that we are talking about high-level radioactive material that if released will have long-term devastating effects. The only things that will protect children and families along these routes during an accident or terrorist attack are the shipping containers. Unbelievably, no government agency - not the Department of Energy, not the Department of Transportation and not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - requires that shipping casks undergo full-scale tests. DOE and the nuclear industry oppose mandatory full-scale testing. Before transportation vehicles are allowed to carry passengers or cargo, they undergo rigorous tests for crash-worthiness, structural integrity and engineering reliability. This type of full-scale testing should also be required for nuclear waste shipping casks before we even think of putting them on trucks, barges and trains moving through our communities. The American people deserve and should demand that the U.S. Department of Energy submit a comprehensive transportation plan that demonstrates that shipments can be made safely and securely. To ensure the health and safety of tens of millions of American put at risk by the Department of Energy's lack of a transportation plan, the U.S. Senate should oppose moving forward with the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. /Jim Hall served as the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1993 to 2001./ ctnow.com is Copyright © 2002 by The Hartford Courant Powered by Genuity ***************************************************************** 40 Dry cask storage provides an alternative solution NJ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER (NJ NEWS) Monday, July 08, 2002 By BOB IVRY Staff Writer For all the fuss over Yucca Mountain, it won't solve the nation's nuclear waste problem. Thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel will still need to be stored at reactor sites around the country, such as Indian Point, for many, many years. Even if Yucca Mountain opens in 2010, as is now optimistically proposed, it won't be able to hold all the waste that continues to mount at the rate of 2,000 tons a year.Today, 49,500 tons of radioactive waste are stored at 103 reactor sites, most of it in pools of water designed to cool it. In 50 years, after 77,000 tons have been hauled to Yucca, 72,500 tons will remain at sites across the country. There is general agreement on a solution: Waste is safer if it's stored in concrete-and-steel tombs called dry casks rather than pools of water, which some anti-nuclear activists say could be breached by a terrorist bomb or plane attack. But delays to the Yucca Mountain Project have thrown a spotlight on the insufficiencies of dry cask storage. Critics say above-ground dry casks aren't secure enough post-Sept. 11. The nuclear industry argues that dry casks were never meant to be a long-term substitute for permanent disposal. Nineteen of the 103 reactor sites have already moved some spent fuel into dry casks, and another 19 plan to do so within five years. In April, engineers at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, near Forked River, turned to dry cask storage because the plant's fuel pool was 96 percent filled. Any fuller and Oyster Creek, which supplies electricity for 200,000 New Jersey customers, would have been forced to shut down. At Indian Point, 15 miles north of Bergen County in Westchester County, N.Y., officials expect to start moving waste out of the facility's three pools and into dry casks in 2004. According to Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, Indian Point's owner, the decision was made with an eye on reassuring neighbors nervous about a terror attack. It could also solve an environmental problem. The spent fuel pool at Indian Point 1, which was active from 1962 to 1974, has been leaking - 25 gallons a day since 1994 - contaminating a piece of ground adjacent to the pool. By law, the U.S. Department of Energy was supposed to take responsibility for all reactor waste by 1998, and nuclear plant operators aren't happy about the lag. More than a dozen lawsuits are pending, awaiting a decision on Yucca Mountain. At issue is not who will win - a court has already ruled that the government has failed in its obligation - but how much money the utilities will be awarded. Estimates start at $2 billion. "Ideally, we wouldn't have to go to the additional expense of dry cask storage," says Wayne Romberg, a waste management engineer at Oyster Creek. "The fuel rods would go directly from the pools to Yucca Mountain. But obviously, we can't do that. Yet." Nuclear engineers cite two main reasons for dry cask storage - greater security and the lack of a better place to put the spent fuel, which first must spend at least five years cooling in water before it can be moved. Fuel pools at Indian Point are at least partially underground, and are considered more secure than the pools at New Jersey's four reactors, which are above ground. A January 2002 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group, charged that the fuel pools at the New Jersey reactors - Oyster Creek, and at Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2, in Salem County - were especially vulnerable to sabotage by air or ground assault. If the water in the pools, roughly 25 feet deep, is somehow drained off, the report says, "the