***************************************************************** 06/11/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.147 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: GOVERNMENT USING TERRORISM TO COVER-UP PRE-EXISTING NUCLEAR DANG 2 US: Company wants sanction against anti-nuclear lawyer 3 US: Rob Knawa: Science is on side of nuclear, but politics get in th NUCLEAR REACTORS NUCLEAR SAFETY 4 US: Uncovered "Dirty Bomb" Terrorist Plot 5 US: Nevada senators to cite 'dirty bomb' in pitch 6 US: Dirty bomb's biggest hazard would be panic, not blast, experts 7 US: N.Y. Times: Dirty-Nuke Explosion Not So Bad 8 US: Radiation Device Could Cripple City 9 US: How Bad Can a 'Dirty Bomb' Be? 10 US: Anti-nuke pills now in greater demand 11 US: Letters: Water plant was shelter from fallout, not bomb 12 US: Radioactive fallout would be appalling, experts say 13 US: Scenarios for 'dirty bomb' explosions 14 US: `Dirty bombs' not rocket science NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 15 US: Group Maps Nuke Dump Routes Online 16 US: Your Turn: Nuke industry manufactures storage crisis 17 US: Paths to nuclear dump crisscross Iowa 18 US: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Internet site tracks paths to repository 19 US: Nuclear waste may pass through city en route to Yucca Mountain 20 US: Radioactive material 'easy to find' 21 US: S.C. plutonium case to be heard 22 US: Officials concerned about possible nuclear waste shipments 23 US: Media Outlets Sue Over Plutonium 24 US: Yucca: Nevada fails to reach funding goal 25 US: Nuclear waste in the neighborhood 26 US: Group Warns N-Shipments Are Not Safe 27 US: Former governor tells court he didn't try to block nuclear waste 28 US: Nuclear waste routes could go through Florida cities 29 US: Nuclear waste route could run through Green Bay 30 US: Nuclear shipments tracked via 'Net 31 US: Diablo Canyon Nuclear waste en route? 32 US: Media outlets sue to block court from sealing Energy Department 33 US: Nuke waste could pass within miles of millions 34 US: Nuclear waste transport carries grave risks 35 US: Letters: nuclear waste and terrorism NUCLEAR WEAPONS 36 US: Kucinich and House Dems to file lawsuit against Bush US DEPT. OF ENERGY 37 Greenspun: 'Net reveals DOE folly 38 ORNL celebrates 1 million hours of safety 39 Lawmakers push for uranium waste plants in Ohio, Kentucky 40 Livermore lab plan: $1 billion misprint 41 From nuclear production to nonproliferation, Y-12 changing 42 City tax collections at Y-12 increase 43 Lawmakers try to speed up uranium cleanup in Kentucky, Ohio OTHER NUCLEAR 44 Nuked food and dioxin ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 GOVERNMENT USING TERRORISM TO COVER-UP PRE-EXISTING NUCLEAR DANGERS IN NYC!!! Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:46:30 -0700 Subject: promised press release From: "Dr. Carole Lieberman" www.drcarole.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: GOVERNMENT USING TERRORISM TO COVER-UP PRE-EXISTING NUCLEAR DANGERS IN NYC!!! (June 10, 2002) Potassium iodide pills are currently being distributed like candy in Westchester County, New York ­ near the site of Indian Point, the nation¹s most dangerous nuclear power plant. Though the Œcandy-man¹ would have us believe that this is to protect residents, in the event of a terrorist attack on the nuclear plantŠ it is actually a smokescreen to distract people from the underlying life-threatening conditions that have existed there for years! High-ranking government officials may continue to try to pretend that they had no clue that terrorists were threatening to attack before 9/11, but there is no way they can pretend that they did not know about the longstanding threat to New York City that Indian Point (less than 50 miles away) portends! The insidious effects of radioactive material on people¹s health has already begun taking its tollŠ yet the government allows the plant to keep on running, filling the pockets of Entergy, an international corporation which owns Indian Point and other nuclear plants. To avoid an "Erin Brokovich" scenario, after studies continue to reveal evidence of increased rates of cancer, other immune disorders and undefined illnesses, in the people living closest to nuclear plants, the government suddenly distributes a Œmagic pill¹ to lure people into a sense of false security! The pills are meant to promote the message: take this and you¹ll be safe. But not only will they not be safe, in the event of nuclear attack on the plant, they are not safe now! The pills are distributed under the guise of helping citizens in their Œfight against terrorism¹. But what pills can we take to help us in the fight against government corruption and greed? Carole Lieberman, M.D., a psychiatrist on the Clinical Faculty of UCLA¹s Neuropsychiatric Institute and an NIMH scholar in Public Health, discovered this cover-up while doing research for her book, The Psychological Survival Guide for Coping with Terrorism". She interviewed many doctors working around Indian Point, who admitted they were growing increasingly alarmed at the mounting cases they attribute to daily emissions of radioactive isotopes. One pediatrician said that, as far back as 10 years ago, his colleagues informed the CDC that there was a cluster of leukemia, lymphoma, and sarcoma patients in their area; but, the CDC denied that this was abnormally high. A general practitioner knows of at least 5 cases of thyroid cancer in the graduating class of a local high school, and has seen increasing cases of chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, breast cancer, learning disabilities and younger cases of auto-immune