***************************************************************** 05/09/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.119 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: 3 named to oversee nuclear operation 2 France's conservative Cabinet lays out vision on crime, nuclear powe 3 AU: Govt accused of hypocrisy over nuclear ship visit NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 Number of nuclear malfunctions increases in Ukraine 5 US: Replacing Davis-Besse part favored 6 US: Feds: Replace Nuclear Plant's Damaged Cap 7 Number of nuclear malfunctions increases in Ukraine NUCLEAR SAFETY 8 US: Meeting to discuss nuclear safety check 9 Mutant mushrooms claim victims in Kyrgyzstan 10 Georgia asks OSCE to assess Russian bases for radiation 11 Russia makes two shipments of warhead uranium to USA NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 12 US: House to consider Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan 13 US: Nev. Loses Effort to Block Nuke Site 14 US: Surry radioactive waste could be sent to Nevada 15 US: House Backs Nuclear Dump Site 16 US: Allard steps up pressure on S.C. 17 US: Radioactive waste risks top debate 18 US: Nuclear Waste Route Sparks Local Outrage 19 US: Nuclear Dump Will Leak, Scientists Say 20 US: 30-day delay is sought on Rocky Flats waste 21 Officials deny deal to ship waste to Solomon Islands 22 US: House Backs Plan to Store Atomic Waste in Nevada 23 AU: Waste dump: It's nuclear war 24 US: Utah tribe welcomes nuclear waste; state doesn't 25 US: Desert storm: Lines drawn in battle over storage of nuclear wast 26 US: U.S. House easily overrides state`s Yucca veto, 306-117 27 US: Who they are and how they voted on Yucca 28 US: NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY: House vote advances Yucca plan 29 US: House Approves Nuclear Dump at Yucca Mountain 30 US: House approves Bush plan for nuclear waste dump in Nevada 31 UNIQUE PLUTONIUM SHIPMENT THREAT TO THE CARIBBEAN 32 US: Yucca Mountain timeline 33 US: Analysis finds low risk for shipping of nuclear waste 34 US: High-profile political battle over Yucca Mountain lies ahead 35 US: Past nuclear transport accidents 36 US: ANTI-YUCCA MOUNTAIN ADVERTISEMENTS BEGIN AIRING IN UTAH 37 US: Editorial: Whistle of nuke train gets shrill 38 US: Nev. Loses Effort to Block Nuke Site 39 US: Goodman: Top cop cops out 40 US: Yucca chronology 41 US: State's Yucca fight shifts to Senate 42 US: Matheson Votes Against Storage Of Nuclear Waste in Nevada 43 US: Nuclear-Waste Shipping Safe, Scientists Say 44 US: House Backs Plan to Bury Nuclear Waste in Nevada 45 US: Gephardt Floor Statement on Yucca Mountain 46 US: Surry radioactive waste could be sent to Nevada 47 US: House Backs Nuclear Dump Site 48 US: Nuclear Dump Will Leak, Scientists Say 49 US: Politics, Plutonium Near Critical Mass 50 US: House Backs Bush on Yucca Nuclear Storage Plan 51 US: Gibbons Statement on House Passage of Yucca Mountain 52 US: U.S. Rep. Berkley Statement on the Passage of Yucca Mountain in 53 US: Abraham Praises House of Representatives' Overwhelming Bipartisa 54 AU: Solomons denies nuclear waste reports 55 US: House backs Nevada nuclear fuel site 56 US: OBSERVER: Yucca: Nuclear reaction AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS 57 US: [Rfpi-announce] RFPI Special "No Star Wars" broadcast 58 US: URGENT ACTION ALERT: CONGRESS VOTES TODAY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS 59 US: Peace Action: US Seeks to Develop New Nuke 60 Commentary - Japan's plutonium stockpile alarming - 61 US: Missile shield may be nuclear 62 US: New push for bunker-buster nuke US DEPT. OF ENERGY 63 Tauscher fights possible DOE compensation changes 64 Cleanup plan 'OK' with state 65 IAAPtour views clean–up projects OTHER NUCLEAR 66 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.19 | 1 - 8 May 2002 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 3 named to oversee nuclear operation The Plain Dealer 05/09/02 John Funk Plain Dealer Reporter FirstEnergy Corp. yesterday shook up its nuclear division, creating a new layer of top management that will have direct responsibility for running the company's three nuclear power plants, including the crippled Davis-Besse reactor. The changes were made because of the problems plaguing Davis-Besse, said FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider, adding that the new structure more closely conforms to the industry standard. "This puts more experience at the top. We were running thin at the top." The changes at the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, or FENOC, include: The hiring of Gary Leidich, executive vice president of the Atlanta-based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, to fill the newly created position of FENOC executive vice president, to handle engineering services. Leidichwas a longtime executive at the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. and Centerior Energy Corp., before the 1997 merger with Ohio Edison that formed FirstEnergy. He has been with Nuclear Power Operations since 1998. Leidich will join the company June 10. The creation of a FENOC position of chief operating officer in charge of all three nuclear plants. Taking the job is Lew Myers, a senior vice president at the company's Beaver Valley Power Station. Myers's focus for now will be fixing Davis-Besse. The creation of a third position, vice president/Oversight, and the elevation of another Beaver Valley executive, William Pearce to fill it. Pearce has been Beaver Valley plant manager. He will now concentrate on quality assurance systems and programs at all three power plants. Under the new structure, Leidich, Myers and Pearce will report to Robert Saunders, who will continue his job as president of the nuclear company. Until now, a vice president at each of FENOC's three nuclear stations reported directly to Saunders. Myers last night said there will be changes at Davis-Besse. "We are doing things to strengthen the management, to give more oversight," he said. "Our job is to make sure these kinds of things [Davis-Besse's corroded reactor head] do not happen. When we get through, we will be a better organization and the plant will be in better condition." Myers said it is "too soon to know" whether he will fire managers who allowed Davis-Besse's reactor to sustain the unprecedented rust damage. The reactor was shut down Feb. 16 for refueling and inspection. The corrosion, which the company admits was going on undetected for years, was discovered in March. A 30-year veteran who started in the industry at 19 and has worked at eight other reactors, Myers noted that when FirstEnergy moved him from Perry to Beaver Valley, he ended up replacing six managers. Myers said he has been on the job for two days. He said the company plans to upgrade many of the plant's non-nuclear operations while deciding whether to try to fix the old reactor head or buy an old - but never used - head from a Michigan utility. "We are projecting restarting in the third quarter. That is reasonable," he said. "I think a restart this year is definitely reasonable." Myers said a brand-new head - ordered from the French company Framatome ANP last fall, has been cast in Japan but must still be shipped to France for machining. Expected delivery is not until early 2004. At least one analyst last night was optimistic. "I like the hiring of Leidich. He's had a chance to talk to other companies and gain valuable insight into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," said Daniel Poole, assistant research director for National City Private Investment Advisors. "The NRC can be a real challenge," Poole said. "It does not have an interest in insuring there will be adequate power supply. The only thing it cares about it is ensuring the plants do not fail." Contact John Funk at: jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. » Send This Page | » © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 France's conservative Cabinet lays out vision on crime, nuclear power after years of Socialist-led rule Wed May 8, 4:36 PM ET By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer PARIS - French conservatives on Wednesday started outlining a new government agenda that includes cracking down on crime, while also emphasizing the importance of nuclear energy. Less than a day in office, the government of new Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin laid out its vision for France after five years of Socialist rule. Conservative leaders in the interim government are eager to build support for their agenda in the run-up to vital parliamentary elections early next month. Taking to the airwaves Wednesday, conservative lawmakers and ministers directed their fire at the policies of their left-leaning predecessors on issues such as crime, transportation and environmental policy. The subject that could make or break conservatives' chances of winning control of the National Assembly is crime. Polls indicate that public insecurity about rising violence and petty crimes is one of the biggest concerns among the French. President Jacques Chirac, who won re-election Sunday over a far-right contender who drew on fears about crime, has made reducing public insecurity his top order of business before the election June 9 and 16. Christian Poncelet, the conservative president of the Senate, said his chamber of government is ready to bring to the floor any proposals from the new government — especially on crime. No new laws can be enacted until the Assembly — currently out of session — reconvenes following the election next month. But the Senate can still consider new legislative proposals, Poncelet said. "We must urgently take measures to restore the authority of the state in this country," Poncelet told France-2 television. "Today, I say: Mr. Prime Minister, we are waiting for your declaration of general policy and we're waiting to examine your projects." Ecology Minister Roselyne Bachelot, speaking on French radio, promised to the era of "combat, rupture and fracture" in environmental policy that she said was common under the government of Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. Bachelot expressed strong support for nuclear energy — France's leading source of energy and a subject that had caused rifts within the Socialist-led government. The nuclear industry "guarantees our energy independence and is the least polluting, unless France returns to oil lamps ...," Bachelot said on France-Inter radio. Raffarin named his 21-member Cabinet on Tuesday, putting a steel magnate in charge of the economy and creating a new security chief to fight crime. He also named France's first woman defense minister and a philosopher to head the education ministry. But if the left takes a majority of seats in the National Assembly in the legislative elections, Chirac will be forced to replace Raffarin with a left-wing prime minister who would overhaul the new Cabinet. Francis Mer, chairman of Luxembourg-based Arcelor, the world's largest steelmaker, was named finance minister. Mer has spent the last 30 years in industry and played a key role in the painful restructuring of the French steel industry in the early 1990s. Michele Alliot-Marie, 55, a lawmaker who heads Chirac's political party, became the first woman to become France's defense minister. She served as sports minister in 1993-95 and holds a seat in Parliament. Nicolas Sarkozy, mayor of the Paris suburb of Neuilly, heads the revamped Ministry of Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms. With France facing rising crime, his role has been enlarged to place greater emphasis on domestic security. Dominique de Villepin, Chirac's chief of staff since 1995, was named foreign minister. De Villepin began his diplomatic career in 1980 when he was in charge of southern Africa at the Foreign Ministry. He later became a foreign policy adviser on the Middle East and spokesman for the French Embassy in Washington. (parf-mp-jk) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 3 AU: Govt accused of hypocrisy over nuclear ship visit news.com.au - [09may02] THE Greens have accused the West Australian government of hypocrisy for allowing a US nuclear submarine to dock in Perth despite the Labor Party's website saying it was opposed to such visits. The nuclear-powered USS Salt Lake City, with 133 crew, arrived at HMAS Stirling naval base off Rockingham, 50km south of Perth, early yesterday for five days' rest and recreational leave. The state Labor Party's website says "Labor will oppose the entry of nuclear-powered and nuclear armed vessels into Western Australian harbours or adjoining waters because of the hazards they create." Greens MP Dee Margetts said the government was guilty of hypocrisy and deception by allowing the submarine to dock at Stirling. "I would think that many of their members would be wondering at which point they suddenly changed their mind and became in favour of nuclear-powered warships," she said. However a spokesman for Environment Minister Judy Edwards denied opposition to nuclear-powered ships had been part of Labor's environmental policy at last year's state election. "It was not a policy commitment we took to the election, and our environmental policy was lauded by a lot of people including the Greens," he said. He was unaware of any plans to update the ALP website. A navy spokesman said visits by nuclear-powered submarines were routine and had been occurring since 1976. He said a series of protocols had to be followed before such visits were allowed, including government approval. Ms Margetts said the submarine was extremely unlikely to be carrying nuclear weapons, but the vessel's on-board reactor still posed a significant risk. "The risk of an accident from a nuclear reactor is still there - you can have discharge of nuclear materials, you can have meltdowns, all sorts of things," she said. She said ship-based reactors were more dangerous than those on land because they were not surrounded by as many protective barriers. "The history of accidents on board US ships shows that they are much more likely to happen in a port than in the open sea," Ms Margetts said. AAP [http://news.com.au/people] ***************************************************************** 4 Number of nuclear malfunctions increases in Ukraine Wed May 8,12:19 PM ET KIEV, Ukraine - All 13 of Ukraine's nuclear reactors were unstable last year and the number of malfunctions rose substantially, Ukraine's State Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report issued Wednesday, according to a news agency. Sixty-seven malfunctions, including 22 that caused reactor shut downs, were registered at Ukraine's four nuclear power plants last year, the committee reported, according to the Interfax news agency. However, most of the malfunctions had a zero-level environmental impact according to the international INES scale of nuclear incidents. Seventeen cases were registered as posing a grade-one or slight environmental danger, Interfax said. The number of grade-one incidents rose by 70 percent in 2001 compared to 2000, when only 10 cases were registered, the report said. The most troubled reactors were the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne power plants, which had 15 and seven malfunctions respectively. Reactors at Ukraine's four nuclear power stations are frequently shut down for both planned and unscheduled repairs. Currently, 10 out of 13 nuclear reactors are functioning, producing about 40 percent of Ukraine's electricity output, the Energoatom state nuclear company said. Reactors at the Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhna power plants are undergoing repairs. Ukraine was the site of world's worst nuclear catastrophe in 1986, when a reactor at the Chernobyl power plant exploded and caught fire, spewing radiation over much of Europe. Chernobyl was closed down for good in 2000. (ms/tv/mb) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 5 Replacing Davis-Besse part favored Beacon Journal | 05/09/2002 | Posted on Thu, May. 09, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] FirstEnergy executive sees cost gap shrinking vs. repairing damage By Jim Mackinnon Beacon Journal business writer The man promoted to oversee the restart of FirstEnergy's damaged Davis-Besse nuclear plant says it may make more sense to replace the acid-corroded reactor vessel head than repair it. Lew W. Myers, named to the new position of chief operating officer for FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., said yesterday that replacing the damaged 150-ton vessel head would be ``significantly more'' expensive than the $25 million the company has estimated for a repair. But a replacement vessel head probably would last 10 years, he said. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff on Tuesday said it would prefer that FirstEnergy replace, not repair, the massive steel part. ``I think both options are feasible,'' Myers said. The company has not chosen one, he said. Myers said that FirstEnergy has developed a technically sound repair plan that involves cutting out the damaged portion and replacing it with a large piece of stainless steel. ``Replacement is a very good option,'' he said. ``The closer we get to that, the more viable it looks. It's just such a clean option for us. That would be my preference.'' The estimated repair costs and the costs of buying another vessel head and installing it are getting closer, he said. An unused reactor vessel head in Michigan appears to be the best available replacement, he said, but he added that other options exist. Also, FirstEnergy last fall ordered a new vessel head for Davis-Besse, but that will take about two years to make and deliver. Myers is one of four new senior managers either promoted or hired at FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., also known as FENOC, the company announced yesterday. The subsidiary is responsible for the Akron-based utility's nuclear plants. Myers previously was senior vice president at FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pa., and has had significant experience troubleshooting at other nuclear power plants, the company said. The other three people are: • Gary R. Leidich, executive vice president of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, who was named to the new position of executive vice president. • L. William Pearce, plant manager at Beaver Valley, who was promoted to vice president, FENOC Oversight. • Mark B. Bezilla, vice president, technical support at PSEG Nuclear LLC in New Jersey, who was named vice president atBeaver Valley. No one lost his or her job to make room for the new executives, FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider said. Davis-Besse, in Oak Harbor along the Lake Erie shore about 25 miles east of Toledo, has been shut down since mid-February. In March, FirstEnergy announced that it had found two acid-created cavities on top of the reactor vessel head, a critical safety device that covers the nuclear fuel. The acid apparently came from reactor coolant that had leaked over at least four years from cracks in nozzles that run through the vessel head, according to FirstEnergy. The plant's staff didn't detect the damage until Davis-Besse was shut down in February for refueling and a safety inspection. FirstEnergy has been pushing back the likely restart date for the plant. The company initially hoped to restart the plant in July, then by the end of September. It now thinks the plant could remain closed into the fall, depending on the oversight process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Myers said the company needs to change the way Davis-Besse operates to ensure that similar problems don't happen again. Critics of Nuclear power have said Davis-Besse should never restart. Myers disagreed. ``The plant has always been a very good performer,'' he said. ``It's up to us to prove the plant is safe. We lost some credibility there. We have to regain that credibility.'' Jim Mackinnon can be reached at 330-996-3544 or jmackinnon@thebeaconjournal.com [jmackinnon@thebeaconjournal.com] ***************************************************************** 6 Feds: Replace Nuclear Plant's Damaged Cap The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, May 9, 2002 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OAK HARBOR, Ohio -- Federal regulators say they favor replacement rather than repair of the 6-inch-thick steel dome that was eaten nearly all the way through by acid at a nuclear plant. The Davis-Besse plant, owned by FirstEnergy Corp., has been shut down for refueling since February. During that time, inspectors found that boric acid had eaten a hole in the thick cap that covers the reactor vessel. The damage has raised new questions about aging nuclear plants and whether they are being inspected closely enough. Buying a new reactor head would probably keep the plant near Toledo closed longer and cost more money than if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved FirstEnergy's plan to fix the damage. FirstEnergy wants to remove all of the corrosion by cutting out a hole in the reactor head and welding a chunk of stainless steel into it. William Bateman, chief of the NRC's materials engineering research section, said First-Energy would have a "clearer path to success" if it gave up the idea of trying to repair the reactor head. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 7 Number of nuclear malfunctions increases in Ukraine Yahoo! News - Wed May 8,12:19 PM ET KIEV, Ukraine - All 13 of Ukraine's nuclear reactors were unstable last year and the number of malfunctions rose substantially, Ukraine's State Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report issued Wednesday, according to a news agency. Sixty-seven malfunctions, including 22 that caused reactor shut downs, were registered at Ukraine's four nuclear power plants last year, the committee reported, according to the Interfax news agency. However, most of the malfunctions had a zero-level environmental impact according to the international INES scale of nuclear incidents. Seventeen cases were registered as posing a grade-one or slight environmental danger, Interfax said. The number of grade-one incidents rose by 70 percent in 2001 compared to 2000, when only 10 cases were registered, the report said. The most troubled reactors were the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne power plants, which had 15 and seven malfunctions respectively. Reactors at Ukraine's four nuclear power stations are frequently shut down for both planned and unscheduled repairs. Currently, 10 out of 13 nuclear reactors are functioning, producing about 40 percent of Ukraine's electricity output, the Energoatom state nuclear company said. Reactors at the Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhna power plants are undergoing repairs. Ukraine was the site of world's worst nuclear catastrophe in 1986, when a reactor at the Chernobyl power plant exploded and caught fire, spewing radiation over much of Europe. Chernobyl was closed down for good in 2000. (ms/tv/mb) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Meeting to discuss nuclear safety check mcall.com - From The Morning Call May 9, 2002 NUCLEAR SAFETY CHECK The Federal Emergency Management Agency will give an overview Friday of a recent exercise testing the state's ability to respond to nuclear power plant emergencies. A federal team inspected the Limerick Generating Station and scrutinized the ability of several government agencies to protect the public within 10 miles of the building. Participating agencies and plant operators are told before the checks are performed. A public meeting reviewing the exercise is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Friday at the Comfort Inn at Route 1 and Shoemaker Road in Pottstown. A final report of FEMA's findings will be made available 90 days after the exercise. Copyright © 2002, The Morning Call ***************************************************************** 9 Mutant mushrooms claim victims in Kyrgyzstan BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 8, 2002 [Presenter] Toxic mutant mushrooms have appeared in Dzhayyl District [of Chuy Region, northern Kyrgyzstan]. One inhabitant of Kara Balta has died, and another five are in intensive care, suffering complications. The staff of the sanitary and epidemiological station are warning that inhabitants are picking mushrooms in the sanitary [restricted] zone of the largest tailings dump [site of former ore mining combine processing uranium concentrate] in the country. Plants have been absorbing toxins and heavy metals, and consuming them is dangerous for the health. Doctors are recommending that the local people stop buying mushrooms on markets. Source: Public Educational Radio and TV, Bishkek, in Russian 0800 gmt 8 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 10 Georgia asks OSCE to assess Russian bases for radiation BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 8, 2002 Moscow, 8 May: Georgia has asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help it find and dispose of radioactive waste on its territory. A military-diplomatic source in Moscow told ITAR-TASS on Wednesday [8 May] that it has already been practically decided to charge the OSCE mission in Georgia with this task. A group of specialists are being prepared in Vienna for a flight to Tbilisi and further work to assess the radiation situation in Georgia. According to preliminary data, the period of time during which radiation assessment has to be completed is relatively short. For this reason, the Georgian government's list of priority facilities to be examined includes the Russian military bases in Akhalkalaki and Batumi, the official said. He believes the real purpose of these efforts to engage the OSCE for radiation assessment in Georgia is to give an international dimension to the ongoing gathering of incriminating evidence and claims against the Russian bases in order to begin a new campaign of their discrediting and withdrawal from Georgia. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1348 gmt 8 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 11 Russia makes two shipments of warhead uranium to USA BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 8, 2002 Moscow, 8 May: At the end of April Russia resumed supplies of weapons-grade uranium in a diluted, low-enriched form under the 12bn-dollar so-called HEU-LEU contract to the United States, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy has told Interfax. "During the last third of April, we made two uranium shipments to the United States," a ministry official said, without specifying how much uranium was supplied. This year Russia stands to earn 500m dollars from the contract, the official continued. Russia stopped supplying the uranium at the end of January this year when the Americans started to demand a lower price. Russian and US officials spent January and February discussing the issue. Eventually the Russian nuclear ministry backed down and reduced the price of the uranium. Media reports said at the time that Russia had lowered the price for low-enriched uranium from 90 dollars per separative work unit (SWU) to 15-20 dollars. Under the 20-year HEU-LEU deal, Russia must dilute 500 t of highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium (HEU) extracted from about 20,000 warheads into commercial low-enriched uranium (LEU) used as fuel for power plants. According to the Atomic Energy Ministry, Russia has supplied the USA with 4,200 metric tonnes of LEU, equivalent to 141.4 tonnes of HEU, as of January 2002. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 0941 gmt 8 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 12 House to consider Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 12:50:51 -0500 (CDT) Health & Science: House to consider Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press WASHINGTON (May 8, 2002 9:08 a.m. EDT) - President Bush's decision to send the country's nuclear waste to Nevada will get its first test before Congress, where the state is facing heavy odds in its battle against the radioactive dump. Supporters of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility predicted broad support for the president in a House vote scheduled for Wednesday. Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said he expects both Republicans and Democrats to vote to reject a Nevada protest of Bush's decision to build a nuclear disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Bush announced in February that he would proceed with seeking a federal license for the Yucca disposal site, which has been under study for 20 years. Nevada, as was its right under federal law, challenged the selection, and only Congress can override the state's protest. Nevada faces overwhelming odds in trying to convince lawmakers to keep the thousands of tons of nuclear waste at 103 reactors in 31 states instead of shipping it to a central location. All along, Nevada lawmakers have said they expect the president's decision to be upheld in the Republican-controlled House. They have concentrated their efforts in the Senate, which is expected to take up the issue this summer. Several Senate committee hearings are scheduled later this month. Last weekend, Democrats gave Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a chance to make her case in the party's nationally broadcast radio address, during which she highlighted the risks of sending thousands of nuclear waste shipments on highways and rail lines. The waste from commercial power reactors and some federal military weapons would be safer at reactor sites, she argued, instead of "sweeping it under the carpet near my hometown of Las Vegas." The plan calls for sending 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain, most from reactors in the eastern half of the country. Under the current schedule, the first shipments would arrive in 2010 and continue for 24 years. Even then, critics say, the proposed site would not have enough room for all of the industry's waste, with at least 44,000 tons still expected to be left in storage at power plants around the country. The cost of the project has been estimated at $58 billion for construction, waste shipments and the first 50 to 100 years of operation. About $6 billion already has been spent on researching the site. Energy Undersecretary Robert Card told a nuclear waste advisory panel Tuesday that the administration will seek more money from Congress for research into ways to reduce the waste volume and the cost of disposal. He said the research should include looking into transmution, a technology not yet fully developed and viewed by many as too expensive, and waste reprocessing. Both technologies would reduce the amount of the most radioactive isotopes that would have to be disposed of. While the United States remains opposed to reprocessing because of nuclear proliferation concerns, last year Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force recommended continued research into the technology. "The administration is on record as being willing to reopen the reprocessing issue," Card told members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an advisory panel created by Congress, at a meeting Tuesday. Addressing another contentious issue, Card said he is confident that a transportation plan for the waste will be developed that will be satisfactory to the states through which the shipments will pass. Energy Department officials said the department is leaning heavily toward rail transport, although completion of a final transportation plan is not expected until next year. ***************************************************************** 13 Nev. Loses Effort to Block Nuke Site Las Vegas SUN May 09, 2002 WASHINGTON- Nevada's hopes of blocking a nuclear waste site in the state are dwindling after a rousing House endorsement of the project and indications the Senate may consider the issue as early as next month. Ignoring concerns by some lawmakers about the risks of thousands of nuclear waste shipments crossing the country, the House decided by a nearly 3-1 margin to support President Bush's plan to make Yucca Mountain the nation's central nuclear waste repository. The mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock and ash, is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and adjacent to the Nevada Test Site where the government detonated scores of nuclear bombs during the Cold War years. Despite the overwhelming House defeat, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said he was confident the facility never will be built. "We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on parallel track in the courts," he said in a statement. Three Nevada lawsuits challenging the Yucca plan already are in the courts. The next showdown will come in the Senate, which must decide by July whether to override a Nevada veto of the Yucca Mountain project - as the House did on Wednesday by a 306-117 vote. Senate sources said a resolution supporting the Nevada waste site was expected to be voted out of committee the first week in June. Under special procedures outlined by Congress in 1982, the resolution can be brought up for a Senate vote by any senator and cannot be amended or blocked by a filibuster. "Certainly the Senate will take note of the overwhelming bipartisan support the Yucca Mountain project has received in the House," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. He expressed confidence Congress would endorse the project. Once Congress acts, the Energy Department has said it would have a license application ready for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2004 and hoped to open the site for waste shipments by 2010. The total cost of construction and operation for the first 100 years has been estimated at $58 billion. Nevada officials have vowed to fight the project before the NRC and in the courts, arguing that the Energy Department has failed to show that the wastes can be contained safely beneath the mountain for the tens of thousands of years that some of the material will remain dangerously radioactive. Congress in 1987 declared that Yucca Mountain should be the only site to be considered for nuclear waste disposal. Since then, nearly $7 billion has been spent on studying the area's geology and developing a waste package and design. It is "scientifically proven safe" and as a single, central storage facility is preferable to "the current hodgepodge" of locations now holding the waste, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., insisted as the House debated the matter Wednesday. Illinois has 11 power reactors, the most of any state, and a growing waste problem. But opponents, including Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, argued that too many scientific uncertainties remain and that it is too risky - especially after last September's terrorist attacks - to ship the waste across the country by truck and rail. The plan envisions 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste to be shipped to Yucca Mountain over 24 years. The Energy Department estimated about 2,200 truck shipments a year if most the waste goes by highway, although some opponents say that number is conservative. The waste now is located at 131 locations in 39 states, most of it at 103 commercial reactors. Shipments are likely to go through parts of at least 43 states, according to opponents to the Nevada project, although a final route map has not been developed. Abraham called the concerns about waste transport "baseless" and said that during the past 30 years nuclear waste has been carried more than 1.6 million miles without a harmful release of radiation. "Currently more than 161 million people live within 75 miles of a nuclear waste storage site," said Abraham, and that poses a greater risk than transporting the material. Nevada's two House members accused their colleagues of wanting to push the material off on Nevada to get it out of their states. "Where are my colleagues who are advocates for states' rights, local control?" said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said Nevada was singled out because it is "a small state with a small congressional delegation." But supporters of the Yucca project noted that Nevada has had a long history with nuclear power, having been the site of many nuclear bomb tests during the Cold War. To emphasize the point, one lawmaker brought a picture of Nevada's new official auto license plate - showing the classic mushroom cloud created by a nuclear blast. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: [http://www.nwtrb.gov/] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: [http://www.rw.doe.gov/] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Surry radioactive waste could be sent to Nevada HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA By Terry Scanlon Daily Press May 9, 2002 Radioactive waste from Surry Power Station would be sent west if the federal government approves storing nuclear waste from throughout the country in the Nevada desert. Instead of storing the used - but still radioactive - rods at the plant, Surry officials would send them to a cave in Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Surry plant uses 157 nuclear rods at a time, replacing about a third of them every 18 months. The used rods are cooled in a pool of water for seven years after being removed from the reactor core. Then they are stored in steel barrels with 15-inch walls. The containers, which weigh 115 tons fully loaded, are now are kept on concrete pads at the Surry County plant. A person standing next to one of the containers would get the same amount of radiation as they would from a dental X-ray, said Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for the Dominion Virginia Power plant. "The radiation is contained inside the containers, and it poses no threat to the community or to the plant workers," Zuercher said. Used nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers at Northrop Grumman Newport News is sent to Idaho for storage, a company official said. Terry Scanlon can be reached at 247-7821 or by e-mail at tscanlon@dailypress.com Copyright © 2002, Daily Press ***************************************************************** 15 House Backs Nuclear Dump Site May 9, 2002 THE NATION Legislation: The 306-117 vote is a victory for the nuclear industry and a defeat for Nevada. Easy Senate approval of the Bush plan is expected. By NICK ANDERSON, TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- The House on Wednesday backed President Bush's decision to create a national nuclear waste burial ground at Yucca Mountain, a major victory for the nuclear power industry and a stinging defeat for Nevada. The 306-117 vote brought the federal government one critical step closer to overriding Nevada's objections to placing up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in permanent storage at the proposed site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, one of the nation's fastest-growing areas. The issue now moves to the Senate, where opponents of the Bush plan face steep odds in trying to stop it. Though the outcome in the House was expected, the vote's margin was significant. Almost half of the House Democrats joined most Republicans in support of the administration. By contrast, in a vote in early 2000, most Democrats opposed a GOP-led effort to store nuclear waste temporarily at Yucca Mountain. Then-President Clinton opposed the plan, and few House Democrats were willing to break with his administration on the issue. But now a Republican is president--absorbing political brickbats from Nevadans--and the nuclear energy industry is waging an all-out campaign for the storage plan. Many Democrats say they agree that highly radioactive waste piling up at 131 sites throughout the country must be shipped somewhere. "Ultimately we have to address the problem," said Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and one of those who switched to the industry position. Dingell noted that the vote is not the final step. If the Senate approves the resolution, the Bush administration will then apply for a site license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nevada also will mount a legal challenge. Indeed, after the vote Nevadans vowed to keep fighting. "We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on a parallel track in the courts," said Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican. He said Wednesday's vote was "by no means the end." Bush chose to move forward with the Yucca Mountain plan in February on the recommendation of his Energy Department. In April, Guinn reversed Bush's decision, using power the governor holds under federal law. The House resolution, if also approved by the Senate, would overturn Guinn's veto. Opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan have a powerful leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the chamber's assistant majority leader. But Reid and freshman Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) acknowledge that they remain short of the votes they need to block the plan. A Senate vote is expected in June or July. In Wednesday's House debate, Nevada lawmakers, as they have before, complained bitterly that their state is being unfairly targeted for nuclear waste. Congress first voted to focus federal studies of nuclear storage on Yucca Mountain in 1987. The Nevadans noted that the state has no nuclear power plants. "Nevada does not produce one ounce of nuclear waste," said Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, who represents much of Las Vegas. "Yet Nevada is being asked to carry the burdens of a problem it had no part in creating." Opponents also claimed that transcontinental shipments of nuclear waste by truck or rail would be vulnerable to accidents or terrorist attacks, a scenario they dub "mobile Chernobyl." But Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that aside from Nevada's home-state concerns, the opposition "basically comes from those folks who oppose nuclear energy." He ridiculed that line of argument, suggesting that opponents were also opposed to expanding coal mining and oil drilling. "You have to wonder what sort of energy supplies do these folks support," Tauzin said. Many environmental groups lamented Wednesday's vote, while the nuclear industry hailed it. The industry has spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years in an effort to shed long-standing political constraints on its growth. "Democrats and Republicans alike voted for this sensible approach to centralizing the nuclear byproducts of our U.S. defense applications, like nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, research programs, and nuclear power plants that produce electricity for 20% of Americans," said Joe F. Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. In all, 102 Democrats joined 203 Republicans and one independent in supporting the storage plan. Voting against it were 103 Democrats--including Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco--13 Republicans and one independent. Of California's 20 House Republicans, five broke with party ranks to vote against the plan: Reps. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley, Jerry Lewis of Redlands, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita, Richard W. Pombo of Tracy, and George P. Radanovich of Mariposa. Reps. Doug Ose (R-Sacramento) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) did not vote. Only two of the state's 32 House Democrats voted for the plan: Reps. Calvin M. Dooley of Visalia and Ellen O. Tauscher of Alamo. Times staff writer Tom Gorman in Las Vegas contributed to this report. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 16 Allard steps up pressure on S.C. Rocky Mountain News: Politics Senator to introduce bill that could cost state jobs if it delays plutonium shipments By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, News Washington Bureau May 9, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Sen. Wayne Allard plans to turn up the heat on South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges today in the battle over plutonium shipments from Rocky Flats. Allard will introduce legislation that, if approved, would threaten thousands of jobs in South Carolina if the state delays, restricts or otherwise blocks shipments of special nuclear materials to the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. Hodges has sued to block scheduled shipments of weapons-grade plutonium from the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver. He has even threatened to lie in the road and block the trucks unless he gets an enforceable agreement that the materials eventually will leave the state. Some of his supporters see it as a way to win guarantees that the federal government will follow through with promises to build a plant to convert the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, or MOX, for commercial nuclear plants. But if Allard's bill is approved, and South Carolina attempts to stall shipments of nuclear materials, the Department of Energy would be authorized to consider other locations for the MOX plant. The department also would be required to study the "costs and implications for the national security of the United States" of closing the Savannah River Site. The potential loss of 15,000 jobs is meant as a wake-up call to Hodges. "The governor of South Carolina has convinced me through his words and actions that his state is no longer interested in having the MOX facility at Savannah River," Allard said in a release. "As a result, I believe it is in the best interests of everyone to allow the Department of Energy to reopen the Record of Decision in order to consider other locations outside the state of South Carolina." The verbal skirmishes over plutonium have intensified in recent weeks, as Hodges and Allard supporters trade barbs about the other side's motivations. Hodges, who is up for re-election, began airing television commercials in South Carolina showing the governor at a practice blockade last month. "Stand with Gov. Hodges," an announcer says. Allard's backers have accused Hodges of politicizing a national security issue, while Hodges' supporters claim the DOE is pushing to move the plutonium in order to boost Allard's re-election bid this year. Hodges has said all he wants is a legally binding agreement with the DOE to guarantee that his state does not become a dumping ground. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., has introduced legislation that would do just that -- imposing $1 million per day fines if the federal government misses a deadline for removing the materials. Allard has co-sponsored Thurmond's bill, spokesman Sean Conway said. Allard's new legislation is the "stick" in a "carrot and stick" approach. "Quite frankly, if you take Gov. Hodges at face value, and he doesn't want any plutonium in South Carolina, then we have to look elsewhere," Conway said. . ['E.W. Scripps Co.'] ***************************************************************** 17 Radioactive waste risks top debate May 9, 2002 Inland Valley Accidents with nuclear refuse traveling through San Bernardino County on way to Nevada site could overwhelm volunteer responders, opponents say. By Douglas Haberman / doug.haberman@latimes.com The U.S. House of Representatives voted 306 to 117 on Wednesday to support a Bush administration plan to make Yucca Mountain in Nevada the nation's sole nuclear waste repository, a plan opposed by San Bernardino County leaders. Some of the radioactive waste that would go to the Yucca Mountain repository would travel through the Inland Valley as well as the less populated areas of San Bernardino County's vast desert. Rep. Joe Baca (D-Rialto) voted against Yucca Mountain while Reps. Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar) and David Dreier (R-San Dimas) voted in favor of it. A vote by the U.S. Senate is expected this summer. Both California senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, oppose the Yucca Mountain plan. "We don't want all those trucks going through our neighborhoods," Boxer press secretary David Sandretti said. Miller said that his original concerns about the plan fell by the wayside once he took the time to learn from federal officials about the construction of the containers in which the nuclear waste would be shipped to Nevada by truck and rail. The metal containers are a foot thick -- two inches of corrugated metal, six inches of steel, two inches of lead and another two inches of steel, he said. "I don't know how you could rupture one," Miller said. "These are solidly welded structures. They don't fall apart." There have been more than 3,000 shipments of nuclear waste in the U.S. since 1964 "and never a problem," he said. Dreier was unavailable for comment but his spokeswoman, Jo Powers, said "his view is that for safety and security we need to get this waste all in one place." Nuclear waste is stored at 131 sites spread among 39 states. Baca said the Bush administration plan puts an unfair burden on San Bernardino County, which "virtually all of the rail and road routes ... would run through." Accidents are inevitable, he said, and "even the slightest risk of such a catastrophe is unacceptable." San Bernardino County Supervisor Jon Mikels said a key unresolved issue is "how accidents are going to be responded to in San Bernardino County along transportation routes." In much of the desert of the eastern county, "all we have out there are volunteer firefighters," he said. "The nation can't rely on volunteer firefighters in a sparsely populated area in the event of a nuclear accident," Mikels said. Miller said money will be set aside as part of the Yucca Mountain project to pay for emergency training in the handling of the containers in case of accidents. He will make sure San Bernardino County receives some of the money to accommodate its training needs, he said. "The county shouldn't be required to pay the cost for the extra training and equipment" it would need to deal with an accident involving the nuclear waste containers, Supervisor Fred Aguiar said. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 18 Nuclear Waste Route Sparks Local Outrage May 9, 2002 VENTURA COUNTY Safety: Southland lawmakers and activists fear shipments from Diablo Canyon to Nevada will pose a threat to area residents. By JENIFER RAGLAND, TIMES STAFF WRITER Radioactive waste from a San Luis Obispo nuclear plant could one day be shipped by rail, truck or barge through Santa Barbara and Ventura county communities, a prospect that has enraged local lawmakers and environmentalists. "There are too many unanswered questions, on security and safety, for my constituents and for people across the country," said Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), one of 117 House members who voted against a plan to permanently store 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada. "Pure and simple, it's an accident waiting to happen." Capps is among a growing number of Southern California lawmakers who are concerned, not only about burying the waste in Yucca Mountain but about getting it there from 131 power plants and research labs across the country. Nine of those sites are in California, including the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo County, about 210 miles north of Los Angeles. "The idea of putting radioactive waste on trucks or rail cars, then on a barge, then on trucks or rail cars again all through my district is a problem for me," said Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who also voted against the Bush administration's nuclear-waste burial plan Wednesday--one of only 14 Republicans to do so. Critics of the plan are worried about spills, but also about terrorism--a threat that became a bigger concern for the nation's nuclear facilities after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Before we launch an armada of trucks, barges and trains carrying extremely toxic nuclear waste, we need a strategy to protect them against possible terrorist attacks," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), a member of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Joe Davis, a Department of Energy spokesman, said safeguards are in place to protect radioactive waste shipments, which have occurred for 30 years: Transports are accompanied by armed guards and monitored 24 hours a day by escorts and by satellite, and shipment schedules are classified under federal security rules. Arguments for not moving the waste to Yucca Mountain defy logic, Davis said. "Why would a terrorist ... try and figure out where a shipment is going and when versus blowing up Diablo Canyon where waste is currently located?" he said. By 2006, the Diablo Canyon plant will have built up about 2,150 tons of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel that, eventually, will need to be transported to a secure storage facility. Department of Energy officials say they want to move the material to Yucca Mountain through Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties, using cargo trains and trucks. However, another option that the department studied calls for shipping the waste on barges through the Santa Barbara Channel and into the Port of Hueneme before being transported by rail and trucks to Nevada. "That's a rather frightening thought," said Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, who represents south Oxnard. "I would not want that coming into our county--period--and I would fight it all the way." The Yucca Mountain project, which must still pass the Senate, requires that radioactive waste from around the country be sent, in 4,300 shipments over 24 years, to the burial site about 215 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The waste, now temporarily stored on sites in 39 states, comes from nuclear power plants and aircraft carriers, bomb factories and university research labs. Over time, it will emit millions of times more radioactivity than the Hiroshima bomb. If approved, the Yucca Mountain site would open in 2010, but shipments probably would not begin for years after that, Davis said. Furthermore, he said, those routes would not be decided without plenty of input from state governments and the public. Transporting radioactive waste is safe, Davis maintained. In the department's 30-year history of moving waste over 1.6 million miles, he said, there have been eight accidents. None of those resulted in the release of radioactive material that was harmful. "The environmental community is trying to use scare tactics, but the fact is there are 300 million hazardous-waste shipments right now," he said. Still, opponents say the consequences of a nuclear waste spill, particularly in the Santa Barbara Channel, are not worth any risk. "While a spill on land would be horrendous, a spill on water, where it would be much more easily transported, would be catastrophic," said Drew Bohanpresident of Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper. "The risk of it happening may be low, but it's just such a huge risk to take." Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 19 Nuclear Dump Will Leak, Scientists Say May 8, 2002 THE NATION Yucca Mountain: The Nevada site will hold for 10,000 years, backers say, but foes insist there's no guarantee. A house vote may come today. By GARY POLAKOVIC, TIMES STAFF WRITER YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. -- As the Bush administration prepares its push to win congressional approval for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste burial site, scientists agree on one key conclusion: Yucca Mountain will leak. The question is how long it will take. Rising one mile from the desert floor, the mountain looks as plain and parched as much of the rest of southern Nevada's ranges. Despite the arid appearance there is water here, and even the scientists who have designed the repository concede that the mountain's vulnerability to moisture will allow radioactive material to eventually leak into the environment. Time is the key. Highly radioactive nuclear waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Half of the plutonium stored in the mountain, for example, will still be radioactive 380 million years from now. Just one-millionth of an ounce of plutonium is enough to virtually assure cancer in someone who comes in contact with it. As Congress considers whether to override Nevada's opposition to housing nuclear waste here, opponents of the waste site argue that the Bush administration is pushing through a flawed solution that will create radioactivity risks for thousands of years. Government officials say they have designed a burial site that will be free of leaks for at least 10,000 years. Critics, armed with a raft of scientific studies, say that can't be guaranteed. They point to two other nuclear sites that officials once had said would be leak-free for hundreds or thousands of years: the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory near Pocatello and the Hanford Site in eastern Washington. Both are leaking already, and radioactive material could make its way into groundwater in just 10 years, according to a report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Even if a 10,000-year leak-free promise could be guaranteed, critics of Yucca Mountain say society has a responsibility to civilizations far in the future not to expose them to lethal waste that we generate. But the alternative to putting nuclear waste here is to leave it accumulating in 131 different places in 39 states, much closer to people and potentially vulnerable to terrorist attack, the Department of Energy warns. The waste piled up around the country comes from nuclear aircraft carriers and electrical plants, bomb factories and university labs. Over time, it will emit thousands of times more radioactivity than was released at Chernobyl and millions of times more than the Hiroshima bomb. Right now, says the government, 2 out of 3 Americans live within 75 miles of a storage site. "There is no more [storage] space, there are deteriorating storage conditions, and you have the challenge that so much of it is located near population centers and waterways," said Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. "No one believes you can bring in David Copperfield, wave a wand and it all goes away." "We've tried to take into account as many uncertainties of the future as can be assessed," Abraham said. "I am convinced that the site is scientifically suitable--in a word, safe." Yucca Mountain is not a done deal yet, but converting this forlorn peak into the world's first high-level nuclear waste dump is closer to happening than ever. President Bush has chosen the site, but Nevada challenged that decision. Congress is considering whether to overturn Nevada's veto, and opponents of the dump acknowledge they probably do not have the votes to stop it. (A House vote might occur as early as today.) If the Yucca Mountain plan survives Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider issuing a license, and the dump could open by 2012. Experts long ago recognized the need for deep, geological disposal of radioactive waste, yet it is unknown whether any system can be devised that could keep highly radioactive waste isolated for such an immensely long period. "We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society," said Alvin Weinberg, former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where plutonium was tested for one of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. "We offer an inexhaustible and nonpolluting source of energy, but we require a level of detail and discipline that we're unaccustomed to in handling the waste. "Nobody really knows if we can do this. Trying to project what's going to happen in thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, is quite ridiculous," Weinberg said. Today, Yucca Mountain is an island in a desert. It is surrounded by the Nevada Test Site, where the government once tested nuclear bombs. The closest neighbors are a handful of alfalfa growers in the Amargosa Valley, 11 miles from Yucca Mountain, and the working girls at the Cherry Patch No. 2 brothel by a gas station that peddles T-shirts with pictures of extraterrestrials. "If you can't put it here, then where can you put it?" asked Michael D. Voegele, chief scientist for Bechtel-SAIC Co., the Energy Department's contractor for building the repository at Yucca Mountain. But who can say what will be here millions of years from now when plutonium and other deadly wastes still pack a wallop? Will it still be a desert? Glaciers advanced and receded across the planet a dozen times in the last 2 million years. An inland sea called Lake Bonneville covered much of Nevada and Utah 12,000 years ago, when humans first arrived. "These technologies are forcing us to address the issue of how they will affect future generations. This is not an issue we've faced on this scale before," said Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. "We're doing things with consequences we don't understand." Government engineers and scientists have been studying Yucca Mountain for more than 20 years--twice as long as it took to plan and complete the moon landing--at a cost of $7 billion. During that time, government officials have changed their arguments about Yucca Mountain's safety. Problems began to emerge years ago when tunnels bored deep into the rock revealed conditions inside were wetter, and the geology more complex, than initially thought. Those discoveries are at the center of the controversy today. Originally, the volcanic ash where the waste would be entombed was believed to be so tightly compressed that rainfall could not penetrate. Secretary Abraham said in February that rainfall would take 1,000 years to make the 800-foot journey through rock to the disposal zone and longer still before radioactivity could be carried to groundwater. He does not believe leaks are a significant concern. Yet inside the mountain, government studies have found that the rock is laced with fissures, some that move water the way capillaries carry blood, some that flow like a garden hose. About 12.3 million gallons of water flow through the 2,500-acre disposal area per year, government studies show. Traces of chlorine 36, which is produced only by nuclear bombs, were recently discovered inside Yucca Mountain. Since the last nuclear bombs were detonated above ground at the Nevada Test Site in 1962, the finding indicates rainfall can carry radioactive material deep into the rock in as little as 40 years. Once the presence of water was established, the government changed plans. The plans now call for double-layer disposal containers of stainless steel and a nickel-based material called Alloy 22 to keep the waste isolated. The canisters will be covered with titanium "drip shields" to keep waste dry. Canisters could be packed close together too, so heat would boil water and drive away steam. But engineers do not know know how to build a container that outlasts radioactive waste. Materials like Alloy 22 haven't been around long enough for experts to be able to assess how they will perform over centuries. Given all of the uncertainties, some of the nation's leading experts say President Bush's decision to proceed with Yucca Mountain is premature. "There are a lot of issues that remain unresolved that could affect the safety of humans and the environment," said Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and the director of the Yucca Mountain project at MIT. "We should not be in a rush." Carnegie Mellon University President Jared L. Cohon said he is concerned about the integrity of disposal canisters and how water moves inside the mountain. Cohon chairs the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an 11-member panel of independent experts appointed by Congress to review the Energy Department's work at Yucca Mountain. That panel concluded in January that the government's technical case for Yucca Mountain is "weak to moderate." Said Cohon: "What is very important is that, in assessing the suitability of the site, decision makers and the public must understand what the uncertainty is. The uncertainty is substantial." Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 20 30-day delay is sought on Rocky Flats waste Denver Post.com Dispute continues over Flats plutonium By Mike Soraghan [msoraghan@denverpost.com] Denver Post Washington Bureau Thursday, May 09, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A Republican senator from South Carolina is asking for a one-month delay in plutonium shipments from Rocky Flats. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond asked the U.S. Department of Energy for the delay to give him more time to pass a bill he says will ensure the waste will someday leave the state. The future of 6 tons of Rocky Flats plutonium once it reaches South Carolina has been a key sticking point in plans to move the waste from Colorado. Unless that issue is resolved, South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges has said, state law enforcement officers will block the shipments if they begin, as scheduled, on Wednesday. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has said the shipments must begin by Wednesday for his agency to meet its 2006 deadline for cleanup and closure of the former nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver. Sean Conway, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said Wednesday that the senator has been told the deadline can be met if the shipments are delayed by a month. But "patience is wearing thin," Conway said. "I am told we can still meet 2006 if we ship past May 15. How far past, I don't know. That's a question for DOE," he said. DOE spokesman Joe Davis did not return phone calls by the end of business Wednesday. Thurmond last week introduced legislation that would write into law a proposed agreement between the Energy Department and Hodges that calls for the DOE to be fined up to $100 million a year if it misses deadlines for recycling the nuclear material and getting it out of South Carolina. The bill is co-sponsored by Allard. In the meantime, Hodges has filed suit in federal court seeking to block the shipments. Hodges says he's worried that the government will change its plans to build a plant to recycle waste into fuel for nuclear reactors, leaving his state "the nation's nuclear dumping ground." Hodges, a Democrat, also charges that the Bush administration is pushing Colorado's waste on South Carolina to help Allard survive a stiff re-election challenge from Democrat Tom Strickland that could decide control of the Senate. "There is ample evidence that DOE's motivation behind shipping plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina now is to help Sen. Allard's re-election bid," said Cortney Owings, spokeswoman for Hodges, who also faces re-election this year. That prompted a sharp retort from Conway, who noted that Hodges is spending $100,000 from his re-election campaign fund for television advertising declaring, "No plutonium dumping in South Carolina." "At some point, reasonable people have to ask what the governor's motives truly are," Conway said. The shipments from Rocky Flats to the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C., are to include 1 ton of plutonium that officials once said could not be turned into nuclear fuel. Now they say that ton of "orphan plutonium" can be recycled, it'll just cost a little more. "We believe that all of the material can be shipped through the MOX (recycling) process," Davis said in an interview Tuesday. The orphan ton is "very impure" plutonium stuck to 2 tons of other plant material, such as filters. It's part of about 2 metric tons of such impure plutonium in the nation's nuclear weapons complex. Earlier this year, DOE officials announced the material would be "shipped directly to waste," without saying what that meant. Nuclear activists said the DOE was planning to ship it to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, until U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., stepped in to block the plan. That left the plutonium with nowhere to go. On April 19, however, the Energy Department laid out a new position, declaring South Carolina would be the long-term storage site for all Rocky Flats waste, including the orphan ton. All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post ***************************************************************** 21 Officials deny deal to ship waste to Solomon Islands The Taipei Times Online: 2002-05-09 CNA, TAIPEI The Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied yesterday that a Taiwanese company had won permission to store toxic industrial waste in the Solomon Islands. Ministry spokeswoman Katharine Chang (±i¤p¤ë) was responding to a wire report that said the Taiwanese firm Primeval Forest would be granted a license to store industrial waste on a largely untouched island in the Solomon Islands, a country nearly bankrupt after three years of civil war. The report also quoted the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corp as reporting that the South Pacific nation is also negotiating a nuclear waste storage deal with Taiwan Power Co (Taipower, Ąxąq). Chang said that the ministry had earlier learned of the toxic-waste storage matter and alerted the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). The EPA found that Primeval Forest had not received export permission and that the company disbanded in mid-February after learning that it was prohibited from exporting its industrial waste overseas. Stressing that Taiwan has the technology to handle the toxic waste, she said that the government would never dump waste it cannot handle at overseas locations, as the world is a global village and the government attaches great importance to environmental protection. She added that the government would act according to the relevant laws. Chang also said that the report about the Solomon Islands negotiating a deal with Taipower regarding the storage of nuclear waste is "erroneous" and unfounded. Lin Ming-hsiung (ŞL©ú¶Ż), director of Taipower's Nuclear Backend Management Department, said that Taipower is actively looking for nuclear waste disposal sites at home and abroad, and that it is reviewing several options. But he said that he has never had any contact with the Solomon Islands regarding the nuclear storage issue and that the media report is the "first time he has heard about the matter." Taipower has discussed with Russia, North Korea, China and the Marshall Islands the possibility of storing its nuclear waste at sites in those countries. This story has been viewed 232 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/05/09/story/0000135259] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 House Backs Plan to Store Atomic Waste in Nevada May 9, 2002 By ADAM CLYMER WASHINGTON, May 8 — The House voted overwhelmingly today to go ahead with a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, brushing off arguments of environmental and terrorist risks. Representative Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said adoption of the plan would "get our nuclear industry back on a safe path" and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, said, "Clearly it is in the interests of this country to construct one permanent, highly secure facility." According to the Department of Energy, about 80,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste is stored at 131 above-ground sites in 39 states. But several opponents contend that transporting the waste on the highways will invite hijackings by terrorists. Representative Joe Baca, Democrat of California, said, "We will create thousands of weapons for terrorists." Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, "Al Qaeda had nuclear at the very top of its terrorist targets." The vote was 306 to 117 to override Gov. Kenny Guinn of Nevada, who had rejected the Bush administration's plan to ship nuclear waste from all over the country to Yucca Mountain beginning in 2010. Voting in favor were 203 Republicans, 102 Democrats and 1 independent; voting against were 13 Republicans, 103 Democrats and 1 independent. The vote is expected to be much closer in the Senate, where the plan is likely to be approved in June or July, although Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic whip, said, "We haven't given up." To round up Senate votes, opponents of the waste site are emphasizing the dangers of moving nuclear waste through 45 states, an argument made futilely today by Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, the House minority leader. Mr. Gephardt predicted derailments and other accidents. "It makes no sense to have all of this material traveling across the country by truck and rail," he said. Instead of isolating risk, he added, "Yucca Mountain spreads it around." Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, foresaw "mobile Chernobyls crossing the country." Their argument was challenged by Representative John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, who said there had already been 3,000 shipments of nuclear waste. "Not one of those shipments threatened the environment or public safety," Mr. Shimkus said. Mr. Tauzin spoke generously of two critics from Nevada: Representatives Jim Gibbons, a Republican, and Shelley Berkley, a Democrat. But he said other foes just "basically oppose nuclear energy." He urged the House to vote for the Yucca Mountain site and "settle the waste issue." "Help secure America," he said. Opponents said Nevada was being victimized by a "not in my backyard" approach. Representative Markey said other states that did not want the waste had dealt Nevada the "nuclear queen of spades." House proponents insisted that for 20 years, scientific studies had shown that Yucca Mountain was a safe repository. No lawmakers argued directly that the waste should simply be sent out of their backyards. But several lawmakers argued that the material should not be allowed to remain near the Great Lakes because they were a source of drinking water for millions of people. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, emphasized that one reason he supported the measure was that his state "has the most nuclear power plants of any state in our union." While Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, said adoption of the Yucca Mountain site would enable Nevada to reclaim its "nuclear heritage," Representative Berkley said Nevadans wanted none of that heritage because the government lied to them in the 1950's when it told them there was no danger from atomic bomb tests. She said that many Nevadans had died of cancer and that the government was now "asking us to trust them like our parents and grandparents did." Jim Matheson, Democrat of Utah, said many in his state, including his father, had died of cancers from radiation carried downwind from Nevada. "I can tell you," Mr. Matheson said, "as a son of a downwinder and a congressman who represents thousands of sick, dying and widowed victims of our nuclear testing that the federal record on this issue has been appalling." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | ***************************************************************** 23 AU: Waste dump: It's nuclear war [09may02] news.com.au - By State Political Reporter GREG KELTON A THREAT to hold a referendum on nuclear waste dumps a week before the next federal election will be used by the State Government to avoid having radioactive material buried in South Australia. Premier Mike Rann described the plan yesterday as "the state's ultimate nuclear deterrent". The Government will also legislate to ensure that even a low-level radioactive waste dump can not be located here. A Bill to allow the ban, and to establish a trigger mechanism for the referendum, will be introduced into Parliament today by Environment Minister John Hill. Another element of the Bill will be a ban on the transport of radioactive waste from other states or overseas into SA. The move follows a letter to Mr Rann from Prime Minister John Howard asking the State Government to "support, rather than hinder" the development of a low-level nuclear waste dump in SA. Up to three sites near Woomera are being considered by the Commonwealth for a national nuclear waste repository. Mr Howard's letter – copies of which Mr Rann released yesterday – says no decision has been made on a site and that there is no intention to establish a high-level waste repository. It says the SA sites were chosen after "extensive scientific assessment and consultation with the community and SA Government". The Federal Government can establish the waste repository on Commonwealth land because its laws override SA jurisdiction. "The Federal Government will not receive any co-operation from a Rann Labor Government," Mr Rann said yesterday. "They can override state decisions but they don't have the political or moral force to do so. "It is vitally important we try to prevent at all costs any government trying to override a state ban. We know this is a David and Goliath battle." (SA has legislation in place, passed under the previous Liberal government, banning any intermediate to high-level waste dump.) Mr Rann said the Environment Protection Authority was examining ways of storing the low-level waste accumulated within SA. "But I don't want us to be a repository for other people's nuclear waste and that is clearly what is planned by the Howard Government," he said. Mr Rann said legal advice to the Government showed SA could hold a referendum a week before any federal election, describing the referendum option as "an extraordinary measure". The referendum question would ask whether the voter approves of the establishment of a facility for the storage or disposal of long-lived intermediate or high-level nuclear waste generated outside the state. Mr Rann urged Mr Howard to reconsider his Government's position and listen to the people of SA. "We would rather have Canberra working with South Australians, not against us," he said. [http://news.com.au/newspulsestory/] ***************************************************************** 24 Utah tribe welcomes nuclear waste; state doesn't The Seattle Times: Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Rich Vosepka The Associated Press SKULL VALLEY, Utah — For 150 years, the Goshute Indians have scratched a poor living in Utah's West Desert while watching their ancient homeland overrun by white encroachment and industrialization. Now the small, impoverished tribe has found what it thinks is a great way to survive and prosper. Some members want to generate big money by storing much of the nation's spent nuclear-reactor fuel on the reservation for up to 40 years. Utah's non-Indian population is aghast, and the Utah Legislature has passed laws to block the effort. But the sovereignty that federal law provides Indian tribes limits the state's ability to veto the plan. And the tribe has few other economic options. Goshutes traditionally survived in western Utah by ranging over a vast area in small groups, gathering pine nuts, tracking game and making use of virtually everything that grows in the desert. Those skills make for thin soup today. But waste storage could bring as much as $3.1 billion to the 124-member tribe. Even the head of Utah's Indian Affairs office said he isn't sure what else the Skull Valley Goshutes can do with their 18,000-acre reservation if the nuclear-waste dump is killed. "There's a lot that could have been done, but not now that the area's been polluted. They either join in the (pollution) process or they wither away and die," said Forrest Cuch, director of the Utah Division of Indian Affairs. If they succeed, it won't be the first time the tribe has gotten its way, despite the government. In 1864, President Lincoln signed a law ordering all American Indians in Utah to relocate to the Uintah Valley, 170 miles to the east of the Goshutes' turf, in terrain vastly different from their desert hunting and gathering grounds. The Goshutes refused. They stayed in the Skull Valley, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The fight between the Goshutes and Utah's government is part of a bigger nuclear debate. In March, President Bush approved a plan that would make Yucca Mountain in Nevada the nation's permanent dump for spent nuclear fuel. The Goshutes and a group of nuclear utilities want to store the nuclear waste in Skull Valley while the Nevada site is built. For up to 40 years, high-level waste would sit in 16-foot-high, concrete-and-steel casks on the reservation. The plan is now undergoing review by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The board will make a recommendation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this fall. It will be up to NRC to decide on a permit for the storage dump. A lawsuit over the issue is moving through federal court, but it is not expected to slow the NRC's decision. The Goshutes aren't strangers to society's toxic byproducts; disposal and storage facilities are their neighbors. The military stores and destroys chemical weapons nearby at the Tooele Army Depot and incinerator. Dugway Proving Ground tests countermeasures to biological weapons near the reservation. And low-level nuclear waste is already stored at Envirocare, about 20 miles away. But high-level nuclear waste, which stays deadly for as long as 10,000 years, shouldn't be kept in Utah, Gov. Mike Leavitt says. Besides fears of terrorism or rail accidents, state officials have also suggested that the waste site would be vulnerable to plane crashes. Air Force F-16s frequently fly over the site on the way to a nearby bombing range. The nuclear industry dismisses the fears, saying the casks could withstand nearly any kind of impact. Leavitt already put up a highway sign on the lonely road that leads to the Skull Valley Reservation: "High Level Nuclear Waste Prohibited, Except by Permit." The sign is largely for show. Spent fuel would reach the reservation via railroad. And issuing permits to nuclear facilities is up to the NRC, not the state. Leavitt is also defending Utah's anti-nuclear laws in federal court after the Goshutes and the utilities sued. No one denies that the Legislature passed these laws to block the plan. But the issue is the extent of Goshute sovereignty. Indian sovereignty is an evolving legal concept, but it has its roots in the historical status of Indian tribes as separate nations, recognized by Congress, and entitled to nation-to-nation relations with the U.S. government. Today, tribes are not treated as equals by the federal government. But their special status is respected, and they generally are not subject to state taxation or regulation. Sovereignty is the legal concept that allows tribes to operate casinos on their reservations, even in states that forbid gambling. For gambling, Congress established specific procedures that give state governments some voice. But for nuclear-waste storage, there are no rules specific to tribal lands, said Sue Martin, spokeswoman for Private Fuel Storage, the utilities working with the Goshutes on the plan. Tribal Chairman Leon Bear says the storage deal is an agreement between the tribe, the utilities and federal regulators — the state is not a player. Leavitt says the storage plan — opposed by a third of the band's 73 adult members — has potentially disastrous effects outside the reservation, so waste storage is very much the state's business. One recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling may bear on the case, said Don Wharton, an attorney with the Native American Rights Fund. It involved Nevada wildlife officials searching a tribe member's home for evidence of illegal hunting. While states can't exert the same regulatory authority on a reservation as they do on the outside, "State authority does not end at a reservation's border," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2001 opinion. The economic outlook for the Goshutes is grim without the dump. As it is, tribe members need to leave the reservation to find jobs, he said. Fewer than 30 members live in Skull Valley. "There's no jobs here," said Joey Rush, a tribal member who works at Pony Express Station, the only store on the reservation. "This is it." "There is no question that economic development is difficult to accomplish in remote areas," Leavitt acknowledged. But beyond ordering a study of options for the Goshutes, the Legislature hasn't created any specific programs to help them. The tribe has promised to spend the windfall on a cultural center, fire and police stations and new homes for tribal members who work at the waste site. That would consume only a tiny portion of the potential income, however, and tribal leaders have declined to speculate on how they would spend or distribute the rest. The Utah Division of Indian Affairs' Cuch is sympathetic with the dilemma facing the Goshutes. "The culture is not being passed on," Cuch said. "Now that we've succeeded in destroying their traditional ideals, we're mad at them because they want to put money in the bank." Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 25 Desert storm: Lines drawn in battle over storage of nuclear waste The Seattle Times: Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Knight-Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON — Opponents of the Bush administration's plan to haul 154 million pounds of nuclear waste across the nation to be buried in Nevada's Yucca Mountain warn of "mobile Chernobyls" chugging through America's heartland. The trains and trucks could be targets of terrorist attacks or fall victim to accidents, opponents warn. Radiation could then leak into the air from the sealed containers, killing thousands, they argue. Impartial scientists, engineers and terrorism experts, however, have concluded that such a disaster is extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, a major radiation leak would be a catastrophe, and America will have to live with its decision about how to dispose of its nuclear trash virtually forever. In one of the most far-reaching decisions it will ever make, Congress must decide whether the waste, which is lethally radioactive for millions of years, should be shipped by road and rail to Yucca Mountain starting around 2010 or whether it should remain in temporary storage facilities that are within a two-hour drive of 165 million Americans. The House of Representatives voted 306-117 yesterday to approve President Bush's Yucca Mountain plan. The vote sets the stage for a July showdown in the Senate, where opponents of Yucca Mountain are making their last stand. It's a long shot. Opponents think they have only about 34 Senate votes so far, and they need 51. More than 40 senators have indicated they will support putting the waste site at Yucca. That leaves perhaps 24 up for grabs. The debate pits a state's rights to control its land against the federal government's duty to solve a pressing national problem. It also pits the nuclear industry against an unlikely alliance of environmentalists who fear Yucca is unsafe and Nevada casino operators who fear a falloff in tourism. Both sides have spent big money. Over the past decade, the Nuclear Energy Institute and its industry members contributed $29.2 million in "soft money," or unregulated cash, to the two big political parties, according to the watchdog group Common Cause. The gambling industry has contributed $21 million in soft money to the two parties since 1992. In addition, the American Gaming Association, headed by former Republican Party Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, has set aside $500,000 for an anti-Yucca Mountain lobbying and advertising campaign that reportedly will cost more than $5 million. The debate largely breaks along partisan lines, with Bush and nuclear-friendly Republicans confronting a green-leaning Democratic Party. But several Democrats support burying the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca because that would remove it from their own back yards. This makes it hard to forge a solid environmentalist-Democratic coalition against Yucca. After more than 50 years in the nuclear era, the nation has already accumulated vast amounts of radioactive waste, which will remain lethal for millions of years. It's stored at temporary sites in 39 states. The Bush administration wants to haul it all to Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles north of Las Vegas, and bury it there for 10,000 years. The administration's plan would require shipping nuclear waste about 1.1 million miles every year, mostly across rural areas. Still, more than 125,000 of those miles would be through populous suburbs and cities. The casks that contain the wastes are designed to withstand almost any shock, and the nature of the waste itself helps ensure that it's unlikely to threaten public safety even if it's released. JOE CAVARETTA / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS First-graders from Amargosa Elementary School line up between classes in Amargosa Valley, Nev., with Yucca Mountain about 10 miles away in the background. But the margin for error is small. One type of terrorist attack could cause more than 18,000 people to die from cancer, according to a study the state of Nevada sponsored that the plan's opponents will release next week. The storage casks feature layers of steel and lead several inches thick. They're designed to withstand being dropped from 30 feet, impaled on a spike, then plunged into water. They must withstand temperatures of 1,475 degrees for 30 minutes. Even so, skeptics note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tests only parts of the containers, and relies on computer models to test their overall strength. The waste itself is solid ceramic, which means it could not be dispersed as easily as a liquid or a gas. University of Georgia toxicologist Cham Dallas, who consults with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on nuclear-incident health preparations, said that if the casks were breached, "nothing is going to happen" because of the waste's physics. "It's a metallic waste. It just goes right to the ground," Dallas said. "It's just not mobilized and thrown up in the atmosphere like we used to think it would be." Even if the waste somehow were changed into smaller particles — by fire, for example — the pieces would be so big they couldn't be inhaled, he said. Opponents, however, cited a 1982 incident as a cautionary tale. At that time, nuclear waste was shipped in containers filled with air, which reacts more with spent nuclear fuel than the nitrogen that fills the casks now. In one shipment back then, a nuclear-fuel rod cracked and heated up. When it was unloaded, scientists found much of it had turned to fine powder similar to talcum, said Lindsay Audin, an energy consultant hired by Nevada to help fight the Yucca project. A missile attack on a nuclear waste truck in an urban area could release enough radiation to give 1,820 people lethal doses of cancer, according to two reports that Nevada will release next week. That number could grow tenfold if missiles blew two holes in a cask, which would give better airflow. That could lead to a reaction with oxygen that would turn the waste into a powder that could be inhaled, the reports say. Yet most terrorism experts interviewed said a terrorist attack on a nuclear convoy would be too difficult to coordinate. Moving 175 shipments of nuclear waste a year would offer more targets, experts conceded. But the shipments would be so well-protected and hard to find that a successful attack would be harder than the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were, said Rusty Capps, a former top FBI counterintelligence official who's now president of The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies in Virginia. The nuclear industry cites Europe's long record of safe waste shipments. "This material has been moved far more in Europe than in this country, and terrorism has been known in Europe on a small scale far longer than in this country. And it's never been a target in Europe," said Steve Kraft, fuels manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's Washington lobby. America's experience isn't so comforting, Yucca opponents said. They noted that the NRC doesn't require armed guards on waste convoys except through urban areas. Federal officials had feared that al-Qaida was surveying U.S. nuclear plants. While guards may stop terrorists, they can't stop accidents, and accidents do happen. The Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository would require trains to carry radioactive waste more than 1 million miles a year, and trucks with similar loads would add another 100,000 miles, according to the Department of Energy. The current U.S. accident rate for trains and trucks suggests there would be nearly 100 rail accidents and one or two truck accidents over the 24 years the Yucca facility would be accepting waste. Still, no harmful radiation is likely to leak in those accidents, according to an NRC statistical analysis, as well as outside experts. Since 1960, 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel has been hauled 1.6 million miles across the country. Eight accidents have occurred in that time. No radiation has ever been released. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 26 U.S. House easily overrides state`s Yucca veto, 306-117 Vote sends fight to Senate By Doug Abrahms [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS 5/9/2002 08:05 am WASHINGTON — The House overwhelmingly approved making Yucca Mountain the nation’s nuclear waste dump on Wednesday, despite opposition from some lawmakers concerned about shipping 77,000 tons of radioactive material cross-country. The House approved the site recommended by the Bush administration 306-117. House members in favor of the proposed radioactive dump said the nation needed to move forward to develop a long-term storage site. Without Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, nuclear waste would continue to build up at power plants, government facilities and other sites that never were meant for long-term storage of the radioactive material. “Removing nuclear waste from 131 sites to a single repository is much safer,” said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who voted for Yucca Mountain. Preliminary shipping routes proposed by the Energy Department show nuclear waste could come through northern Nevada and Reno by rail and truck. “Where are my colleagues who are advocates for states’ rights, local control?” asked Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Gibbons said the Energy Department has failed to ensure that the waste would be kept safely isolated for the expected 10,000 years that some of its isotopes will be dangerously radioactive. Nevada was singled out because it is “a small state with a small congressional delegation,” complained Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. The House vote is merely the preliminary bout for the main fight, which will be in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Nevada’s senators admit they still don’t have the 51 votes they need to derail Yucca Mountain, despite furious lobbying. “It’s an uphill battle in the Senate,” said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said the House vote is just the beginning of the battle. “We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on parallel track in the courts,” he said. “I am encouraged that with the 117 votes, that our message is being heard. People across America are realizing this is more than a Nevada issue.” Three lawsuits already are in the courts, challenging the Yucca plan. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham had a different interpretation of the vote, however. “Certainly, the Senate will take note of the overwhelming bipartisan support the Yucca Mountain project has received in the House,” Abraham said. He expressed confidence that the Senate will endorse the project and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will find that it meets standards for health and safety. President Bush officially designated Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste dump in February, but the law that creates a national repository for high-level nuclear waste allowed Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn to veto it. Guinn, a Republican, took that step last month, and both houses of Congress must approve Yucca Mountain for the project to move forward. If Yucca Mountain passes the Senate, several hurdles remain before nuclear waste can start moving to Nevada. The Energy Department must file an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a process expected to take years. The courts also could delay or even block the Yucca Mountain dump, which has been under consideration since 1987. The biggest objection to the nuclear waste dump raised by House members involved transporting nuclear waste in tens of thousands of truck and rail shipments across the nation over the next 50 years. “A few years ago in Denver, Colo., … a truck with a big missile on it fell over,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who voted against Yucca Mountain. “I shudder to think what would happen if a truck with radioactive material fell over in Denver.” “I had a train derail in my district in Webster Groves, Missouri,” said Democrat Dick Gephardt. “Luckily, it was only (carrying) coal.” Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who supports Yucca Mountain, said he believes the transportation issue is being overblown. More than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been shipped nationwide over the past 20 years, including 500 in Illinois alone, he said. “Not one of these shipments has threatened the environment or public safety,” he said. “The truth is their concerns are misguided.” Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said many opponents of Yucca Mountain oppose nuclear power in general. But nuclear power plant operators across the nation need to do something with the used nuclear fuel that is building up, said Upton, who supported Yucca Mountain. “Every one of these is running out of space,” said Upton, whose district is home to two nuclear power plants. “Safe storage and safe transportation to one safe place is essential, particularly in the events of 9-11.” © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 27 Who they are and how they voted on Yucca Associated Press [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS 5/9/2002 12:17 am The 306-117 roll call vote Wednesday by which the House endorsed President Bush’s decision to send the country’s nuclear waste to Nevada. A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill. Voting yes were 102 Democrats, 203 Republicans and one independent. Voting no were 103 Democrats, 13 Republicans and one independent. X denotes those not voting. There are no vacancies in the 435-member House. ALABAMA Democrats — Cramer, Y; Hilliard, Y. Republicans — Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Callahan, Y; Everett, Y; Riley, X. ALASKA Republicans — Young, N. ARIZONA Democrats — Pastor, Y. Republicans — Flake, Y; Hayworth, Y; Kolbe, Y; Shadegg, Y; Stump, Y. ARKANSAS Democrats — Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y. Republicans — Boozman, Y. CALIFORNIA Democrats — Baca, N; Becerra, N; Berman, N; Capps, N; Condit, N; Davis, N; Dooley, Y; Eshoo, N; Farr, N; Filner, N; Harman, N; Honda, N; Lantos, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, N; Matsui, N; Millender-McDonald, N; George Miller, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, N; Schiff, N; Sherman, N; Solis, N; Stark, N; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, N; Waters, N; Watson, N; Waxman, X; Woolsey, N. Republicans — Bono, Y; Calvert, Y; Cox, Y; Cunningham, Y; Doolittle, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, Y; Horn, Y; Hunter, Y; Issa, Y; Lewis, N; McKeon, N; Gary Miller, Y; Ose, X; Pombo, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y; Thomas, Y. COLORADO Democrats — DeGette, N; Udall, N. Republicans — Hefley, Y; McInnis, Y; Schaffer, Y; Tancredo, Y. CONNECTICUT Democrats — DeLauro, N; Larson, Y; Maloney, Y. Republicans — Johnson, Y; Shays, Y; Simmons, Y. DELAWARE Republicans — Castle, Y. FLORIDA Democrats — Boyd, Y; Brown, Y; Davis, Y; Deutsch, Y; Hastings, Y; Meek, Y; Thurman, Y; Wexler, N. Republicans — Bilirakis, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Foley, Y; Goss, Y; Keller, Y; Mica, Y; Dan Miller, Y; Jeff Miller, Y; Putnam, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Shaw, Y; Stearns, Y; Weldon, Y; Young, Y. GEORGIA Democrats — Bishop, Y; Lewis, N; McKinney, N. Republicans — Barr, Y; Chambliss, Y; Collins, Y; Deal, Y; Isakson, Y; Kingston, Y; Linder, Y; Norwood, Y. HAWAII Democrats — Abercrombie, N; Mink, N. IDAHO Republicans — Otter, Y; Simpson, Y. ILLINOIS Democrats — Blagojevich, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Evans, N; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Phelps, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N. Republicans — Biggert, Y; Crane, X; Hastert, Y; Hyde, X; Johnson, Y; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, Y; Shimkus, Y; Weller, Y. INDIANA Democrats — Carson, N; Hill, Y; Roemer, N; Visclosky, Y. Republicans — Burton, X; Buyer, Y; Hostettler, Y; Kerns, Y; Pence, N; Souder, N. IOWA Democrats — Boswell, N. Republicans — Ganske, Y; Latham, Y; Leach, Y; Nussle, Y. KANSAS Democrats — Moore, N. Republicans — Moran, Y; Ryun, Y; Tiahrt, Y. KENTUCKY Democrats — Lucas, Y. Republicans — Fletcher, Y; Lewis, Y; Northup, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y. LOUISIANA Democrats — Jefferson, Y; John, Y. Republicans — Baker, Y; Cooksey, Y; McCrery, Y; Tauzin, Y; Vitter, Y. MAINE Democrats — Allen, Y; Baldacci, Y. MARYLAND Democrats — Cardin, Y; Cummings, Y; Hoyer, Y; Wynn, Y. Republicans — Bartlett, Y; Ehrlich, Y; Gilchrest, Y; Morella, Y. MASSACHUSETTS Democrats — Capuano, N; Delahunt, Y; Frank, N; Lynch, N; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Meehan, N; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, N. MICHIGAN Democrats — Barcia, Y; Bonior, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Rivers, N; Stupak, Y. Republicans — Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; Rogers, Y; Smith, Y; Upton, Y. MINNESOTA Democrats — Luther, N; McCollum, N; Oberstar, N; Peterson, Y; Sabo, N. Republicans — Gutknecht, Y; Kennedy, Y; Ramstad, Y. MISSISSIPPI Democrats — Shows, Y; Taylor, Y; Thompson, Y. Republicans — Pickering, Y; Wicker, Y. MISSOURI Democrats — Clay, Y; Gephardt, N; McCarthy, N; Skelton, Y. Republicans — Akin, Y; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hulshof, Y. MONTANA Republicans — Rehberg, Y. NEBRASKA Republicans — Bereuter, Y; Osborne, Y; Terry, Y. NEVADA Democrats — Berkley, N. Republicans — Gibbons, N. NEW HAMPSHIRE Republicans — Bass, Y; Sununu, Y. NEW JERSEY Democrats — Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Menendez, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, N. Republicans — Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Roukema, Y; Saxton, Y; Smith, Y. NEW MEXICO Democrats — Udall, N. Republicans — Skeen, Y; Wilson, Y. NEW YORK Democrats — Ackerman, N; Crowley, N; Engel, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, N; LaFalce, N; Lowey, N; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, N; Meeks, Y; Nadler, X; Owens, N; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Towns, Y; Velazquez, N; Weiner, N. Republicans — Boehlert, Y; Fossella, Y; Gilman, Y; Grucci, Y; Houghton, Y; Kelly, N; King, Y; McHugh, Y; Quinn, Y; Reynolds, Y; Sweeney, Y; Walsh, Y. NORTH CAROLINA Democrats — Clayton, Y; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, Y; Price, Y; Watt, Y. Republicans — Ballenger, Y; Burr, Y; Coble, Y; Hayes, Y; Jones, Y; Myrick, Y; Taylor, Y. NORTH DAKOTA Democrats — Pomeroy, Y. OHIO Democrats — Brown, Y; Hall, X; Jones, Y; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Sawyer, Y; Strickland, Y; Traficant, X. Republicans — Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gillmor, Y; Hobson, Y; LaTourette, Y; Ney, Y; Oxley, Y; Portman, Y; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Tiberi, Y. OKLAHOMA Democrats — Carson, Y. Republicans — Istook, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y; Watkins, N; Watts, Y. OREGON Democrats — Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, N; Wu, N. Republicans — Walden, Y. PENNSYLVANIA Democrats — Borski, Y; Brady, Y; Coyne, N; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Hoeffel, Y; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Mascara, Y; Murtha, Y. Republicans — English, Y; Gekas, Y; Greenwood, Y; Hart, Y; Peterson, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Sherwood, Y; Shuster, Y; Toomey, Y; Weldon, X. RHODE ISLAND Democrats — Kennedy, N; Langevin, N. SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats — Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y. Republicans — Brown, Y; DeMint, Y; Graham, Y; Wilson, Y. SOUTH DAKOTA Republicans — Thune, Y. TENNESSEE Democrats — Clement, Y; Ford, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y. Republicans — Bryant, Y; Duncan, Y; Hilleary, Y; Jenkins, Y; Wamp, Y. TEXAS Democrats — Bentsen, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Frost, N; Gonzalez, N; Green, Y; Hall, Y; Hinojosa, N; Jackson-Lee, N; E.B. Johnson, Y; Lampson, Y; Ortiz, N; Reyes, N; Rodriguez, N; Sandlin, Y; Stenholm, Y; Turner, Y. Republicans — Armey, Y; Barton, Y; Bonilla, Y; Brady, Y; Combest, Y; Culberson, Y; DeLay, Y; Granger, Y; Sam Johnson, Y; Paul, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y. UTAH Democrats — Matheson, N. Republicans — Cannon, Y; Hansen, Y. VERMONT Others — Sanders, N. VIRGINIA Democrats — Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, X. Republicans — Cantor, Y; Jo Ann Davis, Y; Tom Davis, N; Forbes, Y; Goodlatte, Y; Schrock, Y; Wolf, Y. Others — Goode, Y. WASHINGTON Democrats — Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N. Republicans — Dunn, Y; Hastings, Y; Nethercutt, Y. WEST VIRGINIA Democrats — Mollohan, Y; Rahall, N. Republicans — Capito, Y. WISCONSIN Democrats — Baldwin, N; Barrett, Y; Kind, X; Kleczka, N; Obey, Y. Republicans — Green, Y; Petri, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y. WYOMING Republicans — Cubin, Y. Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY: House vote advances Yucca plan Thursday, May 09, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Attention shifts toward Senate debate By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House delivered a strong and expected blow to Nevada on Wednesday with a lopsided vote to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The House voted 306-117 to authorize a Nevada radioactive waste repository, overturning a formal veto by Gov. Kenny Guinn and setting aside pleas from the state's two outgunned lawmakers. As state leaders long had predicted, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the Yucca Mountain Project, with only 13 GOP members opposing the repository. Democrats split, with 102 voting for the repository and 103 voting against it. Independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont also voted against Yucca Mountain. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who had set 100 votes as a goal, said the tally was "very respectable. Nobody expected we would win this vote." "We always knew our battle would not be in the House of Representatives, but in the U.S. Senate," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Attention immediately turned to the Senate, which now becomes Nevada's final chance to kill the repository program in Congress. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a Nevada ally, said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., "is going to make a very powerful case against Yucca Mountain but he will be battling powerful special interests. That's always been the case." For more than 3 1/2 hours on Wednesday, House members debated mostly familiar pros and cons of the Yucca Mountain Project. Supporters pointed to two decades of Energy Department study that they said has uncovered nothing to indicate a repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas shouldn't proceed to a licensing phase. There, they said, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would decide whether the repository could protect the environment from 77,000 tons of radioactive spent fuel from 103 commercial power plants and other nuclear waste from government facilities. Critics said the Bush administration has masked that Yucca Mountain is deeply flawed and unsafe. They also argued that little has been done to assure Americans that transporting the highly dangerous waste from 34 states to Nevada can be accomplished safely. "This is a horrible idea," Berkley said. As the vote neared, Gibbons issued a plea "that we consider something safer than burying this in a hole in the high desert in my district." "Where are my colleagues who are advocates of states' rights? Of local control? Of fiscal discipline?" he said. Reflecting the final vote, no Republicans other than Gibbons spoke up for Nevada's position. Democrats who spoke were mixed. "Science and logic are on the side of leaving this hazardous material on-site until we find a better solution," said Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. But another senior Democrat, John Dingell of Michigan, said Congress should pass the issue onto the NRC for decisions on nuclear waste "that's now in neighborhoods in your districts and mine." Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., displayed a poster of Nevada's new mushroom cloud license plate commemorating the Nevada Test Site. A repository supporter, Shimkus said the plate illustrated that Nevadans continue to bow to a "nuclear legacy." An infuriated Berkley responded Nevadans have died from cancers contracted while working at the test site. Gibbons remarked afterward that Shimkus "did not impress me." Congress was forced to take up nuclear waste after Guinn vetoed Bush's decision as part of a unique process established in 1982. "Today's vote was expected and is by no means the end," Guinn said. "We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on a parallel track in the courts." Reid put blame for the House vote on President Bush, who recommended Yucca Mountain for a repository on Feb. 14. "His lobbyists worked hard," Reid said. "In the Senate, I'll do everything I can to stop President Bush's plan." Reid said Nevada's margin of defeat in the House "is not helpful but I don't think there will be a huge carry-over" because the Senate's vote is not expected for another month or so. "The House vote is really what we expected," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "We've said all along the battle is in the Senate, and we've got a lot of things there we can try." The Senate Energy Committee announced Yucca Mountain hearings for next Tuesday, and May 16 and 23. Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., plans to have the committee vote on the issue after senators return from a Memorial Day recess early in June, a spokesman said. Guinn has been invited to speak at the Tuesday session. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is scheduled to appear on May 16, while the third hearing will feature a panel of science and technical experts to discuss the merits and shortcomings of the proposed repository site. Spokesman Greg Bortolin said Guinn has been focused on the state's medical malpractice crisis and "as of today plans have not been made" for him to travel to Washington next week. It would be Guinn's third trip to the capital since he vetoed Bush's Yucca Mountain designation on April 8. The two candidates for Southern Nevada's new 3rd Congressional District played roles in Wednesday's debate. Democrat Dario Herrera lobbied outside the House chamber. He said afterward 16 of 18 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, all Democrats, voted with Nevada. Republican Jon Porter offered support to Gibbons. After the vote, he began contacting Republicans who voted against the Yucca Mountain Project to thank them personally. As the House debated, several dozen lobbyists representing the White House, the nuclear power industry and environmental groups lined the sidewalk outside the U.S. Capitol, making pitches to lawmakers entering the building. After the vote, Abraham applauded the "overwhelming statement of bipartisan support" for the Yucca Mountain Project. "I urge the Senate to quickly approve our recommendation that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can make the final determination on the site's suitability to serve as a repository," he said. Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the vote "sends a clear bipartisan signal to the U.S. Senate" in favor of the project. Environmentalists and government watchdog groups decried the vote. "This is neither sound science nor sound policy. This is simply hoping that Americans are soundly asleep as the nuclear industry tries to pass this through Congress," said Pierre Sadik, an attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 29 House Approves Nuclear Dump at Yucca Mountain Environment News Service: AmeriScan: May 8, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC, May 8, 2002 (ENS) - The House of Representatives has approved Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the nation's nuclear waste repository. The final vote was 306-117 in favor of the Yucca Mountain proposal. "Nobody expected that we would win this vote in the House. In fact, almost everyone expected we would lose by a landslide, said Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, a Democrat who like all Nevada elected officials is against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. "The House Republican leadership and the nuclear energy industry were hoping that they would be able to roll over the State of Nevada with at least 350 votes, and roll into the Senate with all the momentum of a nuclear freight train. Naturally it is disappointing to lose such an important vote by a large margin, but by garnering more than 100 votes, we were able to defy expectations, deny the nuclear industry the huge win that they wanted, and slow the momentum on the bill as it moves to the Senate. A majority of the Democrats in the U.S. House voted against Yucca Mountain, and Nevada politicials hope that will be able to help Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, as he attempts to defeat the bill in the Senate. The decision comes after Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, a Republican, vetoed the Bush administration's initial decision to move forward on siting a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) applauded the House vote. "After spending more than $6 billion to determine the safest and most secure site, the government has correctly concluded that it is safe to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain," CCAGW president Tom Schatz said. "In addition, keeping the waste at its current location at nuclear plants around the nation wastes taxpayer dollars." Opponents of Yucca Mountain cite studies by international atomic energy experts that show the scientific underpinnings of the project are weak and incomplete. Berkeley and the entire Nevada Congressional delegation warn that transporting 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste across 43 states is not safe. A video on Berkeley's website shows a U.S. Army test during which a small missile was able to pierce the type of cask that would be used to transport the waste by road and rail. The Yucca Mountain battle now moves to the Senate which is expected to vote on the issue this summer. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. ***************************************************************** 30 House approves Bush plan for nuclear waste dump in Nevada Las Vegas SUN May 08, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Wednesday endorsed President Bush's decision to send the country's nuclear waste to Nevada, voting to override the state's objections to a radioactive dump 90 miles from Las Vegas. Lawmakers rejected arguments that thousands of waste shipments across 43 states would pose safety and security risks. Supporters of the dump said the waste poses a bigger threat if kept at reactor sites around the country. "Where are my colleagues who are advocates for states' rights, local control," asked Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., shortly before the House voted 306-117 to override Nevada's objections to having the wastes forced on them. The Senate plans three hearings this month on the site and will take up the issue this summer. Nevada lawmakers had expected the GOP-majority House to uphold Bush's decision, and they are concentrating their efforts across the Capitol. Under the current schedule, the first shipments would arrive in 2010 and continue for 24 years. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 UNIQUE PLUTONIUM SHIPMENT THREAT TO THE CARIBBEAN 8 May 2002 Amsterdam - The Caribbean is threatened with a unique plutonium shipment Greenpeace stated today, as two empty nuclear freighters are expected to enter the Caribbean Sea during the next few days. The ships, Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal left Barrow-in-Furness, England on April 26th and are due to enter the Caribbean around May 8th-9th. They are en-route to Japan where they are to pick up a cargo of plutonium Mixed Oxide (MOX) material, after which the material is to be shipped back to the British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) site at Sellafield in England. Greenpeace declared that Caribbean nations have only a matter of weeks to restate their opposition to the return shipment of plutonium which could occur as early as mid-June. The Japanese Foreign Ministry stated in January that three sea routes are available for the return plutonium shipment to the UK.(1) This includes the Panama Canal and Caribbean Sea. Since when however the Caribbean states through the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) have expressed their implacable opposition to the shipment of nuclear waste through their region calling on Japan to find alternatives.(2) "The Japanese Government and British Nuclear Fuels declare that no decision has yet been made on the route to be taken by this most controversial of nuclear shipments. If true that means the Caribbean is still at threat from this shipment. Only a few weeks ago one of BNFL’s ships caught fire. An accident with this cargo of plutonium could be catastrophic for the Caribbean. It is an unacceptable threat that must be stopped," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. The plutonium MOX is being returned to the UK because the Japanese Government and owners of the MOX rejected it following disclosures in 1999 that BNFL had deliberately lied over the safety checks conducted during its manufacture. BNFL and the UK Government agreed to pay Japan compensation and the cost of the transport amounting to 110 million pounds sterling. Greenpeace is opposed to the return as it presents an unacceptable environmental and security threat to all nations on the transport route. The plutonium MOX could be stored in Japan, and although not without risk, especially from a security and proliferation prespective, it is not as dangerous as shipping it tens of thousands of kilometers around the world. Since 1984 Japan has received over 2500 kilograms of plutonium, justified as necessary for Japan’s energy needs. Yet not one gram of the plutonium has been used to generate electricity. In 1984 a sea shipment of plutonium with enormous levels of security used the Caribbean Sea route to Japan, including British, French and US naval warships acting as escort. The Pacific Pintail and Teal are lightly armed nuclear freighters with armed terrorist police on board. Only last week the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark expressed strong opposition to this shipment during meetings with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. She also committed the Government to supporting Greenpeace in its efforts against the transport (3). The Irish Government is still considering legal action against the UK Government to prevent the shipment. Ireland cites a commitment made by the UK Government to the United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea during a legal case brought by Ireland during 2001. The UK stated that no shipment associated with a new plutonium MOX plant at Sellafield would be made until October 2002. Jamaica, with the backing of other Caribbean nations recently led moves at the United Nations in New York to oppose the transport of plutonium and nuclear waste. During negotiations at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Prepcom, Jamaica together with Chile, New Zealand, Ireland and Norway expressed their concerns over the continuing threat posed by nuclear sea shipments (4). "The Caribbean nations have been a consistent and strong critic of these shipments. Increasingly they are being joined by countries around the world. Since 1984 the nuclear industry has not used this route for plutonium. However, for this shipment anything is possible. Governments, politicians, and the wider community need to act now to prevent this shipment from threatening the Caribbean. They can be stopped but only through decisive and strong opposition," said Tom Clements of Greenpeace International in Panama. Describing the shipment as unlawful, on April 29th Greenpeace announced that it was sending its largest vessel, the MV Esperanza, to Japan to support the opposition to Japan’s plutonium program and this shipment. The environmental organization is considering legal options to prevent the shipment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: - Shaun Burnie - Greenpeace International - in the UK +44 1557 814 195 - Tom Clements - Greenpeace International - in Panama, Hotel Executivo +507 265 8011 - Mhairi Dunlop - Greenpeace Communications – in Amsterdam +31 65 350 4731 Visit [http://www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/bnfl] for more information. Notes to editors: (1) The Japanese Foreign Minister statement was made in response to questions posed by Japanese Lower House of Parliament member, Ms Fukushima. January 30th 2002. (2) The CARICOM statements made on December 8th-9th, 2001, in Nassau, The Bahamas, at the Heads of Government meeting, and the Eighth CARICOM-Japan Consultation 4-5th March, St Johns, Antigua can be found at see www.CARICOM.org; (3) Meeting held in Auckland, New Zealand – May 2nd 2002. (4) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Talks, New York, April 8th – 19th. ***************************************************************** 32 Yucca Mountain timeline Real Cities.com | 05/08/2002 | Posted on Wed, May. 08, 2002 + 1946: Atomic Energy Act established a federal monopoly over the use, control, and ownership of nuclear technology. + 1964: Congress amends Atomic Energy Act to allow private ownership of nuclear materials, but keeps control over waste disposal. + 1982: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs DOE to begin disposing of used nuclear fuel in a geologic repository by January 31, 1998, and prescribes a process for selecting a disposal site. + 1986: DOE issues Environmental Assessments for five potential geologic disposal sites, including Yucca Mountain. + 1987: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is amended to direct DOE to study only Yucca Mountain as a potential repository for geologic disposal. + 1999: NRC and EPA propose regulations for the licensing of Yucca Mountain and draft Environmental Impact Statement. + 2001: DOE releases its Science and Engineering report and its Preliminary Site Suitability Report for Yucca Mountain. + Feb. 14, 2002: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommends use of Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste. + Feb. 15, 2002: President Bush approves DOE's recommendation to use Yucca to store nuclear waste. + April 8, 2002: Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn formally objected to the Yucca designation. + July 25, 2002 (tentative): Congressional deadline for acting on Yucca designation + 2004: DOE's projected timeframe to apply to NRC for a license to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain. + 2007/8: Expected date that NRC would issue a license for construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain, if regulatory requirements for public health and safety protection are satisfied. + 2010 Construction completes and storage and shipping to Yucca begins. + 2034: Yucca reaches legal limit of 72,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. A change in law could bring in more spent nuclear fuel to Yucca or a second waste depository could be built. + 2080 to 2100: DOE asks for permission to close Yucca. + 2110: DOE begins closing Yucca. + 2116: DOE finishs closing Yucca. + 12,000: After 10,000 years much of the nuclear waste has slowly been eliminated through radioactive decay. + ds of years into the future are met, NRC will issue a license allowing the repository to be closed. This will be the final decision on geologic disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. + 12,000: 10,000 years after being placed in the dry stable geology of Yucca Mountain, waste containers continue to delay release of their contents while the radioactive materials inside are slowly eliminated through the process of radioactive decay. Radiation levels due to the repository are a small fraction of naturally occurring background - well below today's EPA limits. SOURCE: Nuclear Energy Institute: Department of Energy ***************************************************************** 33 Analysis finds low risk for shipping of nuclear waste KRT Wire | 05/08/2002 | [http://www.ohio.com] BY SETH BORENSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - - Opponents of the Bush administration's plan to haul 154 million pounds of nuclear waste across the nation to be buried in Nevada's Yucca Mountain warn of "mobile Chernobyls" chugging through America's heartland. They want Congress to reject the plan. To muster support outside Nevada, opponents are trumpeting the fact that every year starting around 2010, 175 train and truck convoys filled with nuclear waste would pass through counties where more than a third of all Americans live. The trains and trucks could be targets of terrorist attacks or fall victim to accidents, Yucca opponents warn. Radiation could then leak into the air from the sealed containers, killing thousands, they claim. Impartial scientists, engineers and terrorism experts, as well as a database analysis that Knight Ridder conducted, concluded that such a disaster is extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, a major radiation leak would be a catastrophe, and America will have to live with its decision about how to dispose of its nuclear trash virtually forever. After more than 50 years in the nuclear era, the nation has already accumulated nearly 100 million pounds of radioactive waste, which will remain lethal for millions of years. It's stored at temporary sites in 39 states. The Bush administration wants to haul it all to Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles north of Las Vegas, and bury it there for 10,000 years. The administration's plan would require shipping nuclear waste about 1.1 million miles every year, mostly across rural areas. Still, more than 125,000 of those miles would be through populous suburbs and cities. The casks that contain the wastes are designed to withstand almost any shock, and the nature of the waste itself helps ensure that it's unlikely to threaten public safety even if it's released. But the margin for error is small. One type of terrorist attack could cause more than 18,000 people to die from cancer, according to a study the state of Nevada sponsored that the plan's opponents will release next week. "I'm in favor of transporting the materials; I used to be against it years ago," said University of Georgia toxicologist Cham Dallas. He has spent 10 years studying the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union. "We've got a system now that we can live with. . . . From a risk-management point of view, it's just not a major issue." The storage casks feature layers of steel and lead several inches thick. They're designed to withstand being dropped from 30 feet, impaled on a spike, then plunged into water. They must withstand temperatures of 1,475 degrees for 30 minutes. Even so, skeptics note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tests only parts of the containers, and relies on computer models to test their overall strength. The waste itself is solid ceramic, which means it could not be dispersed as easily as a liquid or a gas. Dallas, who consults with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on nuclear incident health preparations, said that if the casks were breached, "nothing is going to happen" because of the waste's physics. "It's a metallic waste. It just goes right to the ground," Dallas said. "It's just not mobilized and thrown up in the atmosphere like we used to think it would be." Even if the waste somehow were changed into smaller particles - by fire, for example - the pieces would be so big they couldn't be inhaled, he said. Opponents, however, cited a 1982 incident as a cautionary tale. At that time, nuclear waste was shipped in containers filled with air, which reacts more with spent nuclear fuel than the nitrogen that fills the casks now. In one shipment back then, a nuclear-fuel rod cracked and heated up. When it was unloaded, scientists found that much of it had turned to a fine powder similar to talcum, said Lindsay Audin. He is an energy consultant whom the state of Nevada hired to help fight the Yucca project, and he co-wrote the 1983 book "The Next Nuclear Gamble: Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste." "It is so easy to disperse, it coats the insides of air bubbles," Audin said. Opponents of Yucca said a terrorist attack could expose the waste to air, starting a deadly chain of events. Their biggest fear is portable anti-tank missiles. A missile attack on a nuclear waste truck in an urban area could release enough radiation to give 1,820 people lethal doses of cancer, according to two reports that Nevada will release next week. That number could grow tenfold if missiles blew two holes in a cask, which would give better airflow. That could lead to a reaction with oxygen that would turn the waste into a powder that could be inhaled, the reports say. Other threats include land mines or a hijacked gasoline tanker rammed into a nuclear-waste convoy, which could set off an explosion and release radiation, warned James David Ballard, a Grand Rapids, Mich., terrorism consultant whom Nevada hired. Yet virtually every terrorism expert interviewed who isn't being paid by Nevada said a terrorist attack on a nuclear convoy would be too difficult to coordinate. "Yeah, (an attack on a convoy) is always a possibility, but there are a lot of easier targets," said Amy Sands, a terrorism expert and deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. "This is one of those activities that is so overplanned, on some level it's just ridiculous." Moving 175 shipments of nuclear waste a year would offer more targets, experts conceded. But the shipments would be so well-protected and hard to find that a successful attack would be harder than the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were, said Rusty Capps, a former top FBI counterintelligence official who's now president of The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies in Virginia. Such confident assertions don't convince skeptics. "Terrorist experts haven't been able to allow us to avoid the USS Cole or the World Trade Center or the embassies in Africa," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public interest group that has raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power. The nuclear industry cites Europe's long record of safe waste shipments. "This material has been moved far more in Europe than in this country, and terrorism has been known in Europe on a small scale far longer than in this country. And it's never been a target in Europe," said Steve Kraft, fuels manager for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's Washington lobby. America's experience isn't so comforting, Yucca opponents said. They noted that the NRC doesn't require armed guards on waste convoys except through urban areas. Federal officials had feared that al-Qaida was surveying U.S. nuclear plants. Opponents also pointed to an incident two months ago, when two escapees from a prison camp jumped on a train that was carrying nuclear waste southwest of Raleigh, N.C. The prisoners jumped off when they saw armed guards; utility officials contend that this proved the train was secure. The NRC said it was reviewing all security measures. While guards may stop terrorists, they can't stop accidents, and accidents do happen. The Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository would require trains to carry radioactive waste more than 1 million miles a year, and trucks with similar loads would add another 100,000 miles, according to the Department of Energy. The current U.S. mishap rate for trains and trucks suggests there would be nearly 100 rail accidents and one or two truck accidents over the 24 years the Yucca facility would be accepting waste. Still, no harmful radiation is likely to leak in those accidents, according to an NRC statistical analysis, as well as outside experts. Since 1960, 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel has been hauled 1.6 million miles across the country. Eight accidents have occurred in that time. No radiation has ever been released. Under Bush's Yucca Mountain plan, however, there would be more nuclear waste shipped each year starting in 2010 than the past 42 years combined. About 6.5 million pounds of waste would be hauled each year for 24 years. Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant whom Nevada hired to coordinate scientific opposition to Yucca, said the government's risk analysis was too optimistic. He cited a disaster in Baltimore last summer to prove his point. Last July a fire smoldered at 1,500 degrees in a rail tunnel beneath the city for several days. The NRC requires nuclear waste casks to withstand only 1,475-degree fires, and for only half an hour. "All of the predicting in the world could not have predicted the Baltimore rail fire, because that's what happens in the real world," Halstead said. If nuclear waste had been consumed in the Baltimore fire, about five people eventually would have died from cancer because of radiation exposure, according to the DOE. Nancy Osgood, NRC transportation project manager, said the casks could survive a Baltimore-type fire, even though they haven't been tested for those conditions. Other experts also doubted that radiation would leak out. ". . . The likelihood of anything happening is extremely small. The system has been so overly designed from a taxpayer's point of view," said John Plodineck, a Mississippi State University chemist and a former nuclear waste specialist at the government's Savannah River Site, which produces the materials for nuclear weapons. "This is scare-mongering of the worst sort." Seth Borenstein covers covers health, science, environment, aviation and other technical issues for Knight Ridder Newspapers. Write him at [sborenstein@krwashington.com] . On the Web: Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project Transportation Fact Sheet: [http://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/facts/transfct/transfct.htm] Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project Home Page: [http://www.ymp.gov] Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project Final Environmental Impact Statement: [http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_a/index.htm] State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Transportation Home Page: [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans.htm] State of Nevada's Anti-Yucca Home Page: [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/index.htm] State of Nevada's comments about DOE's Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca: [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/yucca/index.htm] Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Spent Fuel Transportation Home Page: [http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-transp.html] Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Radioactive Waste Home Page: [http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html] Anti-Yucca Mountain Project Home Page for the anti-nuclear group Nuclear Information and Resource Service: [http://www.nirs.org/dontwasteamerica/dtwsam.htm] The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobby: [http://www.nei.org] About Ohio.com | ***************************************************************** 34 High-profile political battle over Yucca Mountain lies ahead KRT Wire | 05/08/2002 | Knight Ridder Washington Bureau Washington Bureau [http://www.krwashington.com] Posted on Wed, May. 08, 2002 BY JAMES KUHNHENN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - The videotaped explosion blasts a fist-sized hole in a cask built to hold radioactive nuclear-fuel rods. Its distributors hope it also will blast a hole in the Bush administration's plan to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Yucca Mountain is a volcanic heap in the desert 100 miles north of Las Vegas. Bush administration officials argue that it's an ideal resting place for tons of spent nuclear fuel that are accumulating in sites scattered across 39 states. In one of the most far-reaching decisions it will ever make, Congress must decide whether the waste, which is lethally radioactive for millions of years, should be shipped by road and rail to Yucca Mountain starting around 2010 or whether it should remain in temporary storage facilities that are within a two-hour drive of 165 million Americans. One thing is clear: Nevada doesn't want it, and a coalition of opponents has organized an aggressive, uphill campaign to get Congress to block the Yucca Mountain plan. If Congress approves the plan, they warn, about half of all communities in America will be vulnerable to radioactive disaster. Terrorists could attack nuclear waste trucks with shoulder-fired missiles, they say, or a train could derail in the middle of your city. Ads fanning those fears will appear on television in key states this summer, trying to rouse public opinion as Congress nears a decision on whether to turn Yucca Mountain into America's nuclear-waste dump for eternity. Yucca's opponents admit they're playing hardball. "We've gotten all the votes we can out of love," said one aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Now it's all fear." The debate over how to deal with the toxic residue of 50 years of atomic power pits a state's rights to control its land against the federal government's duty to solve a pressing national problem. It also pits the nuclear industry against an unlikely alliance of environmentalists who fear Yucca is unsafe and Nevada casino operators who fear a falloff in tourism. Critics of the Yucca Mountain plan argue that the waste should be put in special concrete casks and stored at the existing sites to avoid the dangers of hauling it around the country. Advocates of Yucca Mountain maintain that the desert is a far safer place for the stuff. With some notable exceptions, the debate breaks along partisan lines, with Bush and nuclear-friendly Republicans confronting a green-leaning Democratic Party. The House of Representatives voted 306-117 on Wednesday to approve Bush's Yucca Mountain plan. The House vote sets the stage for a July showdown in the Senate, where opponents of Yucca Mountain are making their last stand. It's a long shot. Opponents think they have only about 34 Senate votes so far, and they need 51. More than 40 senators have indicated they will support putting the waste site at Yucca. That leaves perhaps 24 up for grabs. Opponents of Yucca Mountain hope that the Senate, fresh from rejecting Bush's plan to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, will see this as the next big environmental test for Congress. But given the odds against victory, some environmental groups are unenthusiastic about making Yucca Mountain a test case for their movement. Top Democrats are seizing the issue as a way to criticize Bush. They cite his vow during the 2000 presidential campaign to await all scientific research before making a decision on the site. That promise helped Bush beat former Vice President Al Gore in Nevada. Now Gore is fighting back. "This broken promise on Yucca is not just about Nevada," Gore told cheering delegates at the Florida Democratic convention in April. "This waste will be trucked through 45 states on the very highways and streets that you use every day to drive your children to school and get to work." But more than a few Democrats support burying the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca, because that would remove it from their own backyards. This makes it hard to forge a solid environmentalist-Democratic coalition against Yucca. Anti-Yucca forces already have tested one television ad in Vermont, hoping to persuade Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and James Jeffords, the Senate's only independent, to change their minds. Both consider themselves passionate environmentalists, but both also have said they support the Yucca Mountain site because it would remove nuclear waste from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in Vernon, Vt. The Bush administration ignited this fuse in February, when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced that Yucca Mountain is well suited to store 154 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel for the next 10,000 years. His announcement came even though scientific studies of the site are incomplete. An independent review board set up to advise Congress concluded that gaps in scientific data make the technical basis for the department's decision "weak to moderate." Nevada Gov. Kenny C. Guinn, a Republican, vetoed the Energy Department's decision in April under a right Congress granted to Nevada governors. Under a special law that governs this issue, Congress has until the end of July to reverse Guinn's veto. The Senate forces arrayed against the Yucca Mountain site include Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada's powerful Democratic senator, and Sen. John Ensign, the state's first-term Republican senator. The state and its casinos have retained two former White House chiefs of staff - John Podesta, who served President Bill Clinton, and Kenneth Duberstein, who served President Ronald Reagan - to persuade senators that Yucca Mountain is unacceptable. Lined up against them, the nuclear industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have two equally potent lobbyists, Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate, and John Sununu, the White House chief of staff under President George Bush, the current president's father. This is high-roller lobbying. The nuclear industry has hosted congressional aides in Las Vegas, wining and dining them, taking them to tour Yucca Mountain. The anti-Yucca forces got some indirect help from Hollywood - via Washington. Dee Dee Myers, who was Clinton's press secretary, is a writer on the NBC drama "West Wing." She got Nevada Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley to help her research a script about an accident involving a nuclear-waste truck. The show aired April 3, delighting Nevadans. Both sides spend big money. Over the past decade, the Nuclear Energy Institute and its industry members contributed $29.2 million in "soft money," or unregulated cash, to the two big political parties, according to the watchdog group Common Cause. The gambling industry has contributed $21 million in soft money to the two parties since 1992. In addition, the American Gaming Association, headed by former Republican Party Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, has set aside $500,000 for an anti-Yucca Mountain lobbying and advertising campaign that reportedly will cost more than $5 million. The Senate showdown puts Ensign, a former casino operator, in the political fight of his life. His job is to convert Republican senators to his cause, and he says he spends 80 percent of his time trying to convince fellow Republicans to break ranks with President Bush. He has honed his pitch to a 30-minute plea, supplemented by 1-inch binders of anti-Yucca information tailored to each member's state. A rookie senator elected in 2000, Ensign is not having much success. But more than 20 senators haven't committed on the issue. So far, the only other Republicans tilting his way are Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Ensign won't identify any potential Republican converts, saying he doesn't want to make them targets of counterlobbying by the nuclear industry and the White House. Many senators are already on record as supporting some sort of centralized nuclear-waste storage facility, and changing their minds is proving to be nearly impossible. "A lot of Republicans are already in front on this issue," Ensign said in an interview. "Not only because they want to get it out of their backyard, but because they saw it (opposition to the Nevada site) as a Democratic issue. Trying to get them to reverse their positions is our very biggest challenge. Senators don't like to change their votes." While Ensign works on Republicans, Reid works on Democrats. Nearly a dozen Democrats have indicated they will vote for transporting waste to Yucca Mountain, according to a survey by the Las Vegas Journal Register. Still, Reid has more leverage than Ensign does. As the Senate's majority vote-getter, he's the second highest-ranking Democrat. Many Democrats feel indebted to him because he was instrumental in getting Vermont's Jeffords to leave the Republican Party last year, which gave Democrats control of the Senate. "He is not only an important member of leadership. Every (Democratic) member knows this is the most important issue possible to Harry Reid," said Jim Jordan, the political director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "It's very difficult for Democratic senators to let him down." Party strategists think the Yucca issue could help Democrats win some Senate races this year. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is particularly vulnerable, they say, because his fellow Colorado senator, Campbell, opposes Yucca. Allard favors it, and he isn't budging. Illustrating what Yucca's opponents are up against, Allard thinks the prevailing sentiment among environmentalists in his state will be "not in my backyard." "The majority of them," he said, "want the nuclear materials moved out of the states." ***************************************************************** 35 Past nuclear transport accidents Lexington Herald-Leader | 05/09/2002 | [http://www.kentucky.com] [Kentucky Photos] Posted on Thu, May. 09, 2002 WASHINGTON - Since 1960, trains and trucks carrying a total of 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel have traveled 1.6 million miles and have had eight accidents, none of which released any radioactive material. Starting about 2010, the Department of Energy plans to ship 154 million pounds of nuclear waste to a proposed dump in Nevada's Yucca Mountain over the following 24 years. Opponents of the plan charge that transporting nuclear waste by truck and train endangers communities along the way. Here's what happened in past accidents: • Dec. 8, 1971. In Tennessee, the driver of a truck carrying nuclear waste swerved off the road in a rainstorm. The truck rolled over into a ditch, killing the driver. The cask carrying the waste was thrown off the truck. The cask was not damaged, and no material leaked. • March 29, 1974. In a North Carolina rail yard, a train derailed and struck another train that was carrying an empty cask designed to carry nuclear fuel. Damage to the cask was superficial.• Feb. 9, 1978. In Illinois, the trailer of a truck hauling nuclear waste collapsed while the truck was crossing a railroad track. The cask was not damaged. No material leaked. • Aug. 13, 1978. In New Jersey, an empty nuclear-fuel cask was being placed on a trailer when the trailer deck failed because of a broken weld. The cask was not damaged.• Dec. 9, 1983. On the Indiana-Illinois-Tennessee border, a waste-hauling truck separated from its trailer, which was carrying a nuclear-fuel cask. The cask was not damaged. There were no leaks. • March 24, 1987. In St. Louis, a train carrying nuclear waste collided with a car at a road crossing. The cask was not damaged. There were no leaks. • Jan. 9, 1988. In Nebraska, a train carrying an empty cask derailed. The cask was not damaged. • Dec. 14, 1995. In North Carolina, a train carrying empty casks derailed. The casks were not damaged. Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau ***************************************************************** 36 ANTI-YUCCA MOUNTAIN ADVERTISEMENTS BEGIN AIRING IN UTAH From the office of Governor Kenny Guinn FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: May 9, 2002 CONTACT: Greg Bortolin CARSON CITY: 775/684-5670 LAS VEGAS: 702/486-2500 CELL: 775-230-3302 FAX: 775/684-7198 E-MAIL: Bortolin@gov.state.nv.us [bortolin@gov.state.nv.us] Spot Highlights Dangers of Shipping Nuclear Waste to Nevada Through Cities, Communities LAS VEGAS – A new public awareness television advertising campaign kicked off today in Utah spotlighting the potential dangers associated with hauling nuclear waste through Utah’s cities and communities to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. The 30-second spot warns Utah residents about the risks associated with the U.S. Department of Energy’s plans to transport 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from temporary storage sites across the country to Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is estimated that more than 90 percent of that waste will travel through Utah by train or truck. “It is vitally important to educate people across the country about the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear waste through their communities,” said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency. “We want everybody to understand that this is an issue of national significance, and is not just limited to Nevada.” The ad emphasizes the vulnerability of the nuclear waste shipments to accidents and terrorist attacks, and the risks posed to people living in cities and communities along the transportation route. It concludes by urging viewers to contact Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett, urging them to oppose the Yucca Mountain project. Paid for by Physicians for Social Responsibility and the State of Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, the ad is scheduled to run on the four major network affiliates in Salt Lake City. Media contact: Contact: Dana Pretner or Tom Bradley Jr., Brown & Partners (702) 967-2222. ###### ***************************************************************** 37 Editorial: Whistle of nuke train gets shrill Las Vegas SUN May 09, 2002 We expected a lopsided House of Representatives vote on Yucca Mountain and we got one. But even months of anticipation hardly prepares you for the final moment when 306 leaders from throughout the country cast a vote laced with so much potential for harm. If this potential was confined to Nevada the vote could be explained on the insidious theory that lawmakers valued a nuclear waste solution -- not a sound solution but a solution nonetheless -- over one sparsely populated state. But with the waste destined for precarious travel through 43 states, can it be said they valued the solution more than safety in practically the whole country? What other explanation can there be for the House voting 306 to 117 to proceed with Yucca Mountain? If this burial site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is approved by the Senate this summer, it means that a miracle will be needed (such as federal officials suddenly recognizing the plan's flaws) to prevent a minimum of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste riding the nation's rails and highways round-the-clock for a minimum of 24 years beginning in 2010. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Tuesday urged his colleagues to vote yes on Yucca Mountain, giving as his reasons "the current hodgepodge" of storage sites at nuclear plants (including 11 in his state) and the fact that Yucca Mountain is a "scientifically proven safe single storage facility." Wrong on both counts. With the nuclear industry currently producing 2,000 tons of waste a year, there will always -- for as long as nuclear plants are operating -- be a hodgepodge of storage sites. There will never be a time when nuclear plants are free of waste. Additionally, since when has Yucca Mountain been scientifically proven as safe? Hastert did not mention the ground water danger and the need for 100,000 years of geologic stability in an area that is the third most seismically active in the nation. Just 10 years ago a magnitude 5.6 earthquake took place eight miles southeast of Yucca Mountain, rattling homes and hotels in Las Vegas. Since 1976 there have been 621 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. The notion that this area will safely contain the world's deadliest material for 100,000 years is absurd. Finally, Hastert m ade no mention of the 293 technical and scientific issues concerning Yucca Mountain that government scientists have as yet ! been unable to resolve. Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., warned their colleagues during many pre-vote forums of the dangers Yucca represents to Nevada and the nation. Nevertheless, the political momentum of this solution driven by the nuclear power industry was too much to overcome in the Republican-dominated House. The representatives who voted for this measure will have some explaining to do when the inevitable accident or possible terrorist attack takes place in their districts. Every inch of the transportation route is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The U.S. Senate vote on Yucca coming up this summer represents the last chance in Congress to stop this terribly flawed plan. Nevada is making a gallant effort to educate senators and the nation of the extreme dangers associated with the burial itself and the transportation. Nevada and the country can still win if people can, just for a few minutes, stop what they're doing and "hear that train a-comin'." AT ISSUE: The House of Representatives voted 306 to 117 on Wednesday to override Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of President Bush's recommendation to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste underneath Yucca Mountain. OUR TAKE: The House vote was expected but nevertheless sobering in light of the extreme dangers posed by the burial itself and the transportation. There is still time to prevail in the U.S. Senate, however. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Nev. Loses Effort to Block Nuke Site May 9, 2002 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 7:38 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nevada's hopes of blocking a nuclear waste site in the state are dwindling after a rousing House endorsement of the project and indications the Senate may consider the issue as early as next month. Ignoring concerns by some lawmakers about the risks of thousands of nuclear waste shipments crossing the country, the House decided by a nearly 3-1 margin to support President Bush's plan to make Yucca Mountain the nation's central nuclear waste repository. The mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock and ash, is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and adjacent to the Nevada Test Site where the government detonated scores of nuclear bombs during the Cold War years. Despite the overwhelming House defeat, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, said he was confident the facility never will be built. ``We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on parallel track in the courts,'' he said in a statement. Three Nevada lawsuits challenging the Yucca plan already are in the courts. The next showdown will come in the Senate, which must decide by July whether to override a Nevada veto of the Yucca Mountain project -- as the House did on Wednesday by a 306-117 vote. Senate sources said a resolution supporting the Nevada waste site was expected to be voted out of committee the first week in June. Under special procedures outlined by Congress in 1982, the resolution can be brought up for a Senate vote by any senator and cannot be amended or blocked by a filibuster. ``Certainly the Senate will take note of the overwhelming bipartisan support the Yucca Mountain project has received in the House,'' Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. He expressed confidence Congress would endorse the project. Once Congress acts, the Energy Department has said it would have a license application ready for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2004 and hoped to open the site for waste shipments by 2010. The total cost of construction and operation for the first 100 years has been estimated at $58 billion. Nevada officials have vowed to fight the project before the NRC and in the courts, arguing that the Energy Department has failed to show that the wastes can be contained safely beneath the mountain for the tens of thousands of years that some of the material will remain dangerously radioactive. Congress in 1987 declared that Yucca Mountain should be the only site to be considered for nuclear waste disposal. Since then, nearly $7 billion has been spent on studying the area's geology and developing a waste package and design. It is ``scientifically proven safe'' and as a single, central storage facility is preferable to ``the current hodgepodge'' of locations now holding the waste, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., insisted as the House debated the matter Wednesday. Illinois has 11 power reactors, the most of any state, and a growing waste problem. But opponents, including Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, argued that too many scientific uncertainties remain and that it is too risky -- especially after last September's terrorist attacks -- to ship the waste across the country by truck and rail. The plan envisions 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste to be shipped to Yucca Mountain over 24 years. The Energy Department estimated about 2,200 truck shipments a year if most the waste goes by highway, although some opponents say that number is conservative. The waste now is located at 131 locations in 39 states, most of it at 103 commercial reactors. Shipments are likely to go through parts of at least 43 states, according to opponents to the Nevada project, although a final route map has not been developed. Abraham called the concerns about waste transport ``baseless'' and said that during the past 30 years nuclear waste has been carried more than 1.6 million miles without a harmful release of radiation. ``Currently more than 161 million people live within 75 miles of a nuclear waste storage site,'' said Abraham, and that poses a greater risk than transporting the material. Nevada's two House members accused their colleagues of wanting to push the material off on Nevada to get it out of their states. ``Where are my colleagues who are advocates for states' rights, local control?'' said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said Nevada was singled out because it is ``a small state with a small congressional delegation.'' But supporters of the Yucca project noted that Nevada has had a long history with nuclear power, having been the site of many nuclear bomb tests during the Cold War. To emphasize the point, one lawmaker brought a picture of Nevada's new official auto license plate -- showing the classic mushroom cloud created by a nuclear blast. On the Net: Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: http://www.nwtrb.gov/ Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.rw.doe.gov/ Copyright 2002 The Associated Press | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 39 Goodman: Top cop cops out Las Vegas SUN May 09, 2002 Goodman: Top cop cops out By Erin Neff LAS VEGAS SUN It wasn't what Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that riled Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman -- it was what he wouldn't talk about. Ashcroft, who was in Las Vegas to meet with the Southern Nevada Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force, ducked a question about whether nuclear waste transportation was susceptible to terrorist attacks. "The matters related to Yucca Mountain are the subject of serious litigation in a number of settings," Ashcroft said, noting that he could not comment to the media about matters better suited to the courts. Goodman seethed from his seat in the front row at the news conference -- attended by dozens more dignitaries and law enforcement than media -- and called the event at the George Federal Building "outrageous." "I'm a guest in his house, and when you're a guest in someone's house you don't criticize the chef," Goodman said, restraining the urge to label Ashcroft with terms he's used for other Bush Cabinet members. In the past the mayor has called Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham a "fathead" and a "piece of garbage." The mayor, while withholding such colorful monikers, was direct in his criticism of Ashcroft. "That was a cop-out," he said. Goodman shook his head slightly each time Ashcroft mentioned "Nevahdah," and left the courthouse saying "I'm hotter than fish grease." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Yucca chronology Las Vegas SUN May 09, 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. 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 because it won't meet a 1998 deadline for accepting waste. Federal court sides with industry and says government is liable if it fails to meet deadline. 1998 -- Energy department fails to take waste as promised. 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. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 State's Yucca fight shifts to Senate Las Vegas SUN May 09, 2002 Despite House vote, Reid is 'cautiously optimistic' By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Now that the House has given the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository its approval with a 306-117 vote Wednesday, the project could move quickly through the Senate, where Nevada leaders hope to derail it. Despite the overwhelming House vote, Sen Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he is "cautiously optimistic that we will prevail" in the Senate. House leaders acted quickly on the resolution to override Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto and approve putting a the repository in Yucca Mountain. Nevada leaders have always said the best chance to stop the project is in the Senate, where Reid is majority whip. The Senate will take it up quickly: Three Energy Committee hearings are scheduled during the next two weeks, and Reid said the bill could come to the Senate floor as early as late June. Reid and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the defeat in the House would not deter their quiet, long-shot lobbying effort in the Senate, where they need 51 votes against the controversial project. Reid said he is relying on Ensign to corral about 12 Republicans, hinting that there could be as many as 39 Democrats willing to vote against Yucca Mountain. "If we get a dozen Republicans, we'll be in good shape," Reid said Wednesday. Gov. Kenny Guinn said this morning on "DayOne Las Vegas" that the vote was a success because Yucca opponents picked up more votes than they started with. "(The vote count) did improve," he said. "That means more and more people are listening." Guinn said he is more optimistic of the state's chances to stop the dump in the courts rather than in the Senate. "I'm not going to say we're going to win in the Senate because this is a high-powered political issue and we're a small state," he said. But with the clock ticking, Ensign's task seems nearly impossible. He would not say whether he has managed to convince more than Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., to oppose a Yucca dump. Ensign in the last six weeks has met with all but "a handful" of the Republican senators, trying to raise doubts about the nuclear waste project. Aside from Campbell, none is on record opposing the dump. A few have agreed to be "undecided," Ensign said. "I still think we have a very difficult task, but we are going to work it right up until the very end," he said. Most observers expect the Senate to approve the repository. After the vote, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham reasserted his argument that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- not Congress -- should have the final say about whether Yucca Mountain is constructed. The NRC would be responsible for reviewing an Energy Department application to license the waste site. "Nothing that the opponents of Yucca Mountain have presented, including baseless allegations regarding the transportation of nuclear waste, rises to the burden of proof that requires Congress to stop the process before a thorough review of the site is conducted by the independent experts at the NRC," Abraham said in a statement. House GOP leaders wanted to push the Yucca resolution into the Senate with an overwhelming vote. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a driving force behind Yucca in the House, said 306 votes in favor -- including 102 Democrats and independent Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia -- were 30 or 40 more than he anticipated. Barton predicted at least 58 or 59 senators would support Yucca. The House vote should be another wake-up call for Nevada lawmakers to relinquish some of their opposition to the dump so that they can begin negotiating for cash and project terms, he said. "You can say, 'We don't want it, and we don't like it, but if you are going to have it here, we want points A, B, C and D addressed,' " Barton told the Sun. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he was disappointed just 13 Republicans voted against Yucca; he had hoped for as many as 20. "There was a great deal of arm-twisting in the last few minutes" by Barton and Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the House Energy and Commerce chairman, Gibbons said. In the broader scope, Nevada's two congressmen were overmatched by the nuclear energy industry, which has spent millions of dollars in recent months on lobbying and advertising, Gibbons said. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top trade group, helped organize lobbyists, who swarmed House offices in recent weeks, and paid for print and television advertisements in national media outlets. "We did well to get the votes we did," Gibbons said. "These are trying times for Nevada. This was a fateful day." At issue in the House on Wednesday was a one-sentence resolution on whether to approve Yucca Mountain. Congress will handle Yucca budget issues and oversight, but the vote on the simple legislation was the final opportunity for the House to offer its verdict on the nuclear waste project that dates from 1982. One by one, repository advocates -- a number of whom have nuclear plants in their districts -- came to the floor to tout the virtues of Yucca. For years, they have been eager to ship out waste that has been piling up in their districts. "We need to finish the job today," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., stressed that Congress did not have the final word on Yucca. Scientists and other Nuclear Regulatory Commission experts who would license the site, should be making the final decision. "This is just another step in the process," Dingell said. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., agreed. "The vote today does not lock us in forever. Now is not the time to jump ship." Gibbons and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., drew on their allies for help during the 3 1/2-hour debate. Of the 117 lawmakers who voted against Yucca, 103 were Democrats, and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont. Nevada officials hope his vote could influence Sen. James Jeffords, another independent, who has voiced support for Yucca. Rep. James Matheson, D-Utah, said he did not want waste shipments hauled through his state. He said he did not trust the government to be honest about the risks of storing nuclear waste because it had not been upfront about the risks of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada during the Cold War. Many Utah residents suffered various health problems as "downwinders" Matheson said. "The federal government told us we were safe, but it knew we were at risk," Matheson said. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said the Energy Department's site recommendation was simply based on bad science. She said she would vote against the project even though her state is home to nuclear waste. "I don't mind standing up with the few and the brave," Lee said. Berkley disputed GOP leaders who said the House vote gave them a giant push heading into the Senate. "Naturally it is disappointing to lose such an important vote by a large margin," Berkley said. "But by garnering more than 100 votes, we were able to defy expectations, deny the nuclear industry the huge win that they wanted, and slow the momentum on the bill as it moves to the Senate." After the vote, nuclear energy industry officials praised the House asdejected environmental groups said they would turn their attention to the Senate. "Lawmakers in the House have demonstrated their commitment to a solution to the nation's growing nuclear waste storage problem -- now it's up to the Senate to follow their lead," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which actively supports a Yucca repository. Las Vegas' chapter severed its ties with the parent group over the issue. The House vote signaled not just support for a waste project, but nuclear power in general, Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief Executive Joe Colvin said. "The House of Representatives today affirmed the future of a vital national energy and environmental project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Colvin said. "The House, in a clear bipartisan signal to the U.S. Senate, supports the science-based decision to build a national repository 1,000 feet under the Nevada desert, and recognizes the safety and security of the transportation system that will move nuclear byproducts from 39 states to the facility." Public Citizen, the Washington-based environmental and consumer advocacy group, continues to coordinate grass-roots campaigns with local groups in about 20 states to sway the Senate, Public Citizen activist Lisa Gue said. The organization was encouraged by a handful of undecided lawmakers who voted in to oppose Yucca Mountain. "We just have to demand that a more responsible decision be made by the Senate than was made in the House," Gue said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Matheson Votes Against Storage Of Nuclear Waste in Nevada The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, May 9, 2002 BY DAWN HOUSE Utah Congressmen Jim Hansen and Chris Cannon voted Wednesday to permanently store radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev., while Rep. Jim Matheson voted against it. Matheson, the lone Democrat on Utah's congressional delegation, said he voted against the project because he saw a connection between a Nevada waste facility and illnesses and death suffered in Utah and Nevada from fallout during Cold War atomic bomb testing. The first-term congressman believes his father, Scott Matheson, Utah governor from 1977 to 1984, died from cancer caused from the nuclear fallout. "I can tell you, as a son of a downwinder and a congressman who represents thousands of sick, dying and widowed victims of our nuclear testing that the federal responsibility on this issues has been appalling," said Matheson. "Enough is enough." Matheson said Utahns should not be exposed to the risk of hundreds of shipments of nuclear waste traveling near the state's most populated areas. "Utah and Nevada produce no nuclear waste,'' he said. "We have no nuclear power plants. We have no proprietary stake in the waste that will be coming to our states." Said Cannon: "If nuclear waste will be moving around the West, I don't want it to stop in Utah. Voting for Yucca Mountain will help ensure that this waste will only be moved through our state and not stay here." Hansen said the facility will be safe and secure. It was Hansen who sponsored legislation years ago that set up the mechanism in which Nevada could reject the proposal -- and Congress, in turn, could vote on overriding the state's veto. Last month, Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn formally rejected construction of the Yucca facility. Under the law crafted by Hansen, the House and Senate have 90 legislative days to act or the Yucca site will be abandoned. The Senate is expected to vote on the proposal this summer. Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett say they are studying the legislation, but both Republicans in the past have supported a facility at Yucca Mountain. "Past practices and policies have created the need for a permanent national storage facility for nuclear waste," said Cannon. "Yucca Mountain is the product of 20 years of study and development. Voting to change course at this late date would further delay a permanent solution and make it more likely that nuclear waste would be stored in Utah." © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 43 Nuclear-Waste Shipping Safe, Scientists Say The Salt Lake Tribune -- Thursday, May 9, 2002 KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- Opponents of the Bush administration's plan to haul 154 million pounds of nuclear waste across the nation to be buried in Nevada's Yucca Mountain warn of "mobile Chernobyls" chugging through America's heartland. They want Congress to reject the plan. To muster support outside Nevada, opponents are trumpeting the fact that every year starting around 2010, 175 train and truck convoys filled with nuclear waste would pass through counties where more than a third of all Americans live. The trains and trucks could be targets of terrorist attacks or fall victim to accidents, Yucca opponents warn. Radiation could then leak into the air from the sealed containers, killing thousands, they claim. Impartial scientists, engineers and terrorism experts, as well as a database analysis that Knight Ridder conducted, concluded that such a disaster is unlikely. "I'm in favor of transporting the materials; I used to be against it years ago," said University of Georgia toxicologist Cham Dallas. He has spent 10 years studying the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union. "We've got a system now that we can live with." The storage casks feature layers of steel and lead several inches thick. They are designed to withstand being dropped from 30 feet, impaled on a spike, then plunged into water. They must withstand temperatures of 1,475 degrees for 30 minutes. The waste itself is solid ceramic, which means it could not be dispersed as easily as a liquid or a gas. Dallas said that if the casks were breached, "nothing is going to happen" because of the waste's physics. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 44 House Backs Plan to Bury Nuclear Waste in Nevada (washingtonpost.com) By Eric Pianin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 9, 2002; Page A04 The House yesterday overwhelmingly affirmed the Bush administration's decision to dispose of nuclear waste beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain, after rejecting opponents' claims that there is too much uncertainty about the project's safety and scientific soundness. Voting 306 to 117, the House overrode Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's objection to President Bush's Feb. 15 decision endorsing the long-studied plan to bury a vast portion of the radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants -- as much as 77,000 tons of it -- in a remote desert spot about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Guinn, a Republican, had invoked a unique provision in federal law to try to block the project. The strong, bipartisan vote was anticipated because of widespread support for the nuclear energy industry and because many lawmakers want eventually to rid their states of growing stockpiles of waste now stored at nuclear power plants throughout the nation. The vote may be much closer in the Senate, however, where Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Majority Whip Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) have vowed to try to derail the project. Despite the strong objections of Nevada officials, state gambling industry leaders and environmentalists, Bush backed Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's findings that the proposed project is "scientifically sound and suitable," and would enhance protection against terrorist attacks by consolidating nuclear waste in an underground desert tomb. By relying on a combination of geological barriers and hardened steel-alloy storage casks, the administration contends the government could safely bury the deadly radioactive refuse for at least 10,000 years without it leaching into underground water or escaping into the environment in harmful doses. "This is the right thing for America . . . so we can set our nuclear industry back on a current safe path . . . as well as [undertake] the environmental cleanup of sites that demand early rather than late attention," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.). Yet scientists and experts representing Nevada and environmental groups argue that Yucca Mountain's volcanic rock is too porous, the waste containers have not been shown to be dependable over long periods, and the unprecedented cross-country shipments of deadly waste would pose enhanced risks to 50 million Americans. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said the Energy Department has "changed the rules" over the years to compensate for glaring deficiencies in the proposed site. She said that even after the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is filled to capacity by 2036, there still would be 44,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at reactor sites nationwide. "Why would we want to risk shipping nuclear waste across 43 states for 38 years if it makes no difference in the amount of waste stored on-site throughout the country?" she said. More than 40,000 tons of spent nuclear material are stored in 131 above-ground facilities in 39 states, and 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. About 2,000 tons of nuclear waste are generated annually. Guinn and other opponents of the Yucca project said the nuclear waste should stay where it is, in more secure containers and with beefed-up security. Abraham has dismissed that idea as "preposterous" and yesterday predicted that -- despite the 293 remaining technical questions -- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would eventually approve a permit to operate the Yucca repository. © 2002 The Washington Post Company • Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) [http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/gibbons050902 .htm] on Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site plan (Thurs., 2 p.m. EDT) ***************************************************************** 45 Gephardt Floor Statement on Yucca Mountain U.S. Newswire 8 May 16:37 To: National Desk Contact: Erik Smith or Kori Bernards, 202-225-0100 both for House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt Web: http://democraticleader.house.gov [http://democraticleader.house.gov] WASHINGTON, May 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a transcript of a statement by House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt: Gephardt Floor Statement on Yucca Mountain (As Delivered) "Mr. Speaker: I rise to urge a vote against the Yucca Mountain approval resolution. I hope this resolution will be turned down. I commend the courageous people fighting against it, led by Representative Berkley and Dario Herrera. I'm sorry that the Bush administration went back on its word, approving the untested, dangerous measure. "Whether or not to allow storage and transportation of waste is a decision with important consequences for people in my district and across America. It is a fact that scientists are still debating whether the Yucca Mountain is safe. "The General Accounting Office a few months ago said that storing waste at Yucca could infect water supplies and release deadly toxins into the surrounding air. It cited 293 scientific questions for which the federal government has no answers. And even if we begin shipping this waste today, we will still have nuclear waste stored all over this country decades from now. "But my biggest concern is that it makes no sense to have all this material traveling across the country by truck and rail. "You've seen just in the last month a number of tragic rail accidents. Even the Energy Department says that inevitably, there will be derailments of trains heading to Yucca Mountain. I had a train derailment in my district a year ago in Webster Groves, Missouri, where a whole train turned over. Luckily, it was only coal, but it was coal that was spilled a few feet from homes and schools in Webster Groves, Missouri. And the people in Webster Groves in the days since then have said to me, what if it had been not coal but nuclear waste? "We have no plan. We have no resources. We have no training for dealing with such a derailment in St. Louis. We have only one hospital bed in the entire metropolitan area to treat severe radiation exposure. "This is not a question about isolating the risk -- Yucca Mountain in reality simply spreads it around. "I know there is no perfect solution. But we can begin now to invest in better ways to store waste at the sites we currently use. Authorities in Pennsylvania have an approach that puts an emphasis on technology and innovation -- an approach that avoids having to cart and haul this waste all the way across the United States. It puts the waste in reinforced facilities. It benefits people in Pennsylvania and it benefits all Americans. "I simply think in conclusion that the science and logic is on the side of leaving this hazardous material on-site until we can find a better solution. I hope Yucca Mountain will be rejected." http://www.usnewswire.com ***************************************************************** 46 Surry radioactive waste could be sent to Nevada [http://dailypress.com/] By Terry Scanlon Daily Press May 9, 2002 Radioactive waste from Surry Power Station would be sent west if the federal government approves storing nuclear waste from throughout the country in the Nevada desert. Instead of storing the used - but still radioactive - rods at the plant, Surry officials would send them to a cave in Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Surry plant uses 157 nuclear rods at a time, replacing about a third of them every 18 months. The used rods are cooled in a pool of water for seven years after being removed from the reactor core. Then they are stored in steel barrels with 15-inch walls. The containers, which weigh 115 tons fully loaded, are now are kept on concrete pads at the Surry County plant. A person standing next to one of the containers would get the same amount of radiation as they would from a dental X-ray, said Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for the Dominion Virginia Power plant. "The radiation is contained inside the containers, and it poses no threat to the community or to the plant workers," Zuercher said. Used nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers at Northrop Grumman Newport News is sent to Idaho for storage, a company official said. Terry Scanlon can be reached at 247-7821 or by e-mail at [tscanlon@dailypress.com] Copyright © 2002, [http://www.dailypress.com] Copyright ©2002 The Daily Press ***************************************************************** 47 House Backs Nuclear Dump Site [Los Angeles Times - latimes.com] May 9, 2002 THE NATION [*] Legislation: The 306-117 vote is a victory for the nuclear industry and a defeat for Nevada. Easy Senate approval of the Bush plan is expected. By NICK ANDERSON, TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- The House on Wednesday backed President Bush's decision to create a national nuclear waste burial ground at Yucca Mountain, a major victory for the nuclear power industry and a stinging defeat for Nevada. The 306-117 vote brought the federal government one critical step closer to overriding Nevada's objections to placing up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in permanent storage at the proposed site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, one of the nation's fastest-growing areas. The issue now moves to the Senate, where opponents of the Bush plan face steep odds in trying to stop it. Though the outcome in the House was expected, the vote's margin was significant. Almost half of the House Democrats joined most Republicans in support of the administration. By contrast, in a vote in early 2000, most Democrats opposed a GOP-led effort to store nuclear waste temporarily at Yucca Mountain. Then-President Clinton opposed the plan, and few House Democrats were willing to break with his administration on the issue. But now a Republican is president--absorbing political brickbats from Nevadans--and the nuclear energy industry is waging an all-out campaign for the storage plan. Many Democrats say they agree that highly radioactive waste piling up at 131 sites throughout the country must be shipped somewhere. "Ultimately we have to address the problem," said Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and one of those who switched to the industry position. Dingell noted that the vote is not the final step. If the Senate approves the resolution, the Bush administration will then apply for a site license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nevada also will mount a legal challenge. Indeed, after the vote Nevadans vowed to keep fighting. "We will continue our battle in the U.S. Senate and on a parallel track in the courts," said Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican. He said Wednesday's vote was "by no means the end." Bush chose to move forward with the Yucca Mountain plan in February on the recommendation of his Energy Department. In April, Guinn reversed Bush's decision, using power the governor holds under federal law. The House resolution, if also approved by the Senate, would overturn Guinn's veto. Opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan have a powerful leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the chamber's assistant majority leader. But Reid and freshman Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) acknowledge that they remain short of the votes they need to block the plan. A Senate vote is expected in June or July. In Wednesday's House debate, Nevada lawmakers, as they have before, complained bitterly that their state is being unfairly targeted for nuclear waste. Congress first voted to focus federal studies of nuclear storage on Yucca Mountain in 1987. The Nevadans noted that the state has no nuclear power plants. "Nevada does not produce one ounce of nuclear waste," said Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, who represents much of Las Vegas. "Yet Nevada is being asked to carry the burdens of a problem it had no part in creating." Opponents also claimed that transcontinental shipments of nuclear waste by truck or rail would be vulnerable to accidents or terrorist attacks, a scenario they dub "mobile Chernobyl." But Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that aside from Nevada's home-state concerns, the opposition "basically comes from those folks who oppose nuclear energy." He ridiculed that line of argument, suggesting that opponents were also opposed to expanding coal mining and oil drilling. "You have to wonder what sort of energy supplies do these folks support," Tauzin said. Many environmental groups lamented Wednesday's vote, while the nuclear industry hailed it. The industry has spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years in an effort to shed long-standing political constraints on its growth. "Democrats and Republicans alike voted for this sensible approach to centralizing the nuclear byproducts of our U.S. defense applications, like nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, research programs, and nuclear power plants that produce electricity for 20% of Americans," said Joe F. Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. In all, 102 Democrats joined 203 Republicans and one independent in supporting the storage plan. Voting against it were 103 Democrats--including Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco--13 Republicans and one independent. Of California's 20 House Republicans, five broke with party ranks to vote against the plan: Reps. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley, Jerry Lewis of Redlands, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita, Richard W. Pombo of Tracy, and George P. Radanovich of Mariposa. Reps. Doug Ose (R-Sacramento) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) did not vote. Only two of the state's 32 House Democrats voted for the plan: Reps. Calvin M. Dooley of Visalia and Ellen O. Tauscher of Alamo. Times staff writer Tom Gorman in Las Vegas contributed to this Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are ***************************************************************** 48 Nuclear Dump Will Leak, Scientists Say [Los Angeles Times - latimes.com] May 8, 2002 THE NATION [*] Yucca Mountain: The Nevada site will hold for 10,000 years, backers say, but foes insist there's no guarantee. A house vote may come today. By GARY POLAKOVIC, TIMES STAFF WRITER YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. -- As the Bush administration prepares its push to win congressional approval for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste burial site, scientists agree on one key conclusion: Yucca Mountain will leak. The question is how long it will take. Rising one mile from the desert floor, the mountain looks as plain and parched as much of the rest of southern Nevada's ranges. Despite the arid appearance there is water here, and even the scientists who have designed the repository concede that the mountain's vulnerability to moisture will allow radioactive material to eventually leak into the environment. Time is the key. Highly radioactive nuclear waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Half of the plutonium stored in the mountain, for example, will still be radioactive 380 million years from now. Just one-millionth of an ounce of plutonium is enough to virtually assure cancer in someone who comes in contact with it. As Congress considers whether to override Nevada's opposition to housing nuclear waste here, opponents of the waste site argue that the Bush administration is pushing through a flawed solution that will create radioactivity risks for thousands of years. Government officials say they have designed a burial site that will be free of leaks for at least 10,000 years. Critics, armed with a raft of scientific studies, say that can't be guaranteed. They point to two other nuclear sites that officials once had said would be leak-free for hundreds or thousands of years: the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory near Pocatello and the Hanford Site in eastern Washington. Both are leaking already, and radioactive material could make its way into groundwater in just 10 years, according to a report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Even if a 10,000-year leak-free promise could be guaranteed, critics of Yucca Mountain say society has a responsibility to civilizations far in the future not to expose them to lethal waste that we generate. But the alternative to putting nuclear waste here is to leave it accumulating in 131 different places in 39 states, much closer to people and potentially vulnerable to terrorist attack, the Department of Energy warns. The waste piled up around the country comes from nuclear aircraft carriers and electrical plants, bomb factories and university labs. Over time, it will emit thousands of times more radioactivity than was released at Chernobyl and millions of times more than the Hiroshima bomb. Right now, says the government, 2 out of 3 Americans live within 75 miles of a storage site. "There is no more [storage] space, there are deteriorating storage conditions, and you have the challenge that so much of it is located near population centers and waterways," said Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. "No one believes you can bring in David Copperfield, wave a wand and it all goes away." "We've tried to take into account as many uncertainties of the future as can be assessed," Abraham said. "I am convinced that the site is scientifically suitable--in a word, safe." Yucca Mountain is not a done deal yet, but converting this forlorn peak into the world's first high-level nuclear waste dump is closer to happening than ever. President Bush has chosen the site, but Nevada challenged that decision. Congress is considering whether to overturn Nevada's veto, and opponents of the dump acknowledge they probably do not have the votes to stop it. (A House vote might occur as early as today.) If the Yucca Mountain plan survives Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider issuing a license, and the dump could open by 2012. Experts long ago recognized the need for deep, geological disposal of radioactive waste, yet it is unknown whether any system can be devised that could keep highly radioactive waste isolated for such an immensely long period. "We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society," said Alvin Weinberg, former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where plutonium was tested for one of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. "We offer an inexhaustible and nonpolluting source of energy, but we require a level of detail and discipline that we're unaccustomed to in handling the waste. "Nobody really knows if we can do this. Trying to project what's going to happen in thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, is quite ridiculous," Weinberg said. Today, Yucca Mountain is an island in a desert. It is surrounded by the Nevada Test Site, where the government once tested nuclear bombs. The closest neighbors are a handful of alfalfa growers in the Amargosa Valley, 11 miles from Yucca Mountain, and the working girls at the Cherry Patch No. 2 brothel by a gas station that peddles T-shirts with pictures of extraterrestrials. "If you can't put it here, then where can you put it?" asked Michael D. Voegele, chief scientist for Bechtel-SAIC Co., the Energy Department's contractor for building the repository at Yucca Mountain. But who can say what will be here millions of years from now when plutonium and other deadly wastes still pack a wallop? Will it still be a desert? Glaciers advanced and receded across the planet a dozen times in the last 2 million years. An inland sea called Lake Bonneville covered much of Nevada and Utah 12,000 years ago, when humans first arrived. "These technologies are forcing us to address the issue of how they will affect future generations. This is not an issue we've faced on this scale before," said Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. "We're doing things with consequences we don't understand." Government engineers and scientists have been studying Yucca Mountain for more than 20 years--twice as long as it took to plan and complete the moon landing--at a cost of $7 billion. During that time, government officials have changed their arguments about Yucca Mountain's safety. Problems began to emerge years ago when tunnels bored deep into the rock revealed conditions inside were wetter, and the geology more complex, than initially thought. Those discoveries are at the center of the controversy today. Originally, the volcanic ash where the waste would be entombed was believed to be so tightly compressed that rainfall could not penetrate. Secretary Abraham said in February that rainfall would take 1,000 years to make the 800-foot journey through rock to the disposal zone and longer still before radioactivity could be carried to groundwater. He does not believe leaks are a significant concern. Yet inside the mountain, government studies have found that the rock is laced with fissures, some that move water the way capillaries carry blood, some that flow like a garden hose. About 12.3 million gallons of water flow through the 2,500-acre disposal area per year, government studies show. Traces of chlorine 36, which is produced only by nuclear bombs, were recently discovered inside Yucca Mountain. Since the last nuclear bombs were detonated above ground at the Nevada Test Site in 1962, the finding indicates rainfall can carry radioactive material deep into the rock in as little as 40 years. Once the presence of water was established, the government changed plans. The plans now call for double-layer disposal containers of stainless steel and a nickel-based material called Alloy 22 to keep the waste isolated. The canisters will be covered with titanium "drip shields" to keep waste dry. Canisters could be packed close together too, so heat would boil water and drive away steam. But engineers do not know know how to build a container that outlasts radioactive waste. Materials like Alloy 22 haven't been around long enough for experts to be able to assess how they will perform over centuries. Given all of the uncertainties, some of the nation's leading experts say President Bush's decision to proceed with Yucca Mountain is premature. "There are a lot of issues that remain unresolved that could affect the safety of humans and the environment," said Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and the director of the Yucca Mountain project at MIT. "We should not be in a rush." Carnegie Mellon University President Jared L. Cohon said he is concerned about the integrity of disposal canisters and how water moves inside the mountain. Cohon chairs the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an 11-member panel of independent experts appointed by Congress to review the Energy Department's work at Yucca Mountain. That panel concluded in January that the government's technical case for Yucca Mountain is "weak to moderate." Said Cohon: "What is very important is that, in assessing the suitability of the site, decision makers and the public must understand what the uncertainty is. The uncertainty is substantial." Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 49 Politics, Plutonium Near Critical Mass TheCarolinaChannel.com - Politics, Plutonium Near Critical Mass Hodges Criticized For Re-Election Campaign Ads Posted: Updated: 9:55 p.m. EDT May 8, 2002 COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Election-year politics has raised its head in South Carolina's plutonium fight with the federal government. U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Joe Davis on Tuesday criticized Gov. Jim Hodges for using re-election funds to pay for ads opposing plutonium shipments. [ ALIGN=] The commercials are running on television stations across the state, including WYFF. The Energy Department plans to ship weapons-grade plutonium to the Savannah River Site near Aiken and convert the material into fuel for nuclear reactors. Shipments are scheduled to begin as soon as next week. Davis says it's irresponsible for Hodges to use the plutonium issue for his re-election campaign. State Republican leaders were quick to howl about the ad as well, saying that it appears now that the practice roadblock two weeks ago was nothing more than an excuse to make a campaign commercial. "Jim Hodges has crossed the line. His actions may not be illegal, but they certainly are inappropriate and downright unethical," South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson told News 4. "These troopers want to be out there policing our streets and protecting our citizens. I don't know if they want to be out there making commercials for our governor." A political analyst said that the ad can serve twin purposes: Giving Hodges a way to fight for one of the issues he has stakes out in the campaign and keeping his face in front of voters during the GOP's primary season. "Like it or not, this political ad is a good way to run a parallel ad with a contested Republican primary when there is no Democratic primary," University of South Carolina political science professor Blease Graham told WYFF News 4's Brad Willis. "The gloves are off and hardball politics are underway." The ad might even be a way for Hodges to appeal to conservatives, Graham said. "To fight for South Carolina against an insensitive and perhaps intrusive national government is a good message for the conservative base that he may not have had last time," he said. Hodges has accused Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham of using the plutonium program to help the re-election chances of Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado. The plutonium that is slated to be shipped to South Carolina is coming from the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility near Denver, which is scheduled to be closed soon. On Tuesday, Hodges' office said that the commercials will stop when the Energy Department reaches a legally enforceable agreement with the state for when the nuclear material will be removed from SRS. "This is not a national security issue. There is ample evidence that DOE's motivation behind shipping plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina now is to help Sen. Allard's re-election bid," Hodges' spokeswoman Cortney Owings said in a statement. "The DOE needs to keep its word. Sign a legally enforceable agreement that protects South Carolina from becoming the nation's plutonium dumping ground and the governor will stop running the ads." Previous Stories: + May 1, 2002: Hodges Sues To Stop Plutonium Trucks + May 1, 2002: Hodges Wants Changes In Plutonium Bill + April 28, 2002: Graham's Plutonium Bill Ready + April 25, 2002: Hodges Gets GOP Support On Plutonium + April 24, 2002: Hodges Spurns Colorado's Plutonium Request + April 23, 2002: Hodges' Roadblock Called 'Grandstanding' + April 22, 2002: Plutonium: What Is It, Why Bring It To S.C. Copyright 2002 by TheCarolinaChannel and The Associated Press. ***************************************************************** 50 House Backs Bush on Yucca Nuclear Storage Plan May 9, 2002 By REUTERS WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives rejected Nevada's safety concerns on Wednesday and endorsed President Bush's decision to bury deadly nuclear waste from across the country in the state's Yucca Mountain. On a vote of 306-117, the Republican-led House approved a bipartisan resolution to override Nevada's veto of the project to build the nation's first permanent nuclear waste storage facility 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The House sent the measure for needed concurrence to the Democratic-led Senate. ``This (Yucca Mountain) is our best option,'' said Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat and a member of the Energy Committee. ``We have no realistic alternatives.'' Senate Republican leaders predict their chamber will also approve the $58 billion project with the help of Democrats from states with nuclear reactors and mounting radioactive waste. But Senate Democratic leaders said they have a chance of stopping the plan. ``We're cautiously optimistic,'' said Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. The battle pits Bush, his allies in the nuclear power industry and others who want greater energy independence against Nevada, hundreds of environmental groups and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat who has vowed to do what he can to stop the project. Despite federal claims to the contrary, the state of Nevada contends it would be unsafe to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain as well as to transport it there from more than 100 nuclear power plants across the country. Opponents say the project would be ripe for accidents and become a target for attacks. Supporters argue it would be safer to bring all the nuclear waste to a single secured site in a low-population area. More than a decade ago, federal authorities began focusing efforts to build a waste depository in Nevada after lawmakers from other areas fended off attempts to target their states. SENATE VOTE EXPECTED IN JULY The Senate is expected to vote around July 1 on whether to override or sustain Nevada's veto, Reid said. Between now and then, both sides intend to increase their lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill with opponents also airing television ads against it in selected states. Noting $4 billion in studies, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told reporters shortly before the House vote that the project would be safe. ``We have been able to demonstrate the safety of the site,'' he said. ``It is time to move forward.'' But in the House debate, opponents repeatedly cited a recent congressional General Accounting Office report listing 293 unanswered safety and technical questions about the plan. ``These questions should be answered before we proceed,'' said Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat. ``We wouldn't get on a plane if the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) said it had 293 unanswered questions about it.'' Abraham said all questions would be answered before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides on issuing a license. He said the House vote showed the chamber ``overwhelmingly agrees that the final determination ... should be made by the independent experts'' at the commission. ``I believe that it does and I believe the NRC will ultimately approve Yucca Mountain.'' Last month, Republican Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn vetoed Bush's decision earlier in the year to accept an Energy Department recommendation to build the depository in the Nevada desert. He has also challenged the project in federal court. Under 1982 federal law on nuclear waste disposal, a governor may veto the president's plans to put a depository in his or her state. But the veto can be overridden by Congress. Nuclear power plants produce more than 20 percent of the country's energy, and many waste storage tanks are nearly full. The government has faced lawsuits for failing to meet a 1998 deadline to open a permanent nuclear waste storage site. The proposed site would permanently hold 77,000 tons of radioactive material and would open in 2010. Copyright 2002 Reuters Ltd. | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 51 Gibbons Statement on House Passage of Yucca Mountain Gibbons (NV02) - Press Release - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 8, 2002 Lawmaker Asserts “Nevada will Continue to Fight” Washington, D.C.— Today, following passage of the joint Congressional resolution approving Yucca Mountain as the nation’s high-level nuclear waste repository and thereby, overriding Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto, U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) expressed disappointment in the vote but pledged to continue to fight the site designation. “I am highly disappointed in today’s vote, but we always knew that our battle would not be in the House of Representatives but in the U.S. Senate,” stated Gibbons. “Unfortunately, this train left the station back in 1987 when the decision to single out Yucca Mountain was made, based on politics and not on science. Today, like in 1987, it was Nevada against 49 other states, most of which have much greater representation in the House than ours.” “I remain committed to educating members of Congress and the American people about the dangers of transporting high-level nuclear waste across our entire country to a wholly unsuitable hole in the ground,” maintained Gibbons. “I stand united with our colleagues in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Ensign and Mr. Reid, in fighting the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain. I remain committed to protecting the health and safety of every Nevadan and every American by calling for a stop to the Yucca Mountain project. This was not the end… true to our battle born heritage, Nevada will continue to fight.” Since coming to Washington in the 105th Congress, Gibbons has tirelessly fought against the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s high-level nuclear waste repository. Today’s floor debate marked the 100th time Gibbons had spoken on Yucca Mountain before the House of Representatives or a Congressional Committee. ***************************************************************** 52 U.S. Rep. Berkley Statement on the Passage of Yucca Mountain in the U.S. House of Representatives Congresswoman Shelley Berkley - Legislation: Press Releases 2001 May 8, 2002 (Washington, D.C.) U.S. Congresswoman Shelley Berkley offered the following statement following the vote in the House of Representatives to approve Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. The final vote was 306-117 in favor of the Yucca Mountain proposal. "Nobody expected that we would win this vote in the House. In fact, almost everyone expected we would lose by a landslide. The House Republican leadership and the nuclear energy industry were hoping that they would be able to roll over the State of Nevada with at least 350 votes, and roll into the Senate with all the momentum of a nuclear freight train. Naturally it is disappointing to lose such an important vote by a large margin, but by garnering more than 100 votes, we were able to defy expectations, deny the nuclear industry the huge win that they wanted, and slow the momentum on the bill as it moves to the Senate. A majority of the Democrats in the U.S. House voted against Yucca Mountain, and hopefully that will be able to help Senator Reid as he attempts to defeat the bill in the Senate. "I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Jim Gibbons for his tireless efforts on this issue. Nevada's delegation fought well today, and I will return to Nevada tomorrow knowing that we did everything in our power to defeat this foolish idea. "Considering the odds that were against us, we got off to a good start. This is just the first round in a very long fight. And in the end, I am confident, Nevadans will emerge victorious." ***************************************************************** 53 Abraham Praises House of Representatives' Overwhelming Bipartisan Support of Yucca Mountain energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: May 8, 2002 Washington, D.C. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham praised the House of Representatives today for its overwhelming statement of bipartisan support for the development of Yucca Mountain as the nation's permanent nuclear waste repository. "By approving this resolution, the House of Representatives has overridden the state of Nevada's disapproval of the development of the nation's nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain site," Abraham said. "This vote indicates that the House overwhelmingly agrees that the final determination on whether the site meets established and stringent regulatory requirements should be made by the independent experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I believe that it does, and I believe the NRC will ultimately approve Yucca Mountain." "America's national, energy and homeland security, as well as environmental protection is well served by siting a single nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, rather than having nuclear waste stranded in temporary storage locations at 131 sites in 39 states," Abraham said. "It is now up to the Senate to reject Nevada's veto and certainly the Senate will take note of the overwhelming bipartisan support the Yucca Mountain project has received in the House." "Nothing that the opponents of Yucca Mountain have presented, including baseless allegations regarding the transportation of nuclear waste, rises to the burden of proof that requires Congress to stop the process before a thorough review of the site is conducted by the independent experts at the NRC," he said. The federal government has safely transported nuclear waste for more than 30 years and more than 1.6 million miles without ever having a harmful release of radiation. Currently, more than 161 million people live within 75 miles of a nuclear waste storage site. "I urge the Senate to quickly approve our recommendation so that the NRC can make the final determination on the site's suitability to serve as a repository," Abraham concluded. Media Contact: Joe Davis, 202-586-4940 Release No. PR-02-081 ***************************************************************** 54 AU: Solomons denies nuclear waste reports Radio Australia News - [http://abc.net.au/ra/news/] Solomon Islands Foreign Affairs Minister, Alex Bartlett has denied media reports his government is negotiating with Taiwan to transport nuclear waste to the country. The reports - by Taiwanese Central News Agency - claimed the Solomons was one of five sites being considered as a storage dump for low radiation nuclear waste. From Honiara, Dorothy Wickham reports: "Foreign Affairs Minister Alex Bartlett says no discussion has been held at cabinet level concerning nuclear waste dumping in Solomon Islands. However, reports in the Taiwanese Central News Agency on Saturday quoted the Taiwanese Economic Affairs Minister Lin Yi-Fu saying Solomon Islands, Russia, mainland China, North Korea and Wuchiu are among possible options to dump 97-thousand barrels of low radiation nuclear waste from Orchid Island in Taiwan. Mr Lin Yi-Fu however said final decision has yet to be made by a committee that must conduct detailed discussions first. Meanwhile, documents sighted by Radio Australia indicate that Solomon Islands Cabinet has already given directives for its Quarantine Division to reinstate the import license of Haura Development company, a local firm in the midst of the controversy. The government is claiming that it is negotiating for the import of humus soil from Kaoshiung, Taiwan's most industrial city. 09/05/2002 11:07:17 | ABC Radio Australia News ***************************************************************** 55 House backs Nevada nuclear fuel site By Nancy Dunne and Lydia Adetunji in Washington Published: May 8 2002 19:42 | Last Updated: May 9 2002 00:21 The US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to approve Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a central repository for radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, has been pushing through the long-delayed project, citing terrorist concerns, and said it was increasingly urgent to get the work moving after two decades of study. Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada vetoed the site in early April, throwing the decision to the US Congress. Nuclear industry officials believe resolution of the waste problem will pave the way for the construction of new power plants. But even if the Senate follows the House, which voted 306 to 117 in favour, in approving the site, the gain for the industry could be mostly in the perception that the waste problem has been solved. Yucca Mountain is to become operational around 2010 but opponents have warned that five years of testing remain even before a licence request can be filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor will Nevada give up the fight. It has filed four suits against the federal government so far and the state engineer has cut off all but a trickle of water to technicians at the Yucca Mountain project site. Testifying at a House hearing, Mr Guinn said plans to transport some 77,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel to the site were "ill conceived" and would expose tens of millions of Americans to unnecessary nuclear transport risks. Senator John Ensign, Nevada Republican, warned that once shipments began, "state after state after state" would go to court to halt the transport through their land. But most members seemed anxious for a resolution. "We have spent over $4bn to produce roughly 600 different studies of the site. Without a doubt, this is the most heavily studied piece of ground in the world," said Congressman John Shadegg, Arizona Republican. The administration will face a tougher fight to get Senate approval. The Democratic whip, Harry Reid of Nevada, will employ tactical manoeuvres and he has the support of Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader. Although 85 per cent of Nevadans are against the project, according to a recent poll, sentiment towards nuclear power seems mixed. The state, which supplied the test range for many nuclear weapons explosions, has recently approved a new special licence plate, featuring a mushroom cloud to "celebrate" its nuclear past. The proceeds are to go to the establishment of a nuclear museum. Financial Times ***************************************************************** 56 OBSERVER: Yucca: Nuclear reaction AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Financial Times; May 8, 2002 The Bush administration, a great fan of the nuclear industry and a grateful beneficiary of industry campaign contributions, is not too bothered about details when it comes to pushing its plan to turn Yucca Mountain, Nevada, into a nuclear waste dump through the approval process. Congress's General Accounting Office recently found that 273 scientific questions remain unanswered and about five year's work still has to be completed before the site can be licensed. Nevada vetoed the project, wary of burying radioactive wastes in an earthquake zone. (Yucca mountain, about 90 miles north-west of Las Vegas, is on an earthquake fault.) The decision now rests with Congress. But it seems House members, who are expected to vote on the plan as early as today, are not much worried about details either. They want to get spent nuclear fuel out of their own districts, where it is stored on nuclear plant sites, and on to someone else's turf. As Spencer Abraham, energy secretary, recently said: where better than "in the middle of nowhere"? Nevada has at least one outside sympathiser: Jim Rogers, chairman of Cinergy Corp, the Ohio-based diversified energy company and one of the country's largest coal consumers. Rogers, who was in Washington on Monday, used his visit to Capitol Hill to let off a little steam. He lashed out against the north-east states for their "holier than thou" attitude on coal, while using nuclear energy to provide for the largest share of their electricity. What is more, he groused, north-easterners want the Midwest to bear the risk of transporting those wastes by truck and train through high population areas and Nevada, which uses no nuclear power, and then assume the danger of storing it. "I believe in state responsibility," he said. "If it's your state, you solve the problem." If the plan is approved, most of the 70,000 tons of waste destined for Yucca would come from the east, beginning in 2010. The north-east, an unhappy recipient of Midwest-based coal emissions in the form of acid rain, is likely to view the matter as a quid pro quo. Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-2002 ***************************************************************** 57 [Rfpi-announce] RFPI Special "No Star Wars" broadcast Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 14:02:20 -0500 (CDT) Activists from around the world who will gather in Berkeley, California on May 10-12 to share information about Bush's space agenda, plan activities for 2002, and strengthen our commitment to preventing the nuclearization and weaponization of space. On Friday, May 10 a protest will be held at Lockheed Martin (Sunnyvale) where work is underway on the space-based laser, airborne laser, Theater Missile Defense (TMD), and new satellites for space war fighting. Please join Radio For Peace International on this Friday, May 10 at 18:30 UTC as we provide live coverage of this protest at Lockheed Martin. Or catch the repeats on the days broadcast at 0030, 0630 and 1230 UTC Saturday. In Fiscal Year 2002 the U.S. Congress gave George W. Bush his entire request of $8.3 billion for Star Wars research & development (R & D). R & D funding must become a key issue in 2002 and beyond if we hope to prevent a new arms race in space. The U.S. Space Command predicts that because of "corporate globalization" the gap between "haves" and "have nots" will widen worldwide in coming years. With space "control and domination" in place, the Space Command will become the military arm for the multi-national corporations enabling the U.S. to suppress those who protest U.S. global dominance. Cutbacks can be expected in human needs programs like education, health care, child care, and social security in order to cover the enormous cost of Star Wars. Help us build this movement to keep space for peace. Rememember to join us this Friday on the following frequencies: 15050 (19 meters) 21815 (13 meters, USB) or streaming live in MP3 on the internet at http://www.rfpi.org (except for 1830 broadcast). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Rfpi-announce mailing list Rfpi-announce@boinklabs.com http://www.boinklabs.com/mailman/listinfo/rfpi-announce ***************************************************************** 58 URGENT ACTION ALERT: CONGRESS VOTES TODAY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:46:14 -0500 (CDT) URGENT ACTION ALERT: CONGRESS VOTES TODAY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS Thursday, May 9, 2002 The full House of Representatives will vote THIS AFTERNOON on three key floor amendments on nuclear weapons and missile defense issues. We strongly ask you to call your U.S. Representative in Washington--IMMEDIATELY--at (202) 225-3121. The three amendments are to the defense authorization bill. The simple message is: Vote "No" on Weldon and "Yes" on Markey and Tierney. * WELDON amendment. The amendment would allow research and development of small, "usable" nuclear weapons. These are also known as "mini-nukes". OPPOSE. * MARKEY amendment. Eliminates funds ($15.5 million) for the nuclear earth penetrator weapon, also know as the "bunker buster". This is another new nuclear weapon proposed by the Bush administration. SUPPORT. * TIERNEY amendment. Prohibits funds from being used for space-based missile defense programs. SUPPORT. Call your Representative at (202) 225-3121. Ask to speak to the defense aide. If he/she is not available, please leave a message. Sorry for the short notice for this action alert. These amendments were only posted late last evening. Thanks for your help! ***************************************************************** 59 Peace Action: US Seeks to Develop New Nuke Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:22:52 -0500 (CDT) Action Alert US Seeks to Develop New, More "Usable" Nuke The Bush Administration has requested $15.5 million from Congress to develop a new, more "usable" nuclear weapon to be used in conventional combat, one that is also more likely to be used against countries that don't have nuclear weapons. This nuclear weapon, known formally as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, would be made to bore into the earth and destroy underground bunkers or other deeply buried targets. While the combined force of its blast and the effect of the radiation left over would be less than that of current nuclear weapons, it would still be devastating. If used in an urban setting, this new nuclear weapon would likely kill 10,000 to 50,000 people within 24 hours. Because this new weapon is designed to detonate underground, it will, according to Dr. Rob Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists, "blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal [radioactive] field over a large area." Read more at: http://www.peace-action.org/home/newnuke.html Send a note to your member of Congress today. Here is a sample letter that you can send to your member of Congress: The Honorable Senator (your Senator's name) US Senate Washington, DC 20510 OR The Honorable Representative (your Rep.'s name) US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative/Senator, The administration has requested $15.5 million to development a new nuclear weapon called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This weapon would make it more likely that the United States would actually use a nuclear weapon in a conventional conflict or against a non-nuclear weapons state. The development of this new nuclear weapon would also have disastrous consequences for international arms control: it would undercut important treaties that affirm non-proliferation and disarmament, and it could threaten the ban on nuclear testing. I urge you to halt the next arms race before it starts, and even more, to prevent the US from using a nuclear weapon in a conventional conflict, by speaking against and voting against funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Bill. Sincerely, (Your name) You can also see the section on how to contact congress at: http://www.peace-action.org/tools/congress.html Carrie Benzschawel Program Associate Peace Action Education Fund mailto:cbenzschawel@peace-action.org http://www.peace-action.org 202.862.9740x3041 fax: 202.862.9762 1819 H St., NW, #425 Washington, DC 20006 -------------------------------------------- If you would like to unsubscribe from one of our email lists, please email Carrie Benzschawel at mailto:cbenzschawel@peace-action.org. Thank you. The Peace Action Education Fund works for global elimination of nuclear weapons, an end to the conventional arms trade, and cutting military spending in order to address human needs. ***************************************************************** 60 Commentary - Japan's plutonium stockpile alarming - Japan Today Japan News - Andrew Monahan A prominent Japanese politician remarked last week that Japan could easily make thousands of nuclear weapons, drawing on the vast plutonium reserves from its civil nuclear power program. Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa made the remarks in a speech delivered in Fukuoka, and said that he had made similar comments to the visiting deputy chief of staff of the Liberation Army of China. "If China gets too conceited, the Japanese will get hysterical," the provocatively-inclined Ozawa said. It could encourage conservatives more aggressively nationalistic than himself to pursue a nuclear weapons program to counter the Chinese threat. He later insisted that he had merely intended to warn against excessive Chinese military buildup, and that he himself would view a nuclear arms race between the two Asian powers as "a tragedy for both countries." Ozawa is a politician who captured the public imagination in the early 1990s, both in Japan and abroad, with his book "Blueprint for a New Japan," that rightly advocated an array of forward looking political and economic policies that a decade and a faltering reformist poster-boy prime minister later, Japan still badly needs to implement. The incident, however, typifies a self-defeating tendency of some Japanese leaders, who speak menacingly about the consequences of perceived future threats, while leaving the historical fact of past unprovoked Japanese aggression largely silent. Such antics illustrate the surest way to fail in achieving a Japan divested of its former hindrances. The Chinese People's Daily ran an unusually measured, strong criticism of Ozawa's bluster, dismissing the politician as out of touch with the anti-nuclear sentiment of his own country, a sentiment that translated into electoral-power makes points concerning weapons capability moot. China and Japan's other Asian neighbors, furthermore, could be counted on, diplomatically, to nip a weapons program in the bud. The merest hint of any possible revival of Japanese militarism plays very poorly from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur, among all the countries Japan depends on for a wealth of trade and human capital. These countries still smolder with indignation over past Japanese aggressions and the continuing Japanese refusal to thoroughly acknowledge those crimes. Tellingly, the People's Daily article on Ozawa ran beside another article detailing a recent contribution of forty-one photos to the Memorial Hall of the Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanjing, and startlingly not known at all among some segments of the Japanese youth, kept ignorant by leaders who turn history textbooks into exercises in revisionism. The newly donated photos, like the exhibit on the Nanjing Massacre that opened last December at San Francisco's St Mary's Cathedral and then toured other U.S. cities, document exactly what politicians like Ozawa should want the young Japanese to acknowledge and vow clearly never to repeat. Blueprints bypassing any trace of this past cannot lead to a new Japan, or at least not to the strong and internationally involved Japan that Ozawa, myself, and many others would like. For the moment, though, we had better not wait for the old guard of the Japanese political elite to have a change of heart. Their shortcomings will likely pass when they themselves pass from power. Ozawa's comments, however, highlight a more pressing problem: Japan's huge plutonium stockpile. If the political life of the revisionist right in Japan seems long, consider the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium. Japan's first encounter with this extremely toxic element came in the horrific bombing of Nagasaki on Aug 9, 1945. Unlike the uranium bomb that had been dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier, the Nagasaki bomb was made with plutonium. The 6.2 kilograms used in that bomb, however, pale in comparison to the 30,000-plus kilograms that Japan has accumulated through its plutonium-based civil power production program. This plutonium could, as Ozawa noted, be used for nuclear weapons. It poses a huge threat to nuclear proliferation, as only a small quantity is necessary to produce a bomb. It is an easy target for terrorist groups, who covet it, stolen or purchased on the black market. Certainly bureaucratic inertia, more than any sinister or secretive design, keeps the uneconomical and dangerous plutonium program alive, if but barely. Nonetheless, it compromises Japan's status as a key nation in the nonproliferation regime at a crucial moment. Ozawa and others rightly recognize a Chinese nuclear buildup as undesirable, but the problem demands more than knee-jerk reactionism. Suspicions over the plutonium program already run high, and politicians here are mistaken to think that wielding such suspicions as a deterrent will work. A better approach is suggested by the former director of the Nuclear Energy Division of the Foreign Ministry, Kumao Kaneko, who has been a leading spokesperson for the move to create a EURATOM equivalent in Asia. This ASIATOM would likewise function to allay anxieties in the region over the proliferation concerns of the member nations' nuclear materials and facilities involved in civic programs, including of course Japan's. It would aim to include operable inspection and verification machinery to pave the way for the confidence necessary to establish a nuclear-free zone in the area. Constructive Japanese moves in this direction, coupled with thorough apologies for its destructive past, would assuage Asian anxiety, and substantially elevate Japan's diplomatic voice. Such a voice, if only leaders braver than Ozawa can assume it, will have the strength to challenge the silence, and offer instead the good sense to support an international system that seeks to prevent another Nanjing or Hiroshima from occurring. The writer is a Fulbright Fellow at the Institute for Peace Science in Hiroshima. April 17, 2002 ***************************************************************** 61 Missile shield may be nuclear Anchorage Daily News | HOUSE: Armed Services Committee wants Pentagon to consider idea. By Liz Ruskin Anchorage Daily News (Published: May 9, 2002) Washington -- The House Armed Services Committee wants the Pentagon to consider arming the interceptors of the national missile defense shield with nuclear warheads. Sen. Ted Stevens, a supporter of missile defense, has said the prospect of nuclear-tipped interceptors alarms many people in Alaska, where part of the system would be based. The House panel gave its nod in a report explaining the annual defense authorization bill, which the House may take up today. "The committee understands that the (Defense) Department may investigate other options for ballistic missile defense -- nuclear-armed interceptors, blast fragmentation warheads and directed energy technologies -- as alternatives to current approaches ...," the Republican-led committee wrote in its report. "The committee would consider such an examination of alternatives to be a prudent step, consistent with the commitment to evaluate all available technological options for this critical mission." Committee reports are meant to guide courts, government departments and the public regarding the purpose and meaning of a law. The nuclear idea also surfaced last month in newspaper reports, which said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had encouraged a senior advisory board to begin exploring it. Stevens, a Republican and the senior member of Alaska's congressional delegation, dismissed the media accounts as troublesome speculation. At an April 17 hearing, he said the reports had prompted a lot of late-night calls to his office. He said anyone in the defense secretary's office talking about nuclear-tipped interceptors would be better off working somewhere else. At that hearing, Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Missile Defense Agency, assured Stevens that nuclear weapons aren't part of the current missile defense plan. Instead, the agency is testing "hit-to-kill" technology, meaning the interceptor destroys the target missile simply by smashing into it. Another missile agency spokesman affirmed that position on Wednesday. Critics, however, fear the missile defense program will eventually go nuclear. Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the appeal of nuclear-tipped interceptors is understandable. One of the challenges in the hit-to-kill plan is that the targeting must be exact, and the enemy may send balloons or other decoys up with its warhead to throw the interceptor off. "Instead of having to fire multiple interceptors at each object, (a nuclear-tipped interceptor) would destroy things in a big area," she said. "You don't have to hit anything directly with it." On the other hand, the massive electromagnetic pulse resulting from a nuclear explosion in space would destroy satellites and electronic circuits, she said. Although the Pentagon is trying to employ systems that could survive such a blast, the first launching of an interceptor armed with a nuclear weapon could disable the rest of the missile defense shield, she said. A nuclear explosion within the atmosphere, she said, would be even more harmful because of radioactive fallout. Stacey Fritz, coordinator for the Fairbanks-based No Nukes North, doubts hit-to-kill can work and concedes nuclear interceptors would be more effective. "Technically, that's the only way," she said. "But I think this raises much more serious concerns for Alaska, the danger of having megatons, multimegatons of nuclear warheads at Fort Greely." Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, said the agency isn't exploring nuclear warheads. "It's not being considered," he said. "All of our programs are predicated on hit-to-kill technology, not nuclear." He said construction will begin at Fort Greely this summer, under a $325 million contract. The former Army facility 120 miles southeast of Fairbanks is slated for five missile silos, which will be part of the Pacific test bed the Missile Defense Agency hopes to have running by fall 2004. To highlight its opposition to missile defense, No Nukes North plans a five-day peace camp in June. The agenda includes demonstrations, nonviolence workshops, yoga and litter pickup on the Richardson Highway. Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at (202) 383-0007 or lruskin@adn.com [lruskin@adn.com] The Anchorage Daily News [http://www.adn.com] ***************************************************************** 62 New push for bunker-buster nuke | csmonitor.com Ann Scott Tyson Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor--> This week Congress considers the next step toward a controversial nuclear bomb that the Pentagon sees as vital. By Ann Scott Tyson | Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – It was March 1996. Libya had tunneled deep into a mountain south of Tripoli, allegedly to build a large chemical-weapons plant. To stop the project, the Clinton administration threatened to retaliate with "the whole range" of US weaponry – up to and including a nuclear bomb. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi apparently heeded the warning. Construction at the site halted, US intelligence showed. Yet the Libyan complex was just one of more than 10,000 underground military facilities that have mushroomed in number during the 1990s in more than 70 countries – from Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to Russia and China. Of those, more than 1,400 are known or suspected to be sheltering weapons of mass destruction (WMD), ballistic missiles, or military commands, according to US government reports. To counter what the Pentagon considers a growing threat from such "hard and deeply buried targets," the Bush administration today is accelerating steps to develop more effective, earth-penetrating nuclear bombs. The move – which is gaining momentum with a push in Congress for funding in the 2003 budget – comes charged with controversy. Challengers say the weapons are unnecessary, would still produce heavy collateral damage, and could spur nuclear proliferation if they are used to threaten non-nuclear states with preemptive strikes. Attacking what he called the administration's "reckless new nuclear weapons policy," House Armed Service Committee member Rep. Tom Allen (D) of Maine said this month it could "ignite a nuclear arms race." But Defense officials say that better bunker-busting nukes will provide vital deterrence against US foes. "The president ought to have options that enhance his ability ... to credibly threaten those targets," says a senior Pentagon official. "The obvious purpose of having a lower-yield weapon would be to ... make threatened use of that capability more credible and thereby to enhance deterrence." The administration's immediate aim is to improve on its only existing earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, the 1,200-pound B61-11 gravity bomb. Entering the US arsenal in 1997, the B61-11 has an selectable yield of from 1 to 300 kilotons, nuclear experts say. But it can reach only a limited depth underground – 10 to 20 feet in a dry lake bed in one government test – and "cannot survive penetration into many types of terrain," according to the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress in January. A study is planned on the design and cost of a heavier, 5,000-pound modification of the B61-11, to see whether it could burrow deeper with its original warhead intact. Greater depth, in theory, would allow a lower-yield bomb to cause more underground destruction while also limiting nuclear fallout on the surface. Legislation moving through the House this week grants $15 million in the fiscal year 2003 budget to study such a "robust nuclear earth penetrator." The current push is separate from failed efforts in previous years to develop so-called "mini-nukes." A 1994 law prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision weapon of less then 5 kilotons, because it would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. A successful study of the modified earth penetrator would pave the way for development and production. Yet just how "usable" – and therefore credible as a deterrent – such a bomb would be remains subject to doubt for both US officials and nuclear experts. The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, for example, points out in its report on the 2003 Defense bill that the earth penetrator "is not a new design, is not a low yield 'mini nuke', and is not 'clean' in the sense that fallout and collateral damage can be contained." Even with an extremely tiny yield, scientists estimate that such a bomb would toss up an enormous cloud of debris and radioactive fallout. "It would mean tens of thousands of people would be killed instead of hundreds of thousands" if used in a city such as Baghdad, says Rob Nelson, a physicist and researcher at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. Other critics contend that conventional "bunker buster" bombs could effectively neutralize many underground targets. For example, the 5,000-pound GBU-28, used in Iraq during the Gulf War and more recently on caves in Afghanistan, has a new, steel cap that allows it to penetrate as deep or deeper than the B61-11. Such conventional bombs could be used to seal the entrances of such complexes, entombing them, says Steve Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "If we see them digging it out, we bomb it again," he says. One major obstacle to both of these strategies – whether conventional or nuclear – is that US intelligence can't fully track the growing number of sophisticated underground facilities, many in so-called "rogue states," US military officials acknowledge. Camouflaged and buried beneath the equivalent of from 70 to 300 feet of reinforced concrete, the facilities are built using either conventional drill-and-blast tunneling or more advanced mining technology, according to a Pentagon report to Congress last year. "The challenges of hard and deeply buried targets [require] a much greater fidelity in intelligence than we currently possess," Adm. James Ellis told a Senate committee in March. For further information: • The creeping nuclear threat Asia Times • Bush's nuke bandwagon Guardian • Nuclear Posture Review: Reading Between the Lines Common Dreams • Dangerous small-nukes proposal could set off a global arms race • Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts] GlobalSecurity.org Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. • Visit the Monitor Web Directory: sites we like. Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights ***************************************************************** 63 Tauscher fights possible DOE compensation changes Tri-Valley Herald Thursday, May 09, 2002 - 3:04:58 AM MST By Staff Writer: Glenn Roberts Jr. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, whose congressional district includes two nuclear weapons research labs, is joining a protest of proposed rules that could hamper efforts to compensate ill weapons workers. Proposed changes to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, would scuttle the intent of the act by impeding legitimate claims, says a group of legislators. "Under this rule, workers will never receive the justice that Congress -- on a bipartisan basis -- had intended for diseases and disability incurred while working at (Energy Department) facilities," states a letter that legislators said they plan to send today to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Lawmakers say in the letter that the proposed changes to language in the original act would allow Energy Department contractors to refute the findings of medical review panels formed to consider the merit of workers' claims. "This process is not authorized in (the act) and turns the whole principle of contractors not contesting merited worker compensation claims on its head," the letter says. Also, the letter notes that the proposed changes would give department contractors "incentive to fight merited claims," and would allow medical panels to apply different standards based on the policies of the states where claims originate. This runs counter to the language of the act, which provides that compensation programs will have "timely, uniform and adequate" coverage, legislators say. On March 27, nine members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a separate letter to Energy officials with 22 questions related to the same provisions of the compensation act, and they reportedly have not yet received answers. Dolline Hatchett, an Energy Department spokeswoman, did not respond Wednesday to questions about the proposed changes to the compensation program. The compensation act provides that Energy Department workers exposed to hazardous levels of radiation, beryllium dust or silica dust while performing work for the Energy Department and its contractors and subcontractors are potentially eligible for compensation. Workers and former workers can receive lump-sum payments of up to $150,000 and medical coverage if they are suffering from serious illnesses related to their exposure, and family members of deceased workers also can be eligible for compensation. Those who have worked for Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley and Sandia labs in the Bay Area are among those who may be qualified for compensa- tion. "Congress sought to assure that a non-adversarial process would be set forth ... to assure that if illness arose out of the course of employment from exposure to toxic substances, such as heavy metals, solvents, acids and asbestos, workers or their survivors would be paid by (Energy Department) contractors without a legal battle," the letter says. "The draft rule fails to meet this intent." Reps. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Tauscher are among those who are sending the letter to the Energy Department. A group of senators also is sending a separate letter. About 22,000 claims for compensation have been filed across the country since the compensation program was launched, and a total of $147 million has been awarded. A temporary assistance center for ill workers in the Bay Area, which was open for three days in March at a site in Pleasanton, had about 55 visitors, and officials assisted visitors in filing 43 claims. For information about the compensation program, visit www.dol.gov [http://www.dol.gov] ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 64 Cleanup plan 'OK' with state 05/09/02 The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff For the most part, state officials accept the Department of Energy's proposal for accelerating the cleanup of some high-risk Oak Ridge sites. The emphasis of the proposal is on the accelerated cleanup of the Oak Ridge K-25 site, which was built in the 1940s to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, and the Melton Valley waste burial grounds at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "The state does accept the premise of focusing attention on high-risk areas and areas of less risk being postponed to later dates," said John Owsley, director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's DOE oversight division. Current Oak Ridge cleanup efforts were labeled "mediocre" in a comprehensive review that DOE headquarters did of its Environmental Management program. For one thing, Oak Ridge has focused on the "easy work," not on higher-risk activities, according to the review which essentially spawned what's been dubbed as the "accelerated cleanup program." DOE headquarters launched the $800 million, fast-paced cleanup project in February in hopes of overhauling its Environmental Management program. In March, DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office submitted its proposal to participate in the program and is now waiting for its regulators -- the state and the Environmental Protection Agency -- to approve the plan. "We have not signed off on it," Owsley said. Owsley said the state doesn't necessarily have problems with the proposal, but the TDEC official indicated that there were some parts of the plan that were still being examined. DOE and its regulators are also currently in a formal dispute over some cleanup milestones that are outlined in the Federal Facility Agreement for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Owsley said this dispute is expected to be resolved by June so that Oak Ridge's accelerated cleanup proposal can be in place by Oct. 1 -- the beginning of fiscal year 2003. In addition to expediting cleanup efforts, Oak Ridge's proposal is expected to significantly cut costs. For example, an early investment of $610 million over the next five years at K-25 will save $870 million in the long run, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Oak Ridger. That would drop the total cost of the project from $2.4 billion to around $1.5 billion. Numerous facilities and land areas were left contaminated at K-25 due to the plant's uranium enrichment work. The accelerated cleanup proposal calls for the quick disposal of legacy waste at K-25, the demolition of several buildings and the development of a plan for reindustrialization. The Melton Valley burial grounds contain areas with high inventories of radioactive wastes that DOE says pose a risk to human health and the environment. Melton Valley was used by ORNL for disposal of solid and liquid radioactive wastes and for the development of research reactors. DOE expects its Melton Valley plan would result in improvements to water quality in the Clinch River, the restoration of 7 acres of wetlands and the removal of 204 casks of transuranic waste, which is considered as some of the most dangerous wastes in Oak Ridge. Under the accelerated work plan, the Melton Valley completion date would shift from 2014 to 2006, with the total cleanup cost dropping from $350 million to $240 million. The balance of the accelerated cleanup proposal includes the following projects: + Installation of water treatment systems to mitigate off-site mercury releases from the Y-12 National Security Complex. + Excavation of uranium-contaminated soil from the burn-yard area at Y-12. + Treatment and disposal of mixed low-level waste and transuranic waste. Transuranic waste generally consists of protective clothing, equipment, sludge and soils that have been contaminated with manmade radioactive elements heavier than uranium. + Remediation of the Bear Creek Valley burial grounds. + Operation and expansion of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility to provide the necessary waste disposal capacity to support accelerated cleanup. + Construction and operation of a privatized transuranic waste processing facility. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 65 IAAPtour views clean–up projects The Hawk Eye Newspaper Thursday, May 9, 2002 By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye MIDDLETOWN — Members of the citizen advisory panel that monitors cleanup of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant got a close–up view of several of the restoration projects Wednesday. "It all looks nice and green just like there's nothing wrong," said Mark Hagerla as he looked out the window of the Trailways coach parked along old Highway 61 south of the plant, "but you know there is something wrong." At levels 25 to 65 feet below the highway is a giant plume of groundwater contaminated by explosives waste that leached off the plant and ran down Brush Creek for decades, finally spreading out in the sandy soil southeast of the plant. The plant's environmental specialist, Rodger Allison, told those on the bus that cleanup crews may soon begin trying to treat the most contaminated spots — some 70 times the levels considered safe for drinking. On much of the plume, however, cleanup crews will let nature take its course, Allison said, suggesting that over time nature itself might clean or at least dispose of some of the groundwater. The plume is not considered an immediate threat to public health. The plume extends generally from about 500 feet north of U.S. 61 to about one–third of a mile south of the Skunk River. At the northern end, the plume begins about one–half mile east of the Green Valley Estates subdivision and extends another one–half mile to the west. At its widest, it is about three–quarters of a mile across. Residents in the area have been connected to the Rathbun water system. The bus trip south of the plant came at the end of a two–hour tour of contaminated sites across the sprawling 19,000–acre Army compound. As the bus rolled across the plant's paved and graveled roads, Allison explained how the sites became contaminated and what had been done to restore them. Although there was little new information revealed, it was a refresher course for the RAB members and their guests. Among the stops were: Line 1, where for 25 years the Atomic Energy Commission assembled, disassembled and test–fired components of nuclear weapons. Much of that production line, part of which is still used in the manufacturing and loading of conventional munitions, is now under the purview of a special radiation team from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unit in St. Louis. Firing sites contaminated by depleted uranium used in the "hydro–shot" test firings of the atomic weapons components. The burn pads where heavy metals and other hazardous materials were burned off into the air over the plant. Line 800 pinkwater lagoon, which turned pink from the disposal of effluent from the line. The lagoon also received metal cleaning sludge from Line 3 operations. An explosives–laden waste water impoundment area formed by the damming of Brush Creek. The RAB members also stopped at the landfill created to safely contain even the most highly contaminated soil dug up from other areas on the grounds. Cleaning the soil in the containment areas, divided according to contamination levels, is not expected to be completed for 10 to 12 years, Allison said, although the continual discovery of new restoration methods may hasten the cleanup. Allison said that about $60 million has been spent on the superfund restoration of the plant, which is managed by the Corps of Engineers and overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency. Before the cleanup is finished in about 2014, about $110 million will have been spent, Allison said. Hagerla said a major concern for the board is that funding sources don't dry up before the cleanup is finished. "(Army officials) have been much more open than I thought they would be in the beginning," said RAB member Dean Vickstrom. "I think they have put a good–faith effort into (the cleanup)," Vickstrom said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 ***************************************************************** 66 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.19 | 1 - 8 May 2002 A weekly summary of international news relevant to the nuclear energy industry. [NB02.19-1] Russia: The world's first nuclear power plant, Obninsk, was shut down on 30 April, Valery Bezzubtsev of the Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) told the ITAR-Tass news agency. The 5MWe plant was commissioned in 1954. It will be turned into a museum. (Russia Journal Online, 7 May; see also News Briefing 99.24-20) [NB02.19-2] UK: British Energy (BE) is in talks with British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) about the possibility of taking over the running of four of BNFL's six Magnox nuclear power reactors. The plants are believed to be Oldbury, Wylfa, Dungeness and Sizewell. The deal would allow BE to run the plants until they are decommissioned at about the end of this decade and to sell the power without taking any of the financial risk. BE would not take on the liabilities of the reactors or the cost of decommissioning them. The agreement, which is believed to have the backing of the government, is still being negotiated. (Financial Times, 6 May, p20; Daily Telegraph, 6 May, p25; see also News Briefing 00.21-1) [NB02.19-3] US: The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote today on whether to support President Bush's decision to site a national spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Supporters of the proposed facility predict broad support to reject a Nevada protest of the decision. The Senate is expected to vote on the issue in the summer, with several Senate committee hearings scheduled later this month. (Associated Press, 8 May; see also News Briefing 02.16-14) Meanwhile, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is suing the federal government in order to recover costs incurred by the delay in opening the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository. TVA claims the delay could cost it over US$120 million. TVA must purchase reinforced storage canisters - costing some US$1 million each - to store its spent fuel. The company has already paid US580 million as part of a federal fund to finance Yucca Mountain. (Ux Weekly, 6 May, p5) [NB02.19-4] Finland: A poll of 1500 Finns indicates that 44% of respondents approve the construction of a fifth nuclear power reactor in the country, while the same proportion oppose the proposal. The remainder are undecided. Taloustutkimus conducted the poll in March. A parliamentary vote on the issue is scheduled for 24 May. (Nuclear Market Review, 3 May, p2; Ux Weekly, 6 May, p3; see also News Briefings 02.03-2 and 02.17-9) [NB02.19-5] Sweden: A major safety investment programme at the Barseback-2 nuclear power reactor will continue as planned, despite political moves to limit the reactor's operating life. The programme includes the replacement of primary systems. More than SKr100 million (US$9.74 million) will be spent annually over the next three years on the programme, which will include emptying the reactor vessel of water for the first time since operations began in 1977. Barseback plant manager Leif Ost is confident that the reactor 'would remain productive 'for many years'. (NucNet News, 164/02, 2 May; Ux Weekly, 6 May, p4; see also News Briefing 02.14-11) [NB02.19-6] India's nuclear power plants generated 19.192 TWh of electricity in 2001, up some 21% from the 15.818 TWh produced in 2000, according to Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd (NPCIL). The average capacity factor in 2001 was 83%, compared with 82% in 2000. There were 14 reactors, with a combined capacity of 2720 MWe, operating in 2001. (Nucleonics Week, 2 May, p9; see also News Briefing 02.09-17) [NB02.19-7] US: Exelon will submit an application for an early site permit (ESP) for a possible new reactor at its Clinton nuclear power plant. The company expects to submit an application for an ESP with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 2003. (Nuclear Energy Overview, 6 May, p8; Ux Weekly, 6 May, p4; FreshFUEL, 6 May, p4; see also News Briefing 02.17-5) [NB02.19-8] US: Requests from Entergy Nuclear Southwest and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to increasing generating capacity at Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) unit 2 and Sequoyah-1 and -2 have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Entergy will increase capacity at ANO-2 by 7.5% to 922 MWe. TVA will raise capacity of both Sequoyah-1 and -2 by 1.3%, to 1137 MWe for each reactor. (Nuclear Market Review, 3 May, p2; Ux Weekly, 6 May, p4; see also News Briefing 01.16-11) [NB02.19-9] The Lithuanian government has approved a 2.4 billion euro (US$2.16 billion) estimate for the cost of shutting down the Ignalina nuclear power plant. The government is calling for the European Union (EU) to provide full financing of that amount in return for agreeing to shut the two-unit plant when it joins the EU. Meanwhile, the Belarus government has expressed an interest in buying Ignalina. It is not clear whether the Belarussians want to operate the plant in Lithuania or are hoping to benefit financially from EU shutdown money. (Nucleonics Week, 2 May, p16; see also News Briefing 02.14-12) [NB02.19-10] Egypt: A new nuclear power plant should be operational in the country by 2010, according to Electricity Minister Hassan Younis. Egypt has recently entered into nuclear cooperation agreements with China and South Korea. (Ux Weekly, 6 May, p4; see also News Briefing 97.01-12) [NB02.19-11] Japan: The prefectural government of Fukushima is proposing a sharp increase in the tax it imposes on nuclear fuel. At present, the Fukushima prefectural government imposes a 7% tax on the value of nuclear fuel core. The effective tax on the fuel would increase to 16% under changes proposed by the government's tax advisory panel. The 7% rate on the value of the fuel would increase to 10% under the proposals. However, the government also plans to impose a new tax of some Y10 000 per kilogram (US$78/kg). A bill will be submitted to the prefectural assembly in June. Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) operates 10 reactors at two sites in Fukushima. (Power in Asia, 2 May, p23) [NB02.19-12] UK: Prime Minister Tony Blair said it would be 'wrong' to shut down British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL's) Sellafield reprocessing plant, as called for by Ireland, without official evidence to support claims it poses a threat. He said that the plant, like any other plant in the UK, was 'subject to the strictest national and international standards'. Mr Blair said the Sellafield plant is regularly inspected and none of the types of problems alleged by campaigners have been found. (NucNet News, 165/02, 2 May; BBC News Online, 2 May; see also News Briefing 01.49-3) [NB02.19-13] US: A draft safety evaluation report into the construction of a proposed mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Savannah River site has been issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In the report, NRC staff conclude that the DOE's contractor - a consortium comprising Duke Engineering & Services, Cogema Inc and Stone & Webster (DCS) - needs to provide additional information on 'a number of issues', detailed in the report, before authorisation to construct the plant can be granted. The report is available on the NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/). (NucNet News, 166/02, 3 May; see also News Briefing 02.13-16) [NB02.19-14] UK: Two armed ships - the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal - have left the port of Barrow and are en route to Japan to collect eight unirradiated mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies fabricated by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). The fuel was rejected by Kansai Electric Power Co following BNFL's admission that quality assurance data had been falsified. The ships are expected to arrive back in the UK in August. (SpentFUEL, 6 May, p4; see also News Briefing 02.11-12) [NB02.19-15] UK: The government should take immediate action to deal with 'all forms of radioactive waste', according to a report published by the Royal Society's working group on radioactive waste. The report suggests that decisions on building new nuclear power plants in the UK 'need not necessarily' be delayed until an acceptable solution for managing existing waste is decided. Any proposals to build a new reactor should be accompanied by plans to dispose of the waste it will generate, the group suggests. The Royal Society also supports a government recommendation that an independent nuclear waste management commission should be established to determine how the public wants waste disposed of in the long-term and to provide technical advice to the government. The report, submitted in response to a consultation on the management of radioactive waste by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), can be found on the Royal Society's website (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/). (Royal Society, 3 May; NucNet News, 168/02, 6 May; see also News Briefing 01.44-11) [NB02.19-16] Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd (KHNP) aims to select a site for a low-level and intermediate-level waste (LLW/ILW) repository and interim storage of its spent fuel by the beginning of 2003. KHNP and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy hope to identify between three and five candidate locations in August or September, and to select one of these sites by the end of 2002. (Nucleonics Week, 2 May, p19; see also News Briefing 01.40-10) [NB02.19-17] Vietnam and India have signed a memorandum of understanding that includes a 'detailed work plan of co-operation for the year 2002-2003' for the development of nuclear energy for peaceful and commercial purposes. (NucNet News, 163/02, 2 May; see also News Briefing 01.03-13) [NB02.19-18] Framatome ANP has completed its US$280 million purchase of Duke Energy Corp subsidiary Duke Engineering & Services. The division will now be called Framatome ANP DE&S. (Framatome ANP, 30 April; see also News Briefing 02.06-18) Notice: This week's News Digest will be distributed and posted on the WNA website on Monday morning (13 May). Previous News Briefing NB02.18 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************