spent fuel could then overheat and release large amounts of radioactivity to the atmosphere." By contrast, casks are much more difficult to penetrate. Dry casks "are made of concrete with 1 to 2 inches of lead lining on the inside. It's a lot less likely to be vulnerable to an attack," says David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer and an author of the report. The Hope Creek and Salem plants aren't planning dry cask storage until 2007. Some mavericks insist dry casks aren't safe enough because they are above ground. "Nobody's looking at safer casks," says Robert Alvarez, a former top Energy Department official. "Since Sept. 11, the Department of Energy hasn't changed design requirements. We have to start looking at dry casks as terrorist targets. Otherwise, they're radiological Trojan horses." One way to make them harder for terrorists to hit would be to bury them, critics say. "Bury them eight or 10 feet underground and build a structure over them," says Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a think tank in Takoma Park, Md. "The benefits are obvious, but right now, nobody's even considering it." Oyster Creek's Romberg says that since the casks need to be cooled by circulating air, burying them would present engineering problems that could be more expensive to solve than is worthwhile. "I think it'll be safe and secure where it is indefinitely," Romberg says. If the radioactive waste is safe and secure where it is,why bother yanking it back out and hauling it 2,500 miles, through cities, towns, and villages, to Yucca Mountain? "I'd rather have it buried in a hole out in Nevada," Romberg says, "than sitting here in our back yard." ***************************************************************** 41 Plant adds space for nuclear waste Omaha.com Published Monday July 8, 2002 PALO, Iowa (AP) - The nuclear power plant in eastern Iowa is building a new $14 million storage system to store nuclear waste. Nuclear Management Co., which operates the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, has started building a dry-cask storage system to allow the plant to store used nuclear fuel for the remainder of the reactor's life span. The reactor has been working since 1974 and may operate until 2034. Spent fuel has been stored in a pool on the fifth floor, but it's expected to run out of space before the government accepts the waste for permanent storage elsewhere. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been one of the sites suggested as a permanent repository for the waste. ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Europe stunned by Pasko verdict Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. Jump to section [The Arctic Nuclear Challenge] Europe stunned by Pasko verdict The European Parliament has adopted a new resolution on the Pasko case. It considers his conviction to be a considerable setback for the development of the rule of law in Russia. Jon Gauslaa, 2002-07-08 15:05 The European Parliament is deeply concerned by the jailing of Grigory Pasko, a military reporter convicted for high treason in Vladivostok, on December 25, 2001. The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court upheld the conviction on June 25, 2002. Freedom of expression undermined In resolution No. 2002/0377 [http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PDF&TYPE=PV2&FILE=p00 20704EN.pdf&LANGUE=EN] (p. 147) adopted on July 4, the Parliament refers to the fact that Pasko's lawyers have stressed that the conviction is a punishment for his reports on environmental abuses by the Russian navy. The Parliament also underlines that Pasko had written articles on the pollution emitted by badly maintained Russian submarines and the secret services' implication in nuclear waste trafficking. The Parliament points out that the conviction shows that freedom of expression in Russia is deeply undermined and that the situation, with regard also to the independence of the judiciary, should be closely monitored. It also stresses that the development of a genuine partnership and the stepping-up of relations with Russia should be linked to clear progress in the field of democracy and human rights. A considerable setback The Parliament considers the Pasko-conviction to be a considerable setback for the development of the rule of law in Russia. It calls on the competent Russian authorities to release Pasko immediately, halting further judicial proceedings, and would welcome any positive step by President Putin in this regard. The lawmakers urge the European Council to put the item of media freedom at the top of the agenda for the next EU-Russia meetings and its Delegation for relations with Russia to continue to follow further developments closely in Mr Pasko's case. They also urge the European Commission, within the TACIS-Democracy framework, to focus more effectively on projects concerning freedom of expression and the independence of the media and the judiciary. Grigory Pasko was arrested on November 20, 1997 and charged with treason through espionage. He was acquitted of these charges by the Pacific Fleet Court in Vladivostok on July 20, 1999, but sentenced to a three-year imprisonment for 'abuse of his official position although he was not charged with that crime, and released on a general amnesty. After both sides had appealed, the Military Supreme Court cancelled the verdict in November 2000 and sent the case back for a new trial at the Pacific Fleet Court. The re-trial started on July 11, 2001 and ended on December 25, with Pasko being convicted to four years of hard labour and taken into custody. The verdict was again appealed by both sides. On June 25, 2002 the Military Supreme Court confirmed Pasko's four-year sentence. Pasko will be released on April 25, 2004. 