diseases in her practice than ever before. She reports that child cancer death rates in areas up to 40 miles downwind of Indian Point are 20-35% higher than average. Dr. Lieberman¹s research led her to interview others where the experience felt like stepping inside the movie, "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," since seemingly upstanding citizens have replaced the normal feeling, thinking individuals who previously inhabited the region surrounding the nuclear power plant at Indian Point. Perhaps the leakage of nuclear waste has turned them into the movie-like Œpod-people¹. Or perhaps their financial or political interests in keeping Indian Point going and their psychological denial mechanisms that allow them to work and raise families so close to nuclear danger are preventing them from acknowledging the truth. Indeed, the secretary to Dr. Hudson, the Deputy Commissioner of Community Health Services at the Westchester County Department of Health, was happy to repeat the party line about the distribution of potassium iodide, but when Dr. Lieberman asked about current radiation exposure, she responded, "Do we have a current exposure? We are trying to inform the public about the potential, but not the current exposure. I¹m instructed to talk about the often-asked questions about potential radiation. Low level is very acceptable and Š very, very, very minimal and it¹s not harmful." When asked why the residents were given only one pill each, she said that it¹s also sold over the counter in pharmacies and that the one pill is only until "the Commissioner of Health tells you to take moreŠ." At that point, the phone was apparently yanked from her hand by Dr. Hudson, whom the secretary had previously said was not there. Dr. Hudson repeatedly denied that she knew anything about why or when the Commissioner of Health might tell you to "take more." Instead, she said that only one pill was being given out "in the event of evacuation being delayedŠ such as by a snowstorm." So terrorists have only to wait until winter, to make the evacuation of Westchester and New York City even more of a gridlock! Yet Dr. Hudson continued, "Evacuation is the main plan of defense" and "There is no significant excess exposure from Indian PointŠ everyone is exposed to background radiation from rocks, the groundŠ." She even went on to say, "Most emissions from Indian Point do not contain radioactive iodine." When asked whether she knew that many people disagreed with her on this, she admitted that she did. Indeed, if there was no radioactive iodine, why are they giving out potassium iodide at all? Studies have shown that people living within 100 miles of a nuclear power plant are more likely to die from cancer than those in the general population. According to the Radiation and Public Health Project, "Mysterious health problems that doctors cannot explain are afflicting people working at and living near nuclear weapons plants and research facilities from California to New York." The United States is the only nation that has never conducted its own study of strontium 90 in baby teeth ­ such studies are being privately funded. Why? Undoubtedly because the government doesn¹t want us to know just how many of us are in dangerŠ lest we interfere with the operation of nuclear plants in our neighborhood. And there are currently approximately 1300 such neighborhoods! Indian Point, rated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the nation¹s most troubled nuclear power plant, shut down for nearly a year after the February 2000 accident leaked 20,000 gallons of radioactive water into the Hudson River. There has been less publicized leakage as well. The soil is undoubtedly contaminated. Potassium iodide helps to protect against thyroid cancer ­ just one of the health problems associated with radiation exposure. Though a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant is a potential danger, we know that many have already been exposed to radiation in the homes, workplaces and playgrounds, built next door to Indian Point. Clearly the government is hoping to Œclean up¹ the Œfallout¹ from the pre-existing nuclear exposure, by hiding behind what seems like practical wisdom after 9/11. They are hoping to distract us from the dangerousness of Indian Point. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is distributing pills to any state with a nuclear reactor ­ but is it to protect against terrorist attacks or against the public¹s attack on government exploitation? This new evidence of further governmental cover-up is actually the most Œbitter pill¹ to swallow! As a psychiatrist, Dr. Lieberman warns, "This is the worst time to lose faith in our government. We need to feel protected against terrorism by these Œparental figures¹, or we risk panic in the streets!" Dr. Lieberman, a regular guest commentator in the media, can discuss these and other findings, so that people can make informed decisions and not panic. Contact: C.J. Cox for Carole Lieberman, M.D., M.P.H. (310) 278-5433 or drcarole@drcarole.com Ken Levine ­ More Than News Productions ­ (818) 907-9444 www.drcarole.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ***************************************************************** 2 Company wants sanction against anti-nuclear lawyer The Rutland Herald Online - [http://www.rutlandherald.com] June 11, 2002 By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau MONTPELIER — The Mississippi company that hopes to buy the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant this summer wants the attorney for an anti-nuclear organization to be banned from practicing before the Public Service Board, because, they say, he violated confidentiality agreements. In a motion filed with the Public Service Board, Entergy Nuclear attorney Victoria Brown asked for sanctions against James Dumont, the attorney for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. She says Dumont violated confidentiality agreements surrounding the sale by talking about Entergy’s financial plans for decommissioning the plant. The motion itself contained blacked-out sections, but the portions that remained said that Dumont should be banned from Public Service Board practice. Dumont, a Middlebury attorney who has practiced before the Public Service Board for years, refused to comment about the latest in the ongoing war of words and access to information between the anti-nuclear group and Entergy Nuclear, based in Jackson, Miss. Dumont said Monday he would let his letter to the Public Service Board and an e-mail he sent to the attorneys involved in the Vermont Yankee sale case earlier this month, speak for him. The charges stem from an Associated Press article, which was published in the Rutland Herald on June 1, which quoted Dumont as saying Entergy stood to reap “millions and millions” of dollars from Yankee’s decommissioning fund if the sale were approved. As of last September, there was $300 million in Vermont Yankee’s shutdown fund. But according to a proposed agreement between Entergy Nuclear and the state, if Entergy can shut down the plant and dismantle it for less, it can either keep the difference or split it with ratepayers, according to the date of shutdown. The coalition, which is based in Brattleboro and is the state’s oldest anti-nuclear organization, believes that all the decommissioning funds should be returned to ratepayers. Dumont recently challenged the issue, prompting the PSB to ask Entergy and Yankee to justify the legality of their plan. The issue of secrecy in the Yankee case is a complicated one with three different levels of access to documents, depending on who you are and what agreements you signed. Companies such as Entergy have demanded and received such secrecy, arguing that corporate trade secrets are at stake in an extremely competitive and high-stakes market. During the recent hearings on the sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy, three groups against the sale — New England Coalition, Citizens Awareness Network and Conservation Law Foundation — were all given access to the confidential documents once the attorneys for those organizations signed the required confidentiality agreements. Since the case started, some of the documents which were deemed confidential have been released. Dumont, in his e-mail to Brown and others on June 1, said he was “shocked and upset” to read the Associated Press story, which quoted him as saying that Entergy expected to receive “many, many millions of dollars” from the decommissioning trust fund. “I hope I did not say that. I don’t believe I said it. I cannot categorically rule it out, since I’m human and make mistakes. If I said that, I should not have and I apologize,” he wrote, saying he did not question the reporting of the story. On Monday, he wrote to the board and sent the board a copy of the e-mail, and added that he did not know how to respond to Entergy’s motion to find him in contempt, or whether he should hire a lawyer to represent him. Brown, a Burlington attorney, didn’t return a telephone call asking for comment. The sale of Vermont Yankee is in its 11th hour: the Public Service Board is expected to rule by the end of the week whether the sale is in the best interests of the people of Vermont. Entergy’s motion for contempt sanctions against New England Coalition and Dumont asked for hearings, and said Dumont was guilty of a “flagrant violation” of protective orders on Entergy information. “By his conduct and communications with the media in this regard, Mr. Dumont places Entergy in a real Catch-22 in which it must either be damned by its silence or be obligated to publicly disclose confidential financial projections,” Brown wrote, noting that the violation “casts a chill” on future confidentiality issues before the Public Service Board. Susan Hudson, clerk for the Public Service Board, said that no hearing had been scheduled. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. Rutland Herald 27 Wales Street P.O. Box 668 Rutland, Vermont 05702-0668 Tel (802) 747-6121 Fax (802) 775-2423 Email [info@rutlandherald.com?subject=Email from Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 3 Rob Knawa: Science is on side of nuclear, but politics get in the way *06-11-2002* Regarding remarks by Gary Richardson of the Snake River Alliance on ?a good solution for dealing with nuclear waste,? and by Jim Lake of INEEL on the ?social and political problem? of nuclear waste about which people are puzzled, I offer my own comments: More than 15 years ago, Argonne National Laboratory demonstrated (right here in Idaho, Experimental Breeder Reactor No. 2) that an inherently safe and environmentally friendly breeder reactor can burn spent nuclear fuel and other fissile material such as that being taken from decommissioned nuclear weapons, and recycle it to continue producing electric energy. The resulting ?waste? from this continued recycling process is more like 1 or 2 percent of the waste coming from today´s nuclear plants using yesterday´s technology. The potential advantage in resolving future waste problems is rather obvious. Why do today´s nuclear plants have so much waste (hazardous spent fuel that needs to be stored safely for thousands of years)? Because of the Carter-era non-proliferation treaty, the principles of