2002-07-04 The Pasko Case European Parliament Resolution July 4, 2002 ***************************************************************** 43 Ambitious Nuclear Arms Pact Faces a Senate Examination By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 7, 2002; Page A08 The Senate opens hearings Tuesday on the shortest yet one of the most far-reaching treaties in four decades of arms accords with Russia, a novel document billed by the Bush administration as the embodiment of its minimalist vision of nuclear arms control. The Senate may come to adopt that vision. It is widely expected among arms control analysts that the pact reached by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in May will be ratified, but members of the Foreign Relations Committee plan to pose some old-fashioned questions about the new approach, according to lawmakers and their aides. They plan to ask Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the sturdiness of a treaty whose body contains only 10 sentences. They will ask how permanent the cuts will be, and how the United States can be certain that Russia will do what it promised. The hearings, which are expected to stretch through the summer, will open a window onto the administration's nuclear strategy as well as its assessment of the U.S. relationship with Russia. They also will expose how Bush and Putin jettisoned many of the dogmas that have characterized negotiations with Russia and its Soviet predecessor since the 1960s and built an accord based largely on expectations of good faith. Gone are the covenants, caveats and vast appendixes typical of nuclear deals. Gone, too, if all goes well, will be two thirds of the strategic nuclear arsenals of the former superpower rivals. At the accord's heart is Bush's conviction that "Russia is a friend," as he put it in a June 20 letter that accompanied the treaty to the Senate. "There is no longer the need to narrowly regulate every step we take." The document is unprecedented in allowing the United States and Russia to do as they please, as long as they cut their strategic nuclear arsenal to no more than 2,200 warheads by Dec. 31, 2012. That means a change from Senate hearings that once focused on the minutiae of verification. This time, said former Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn, senators must "determine what the treaty really means." "There are no mileposts for performance. There is nothing really to verify except good faith," said the Georgia Democrat, who called the treaty a strong step forward. "If things start going sour between the two countries and we get into a period of intensive distrust, this document will be looked back on as having no legal enforcement mechanism, no performance mechanism and not much of an accomplishment at all." The treaty's simplicity resulted from complex negotiations conducted on a six-month timetable -- a blink of an eye in the arms control world. Both sides ultimately emphasized broad assurances over detail, yet the outcome reflected an imbalance of power that favored the United States. In the process, Bush and Putin pledged the steepest strategic nuclear reductions in history. 'A Piece of Paper' On Nov. 13, side by side with Putin in the East Room of the White House, Bush announced the United States would cut its long-range arsenal of 6,000-plus nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200. Bush had vowed during the 2000 campaign that he would dramatically reduce the country's nuclear arsenal -- and would do so on the basis of U.S. strategic needs, without a treaty if necessary. Putin wanted to reduce his nuclear stockpile as well, although his motivation was different: Russia couldn't afford to maintain its weapons. Putin wanted an agreement that covered "verification and control." He had just finished another meeting with Bush where he got nowhere in trying to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty's limits on missile defense tests, a cornerstone of superpower nuclear policy for 30 years. Putin promised to deliver missile cuts, but he wanted a signed document that committed the United States to specific terms. "I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand," Bush said. "And if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that." With that exchange, the leaders set an ambitious goal for their negotiators: Reach agreement on steep reductions and do it in time for Bush's visit to Moscow in May. The Russians delivered the first set of ideas in January, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov, whose arms control résumé dates to Soviet times. Problems arose early. As U.S. officials saw it, the Russian requests were overly ambitious and drew on tired doctrine. What the Russians saw as ways of increasing predictability, the Bush administration saw as limits on U.S. flexibility in structuring its nuclear force. The Russians wanted both sides to eliminate missiles, long-range bombers and submarines. They reasoned that if launchers were taken out of service, then the warheads would follow. Fewer U.S. Trident submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons would mean fewer warheads threatening Russian targets. But the Bush administration wanted to focus on deployed warheads. That meant counting each atomic warhead on a submarine, in a missile silo or on a bomber base. A specific Trident submarine would be counted as having only as many warheads as it carried, not how many it was equipped to carry. The United States could have as many nuclear-equipped B-52 bombers as it liked as long as the overall warhead numbers declined. The broader position reflected Bush's campaign pledge. The details flowed from the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, which emphasized sufficient deterrence, flexibility and a new missile defense against smaller threats. "We want to have flexibility without making them nervous," a U.S. negotiator explained. The Russians were nervous and they were playing a weak hand. Everyone knew they wanted to reduce their long-range atomic weapons anyway. To reassure the Russians, Powell was the first to argue that the United States should turn Bush's "piece of paper" into a legally binding document. Something Putin Needed In White House meetings and his daily telephone conversations with Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Powell said a binding deal would help Putin at home, reassure the Europeans, and install some limits on Russian behavior -- a benefit, he reasoned, given the country's historic volatility. He also thought a written promise might ease the sting many Russians felt at the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. First, Powell had to persuade Bush, who was hearing from Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney that an agreement tying the hands of the United States would be a mistake. Cheney, in particular, further opposed turning the document into a treaty that would open the negotiations to a Senate debate and vote. Bush sided with Powell and signaled that the document would be binding. "I think the Russians would have felt much more comfortable with an old-fashioned treaty that spelled everything out, and Bush would have been quite happy with no agreement at all," said a U.S. negotiator. "Bush understood as one politician to another that this was something Putin had to have." Negotiators had a draft text by March. As they hurried back and forth between Washington and Europe, the Russian position was inscribed in italic, the U.S. position in bold. The weekly goal was to remove more brackets -- the areas in the text where the sides still disagreed. But barely two months before the summit, the sections in brackets outnumbered the sections in New Courier Normal. Missile defense produced "huge hassles," an American negotiator said. The Russians tried for months to include limits on U.S. plans, first seeking a pledge in the treaty that any U.S. defensive system would not threaten Russian strategic forces. When the administration rejected that, the Russians pressed for a firm statement in the treaty's preamble, which the U.S. team also rejected. More than once, the issue was written out of the draft, only to be written back in by the Russians. Discussions also proved difficult over how one side would know what the other was doing. Strategies for sharing information and checking its accuracy were the nucleus of earlier arms control deals and the essence of President Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify" admonition. During the Cold War, U.S. negotiators sought access to Russia's closely guarded nuclear establishment while protecting their own facilities. But this year, U.S. officials said they offered the Russians more access to bomber bases and U.S. storage areas than the Moscow negotiators were willing to permit in return. Neither side was keen on destroying warheads, several participants said. Negotiators were wary of the cost, complexity and inevitable intrusiveness. The issue faded. But a month before Bush was scheduled to leave for Europe, the two sides became stuck on their opposing views of how to reach the lower warhead numbers. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, the administration's chief negotiator, was in Moscow on April 22, when Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov told him that Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov wanted to present him with a new draft. Bolton met Ivanov that evening and hurried back to Washington. 'Parallel Bookkeeping' It was a conceptual breakthrough, U.S. officials said later. The Russians had dropped their insistence on cutting rockets, bombers and submarines. In time, they would also agree that the 1991 START I treaty's inspection and notification systems would govern the accord until more assurances could be drafted. Because essentially the same warheads were involved in both documents, Ivanov called it "parallel bookkeeping." The two sides had the outlines of a deal, but they kept stumbling over missile defense. They also needed to resolve a dispute over how the countries could withdraw from the treaty, and under what terms. The United States wanted to be able to pull out of the treaty within six months or exceed the 2,200-warhead limit with 45 days notice if the need arose. To the Russians, 45 days seemed suspiciously short. With three weeks to go before the summit, Putin and Bush had each made clear to their proxies that they wanted a deal. Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, was due in Washington to discuss the crisis in the Middle East. He agreed to spend May 3 on the treaty. "Both sides were feeling pressure to get things done," one of the U.S. negotiators said. "If we hadn't made a lot of progress that day, the tide might have turned." Ivanov and Powell met at 10 a.m. in Powell's outer office. Frequent telephone companions, they took seats facing one another by the fireplace, joined by Bolton and Mamedov, who shared a couch. Powell said he told Ivanov that the United States had gone as far as it intended. He declared that the treaty would cover warheads, not the removal of delivery systems. They agreed to a three-month withdrawal period. "What turned it is I wasn't giving anything more," Powell said. Ivanov failed to obtain a mention of missile defense in the treaty. But in a diplomatic fudge, the preamble contains a reference to comments made by Bush and Putin in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001. The language in Genoa was generic, the sentiment safely vague. With that addition, the deed was nearly done. All that remained was a name. The Russian title needed to include a noun such as "weapons" or "systems," but U.S. officials objected to such words, worried anew that the Russians would find a way to constrain U.S. flexibility, even in a title. The U.S. position again prevailed. The English version is called the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 44 FROM CARSON CITY: DOE has a death grip on the evidence Las Vegas Business Press Friday, July 12, 2002 By Dennis Myers Policy making in government so seldom depends solely on the merits that it's a surprise when it does. Of course, we're seldom surprised. What we are accustomed to seeing is juice, high powered lobbyists and campaign contributions distorting the process. But sometimes it's the most mechanical things that draw attention away from the merits. For instance, at the Nevada Legislature some issues are saved until late in the 120-day sessions so they can be negotiated and enacted in the last minute rush out of the public eye. Who would imagine that scheduling would be a factor in policy making? Or consider the printed copies of government documents. In 1956 the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association jointly did a study of marijuana in all its legal and medical aspects that provided far more realistic findings than those normally given by drug enforcement officials. When the report was issued, the U.S. Department of the Treasury counterfeited it. Author Mike Gray described the counterfeit as having the "same blue cover, same typeface, even the same title but with two words added." And with entirely opposite conclusions. The AMA/ABA report, Gray writes, had been printed in an edition of a few thousand copies, while the feds "flooded the country with its double." Here's another example. After years of federal depredations and misconduct on Nevada's public lands, Congress in 1986 ordered a massive report on those activities by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Interior Department. Special Nevada Report was completed and published in 1991 in a two-inch thick volume. The three agencies put the document in a format designed to make it as worthless as possible to users. There was no index. The page numbering system and other organizational systems in the book were a mess understood only by the report's authors. Gov. Robert Miller once used the published copy of his budget recommendations to the legislature to try to get his state government reorganization enacted. His budget director wrote the budget as though the reorganization were an accomplished fact, with the reorganization woven throughout the document in what Miller and his aides assumed would be an unremovable mesh. Unfortunately, they played it too cute and the legislators told them to go back and do part of it over. Then there's the U.S. Department of Energy's 6000-page environmental impact statement on the proposed Yucca Mountain site for a federal nuclear waste dump. Normally, on a project of this scale, the EIS is distributed widely so the public can have full access to it. For instance, the multi-volume EIS on the Carter administration's plan to install the MX missile system in Nevada and Utah was always easily available in the public libraries in the two states and got heavy use by residents. You won't find the DOE's Yucca EIS in the state's libraries. It seems the department, to serve the forty-plus affected states, published only a few dozen copies of the EIS. As best I can tell, there is only one copy here in the state capital. For that matter, outside the DOE's security facilities in the desert, there may be only one copy in the entire state. The document is available on-line, but it's of limited utility. As the New York Times has reported, the on-line version is "hard to navigate because of its size and organization," and state officials and community activists across the nation believe it was deliberately engineered that way. State nuclear projects director Robert Loux says the documents in the EIS "are so big and contain so many graphics that it chews up so much of your hard drive space ... unless you have a real high speed line and even then it takes a long time to download and look at. ... It makes the assumption that everyone has Internet access and that everyone almost has to have high speed lines in order to access it. It clearly has been the policy ... with the Yucca Mountain EIS to attempt to minimize the number of people who had the opportunity to look at it, review it, make comments. Perhaps they're afraid of other people filing lawsuits because it's defective, at least we believe, legally, in most areas." The restricted access to the EIS has sharply handicapped community leaders across the country in opposing transportation of waste and environmental lobbyists in Washington trying to build their case. Gov. Guinn is critical of the limited access to the EIS because it undercuts both the state's ability to fashion its court challenges to the project and its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. This last may be giving Congress more credit that it deserves. There are Nevadans who remember vividly how the three volumes of evidence stood untouched on most of the desks of members of the U.S. Senate who voted on the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada. Members of the Senate are not going into the vote on Yucca Mountain with the merits of the issue on their minds. The campaign contributions of the nuclear power industry and the pools of fuel rods in their home states count more than any evidence. But the ability to build a counter to those factors that might change the political equation on Capitol Hill is being crippled by the DOE, in effect, withholding evidence. Copyright 2002 Las Vegas Business Press ***************************************************************** 45 UK spearheads world search for 'dream energy' of nuclear fusion By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 07 July 2002 Britain is leading a worldwide campaign to harness the sun's energy to beat global warming, the Independent on Sunday can reveal. But environ- mentalists last night condemned the effort ? nuclear fusion ? as a waste of money on a dangerous technology. The campaign, led by the Prime Minister, is controversial for backing attempts to recreate the processes that fuel the sun through fusion. Tony Blair, who has developed great enthusiasm for the energy source, has convinced George Bush, the US President, of the merits of the technology, which could theoretically provide almost limitless energy. But environmentalists dismiss it as a chimera which will probably never work and, if it does, produce radioactive waste. Mr Blair's commitment ? backed by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Dr David King ? has brought a dramatic U-turn in Britain's attitude towards fusion. Until recently officials dismissed the technology as unlikely to be economic, after hundreds of millions of pounds of research produced little result. A leaked Government report, finished last year but never published, said it might never be "technically viable" and recommended that Britain's spending on it should be kept to "a minimum". The technology involves light atoms ? such as like deuterium and tritium ? fusing at temperatures of 100 million celsius. Conventional nuclear power ? fission ? splits heavy atoms, such as uranium. The fuel is effectively inexhaustible. Just one per cent of the deuterium in the world's oceans has the potential, with fusion, to deliver 500,000 times as much energy as all the oil, gas and coal the world has ever contained. It also emits far less radioactivity and produces much less nuclear waste than fission ? though it is far from being entirely clean. Yet so far, scientific effort has succeeded only in sustaining fusion for a few seconds. Next year, the EU, Japan, Canada and Russia, will embark on a ?20m project to build an experimental fusion reactor, in what will be the world's biggest ever collaborative research and development project. Last month the EC committed ?750m to fund its share of the project over the next four years. The project originally was not expected to lead to a functioning commercial fusion power station for 45 years. But this has speeded up following intervention by Professor King, himself originally sceptical about the technology. Prof King succeeded in getting Europe to agree to a fast-track programme, leading to a power station in about a quarter of a century. He also helped persuade the EC to commit even more money, ?810m, to researchrenewable energy over four years, too. Meanwhile, Mr Blair had converted President Bush at his Texas ranch earlier this year. The US had pulled out of the joint research project, but Mr Bush later instructed his administration "to seriously consider" rejoining. Environmentalists, however, regard the enterprise as ridiculous, saying that, with a fraction of the effort and expenditure, solar and wind power could meet much of the world's needs long before fusion would come onstream. Roger Higman, the energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said last night: "Mr Blair must be joking. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on fusion and got nowhere. Meanwhile, the government will not provide the money needed for renewable sources that already have been shown to work." ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************