which are ignored by several non-treaty countries who now have or are developing or buying their own nukes. This out-dated treaty prevents the United States from recycling spent fuel to recreate more fuel for our power plants. So, we have to store it. This leads to another aspect of (the lack of) a national energy policy ? after long years of study (and delays caused by environmentally based objections), the U.S. Department of Energy has only now approved the storage site for this material at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Why haven´t we dealt with these issues and taken advantage of the new technology that permits recycling of reactor fuels? Lake alluded to the more significant of them, in my opinion ? ?social and political problems:? Social ? The media, frightened by activist pseudo-environmentalists, have indoctrinated the public through commentators´ own fears that a nuclear power plant equals a nuclear bomb. The whole world seems now to be frightened by the mushroom-cloud image that seems always to have accompanied any discussion of nuclear power in the past. Political ? This popular sentiment has convinced legislators and other politicians not to touch the issue ? then they say, ?the people don´t want it.? Politicians won´t get answers to the hard questions from political focus groups. They need to study the issues ? educate themselves and the voters in their districts. Now is a good time for the press to truly come to the aid of our country. America became a great nation because it developed and used energy to its significant advantage, not because it was timid. We can´t ignore the need for conservation, improving the efficiency of machines, and alternative energy sources. But just turning down the heat won´t keep America strong and self-sufficient. We need more energy, a better way to utilize it, and a balance between quality of life and advancing technology. We need to be energy independent ? for security and for growth. It is a time for the Bush administration and the Congress to lead, to strengthen our country, to keep us secure and independent. More nuclear energy, not less. Edition Date: 06-11-2002 ***************************************************************** 4 Uncovered "Dirty Bomb" Terrorist Plot Senator Harry Reid Releases Statement in Response to the Recently News From Sen. Harry Reid - Assistant Democratic Leader From Nevada Monday, June 10, 2002 In response to the recently uncovered "dirty bomb" terrorist plot, Senator Harry Reid released the following statement today: "Authorities today uncovered a plot by terrorists to build and explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is moving ahead with its plan to ship 77,000 tons of deadly spent nuclear fuel around the country. This would mean tens of thousands of shipments on our roads, railways and waterways of the exact nuclear material a terrorist would need to make a dangerous dirty bomb. Tens of thousands of opportunities for terrorists to hijack ready-made, deadly "dirty bombs" from nuclear waste being hauled across this country. And, outrageously, the Department of Energy claims this is safe. "The DOE has no security in place for these shipments. We know what evil people intent on causing mass destruction are capable of. It would be a lot easier to hijack one of 100,000 truck, train or barge shipments, than an airplane. Each shipment would have 240 times the radioactivity of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is recklessly irresponsible to put American lives at risk by transporting these nuclear targets of opportunity through our communities- by our homes, hospitals and schools. The discovery of this latest terrorist plot should serve as wake-up call to the nation that transporting nuclear waste is a deadly idea.? ***************************************************************** 5 Nevada senators to cite 'dirty bomb' in pitch Tuesday, June 11, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators on Monday seized on allegations of a nuclear "dirty bomb" plot against the United States as evidence that nuclear waste should be kept off the nation's roads and railways. Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., plan to cite the alleged plan when they make final pitches to Senate colleagues preparing to vote on authorizing Yucca Mountain in Nevada for a nuclear waste repository. If the repository is licensed and built, 77,000 tons of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel would travel from 39 states to Nevada in truck and rail shipments over at least two dozen years beginning in 2010. Nevada repository critics have challenged whether the government can secure shipment canisters from terrorist attack. An Energy Department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment Monday night, but officials at DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have said the shipments can be secured from attack. Ensign said Monday an attack that breaches a shipping canister could amount to a "dirty bomb" that could scatter some amount of radiation and cause panic. "We haven't just been using scare tactics," he said. "This is a very, very real threat." "The discovery of this latest terrorist plot should serve as a wake-up call to the nation that transporting nuclear waste is a deadly idea," Reid said. Jim Hall, former head of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the Senate shouldn't vote on the Yucca Mountain Project until the government completes a risk assessment and shipping safety plan. "A deliberate delay now is far better than a devastating disaster tomorrow," said Hall, who leads a Nevada-organized coalition against the nuclear waste shipments. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 6 Dirty bomb's biggest hazard would be panic, not blast, experts say - 6/11/02 - NCTimes.net H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press WASHINGTON ---- A "dirty bomb" could spread radioactive dust over several city blocks, but the radiation probably would not cause many casualties, experts said Monday. The weapon would be most effective in spreading fear and panic, they said. Not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, a dirty bomb is a device that uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material. The explosion could send a plume of radioactive dust for several city blocks, depending on wind conditions, experts said Monday. Exposed people would need to be isolated to prevent them from spreading the contamination, requiring an even wider cleanup. The radiation exposure would probably be of such a small dose that it would cause no immediate health concerns ---- and probably no long-term adverse health effects, said government and private nuclear experts. "The impact is more psychological rather than loss of life," said Phil Anderson, a security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, although hundreds could still be killed by the conventional explosion itself. "It's the fear factor we've got to focus our energies on," said Anderson. On that score, he added, "we failed miserably" last year in trying to explain the threat posed to the average American from anthrax-laced mail. Interest in a potential attack using what the government calls "a radiation dispersal device" intensified Monday after the arrest of a Chicago man accused of plotting with al-Qaida terrorists to detonate a "dirty bomb." Officials said the alleged attack was only in the planning stages and no actual bomb was found. A dirty bomb, unlike a nuclear weapon, has no atomic chain reaction and does not require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, both of which are difficult to obtain and are normally under extremely tight security. Instead, the radioactive component is of a lower-grade isotope, such as those used in medicine or research. Last month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission disclosed that it receives an average of 300 reports a year of small amounts of radioactive materials missing from various users. NRC officials said they have no evidence of anyone collecting this material to build for a dirty bomb. If a dirty bomb were to be detonated, the radiation release would probably be small. "A few closest to the explosion might inhale enough radioactive material to obtain internal radiation doses exceeding the NRC annual limit for members of the public, but they would not be expected to experience any prompt or latent health effects as a result," NRC Chairman Richard Meserve said recently in a letter to Congress. The NRC limit is 100 millirem; according to the Department of Energy, the average American receives about 360 millirem per year from natural and manmade radiation sources. But authorities would face other challenges, said the experts. The radiation closest to the blast would hamper rescue work, create a cleanup problem and result in months of economic disruption ---- along with producing fear and, possibly, public panic. Several experts said a dirty bomb is not so much a weapon of mass destruction as it is a weapon of mass disruption. 6/11/02 ***************************************************************** 7 N.Y. Times: Dirty-Nuke Explosion Not So Bad [NewsMax.com] Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:54 a.m. EDT In an attempt to downplay an apparent intelligence coup for the Bush administration, the New York Times suggested Tuesday that the plot hatched by al-Qaeda dirty-nuke conspirator Jose Padilla wouldn't have been particularly devastating even if it had succeeded. "[Attorney General John] Ashcroft overstated the likely damage when he said a dirty bomb could cause 'mass death and injury,'" the Times complained on its editorial page. "Experts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March suggested that the number of fatalities would be small, possibly measured in the dozens. The impact would be nothing like a crude nuclear weapon that might kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people." Lest anyone be left with the impression that the Times is actually rooting for an al-Qaeda nuclear attack on America, the paper inserted this obligatory disclaimer: "We can fervently hope that no such weapon is ever exploded here." But in the next breath the Times contends once again that a dirty-nuke attack might not be so bad. "Should [a dirty-nuke] ever be detonated, it is important to know that the number of fatalities would probably be small. The chief impact would be psychological and economic. Dirty bombs are not mass killers, they are weapons designed to inspire panic and cause disruption." It's understandable that the Bush haters at the Times might be upset that yesterday's breakthrough should come in the midst of an investigative orgy of revelations painting the administration as incompetent in its handling of the war on terrorism. But downplaying the significance of foiling a nuclear attack plot against the U.S. seems like a particularly ripe bunch of sour grapes. All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 8 Radiation Device Could Cripple City New York Daily News Online | News and Views | Beyond the City | Tuesday, June 11, 2002 By BOB PORT Daily News Staff Writer Terrorists could easily make a dirty bomb that would lay waste to several city blocks and cause thousands of cancer deaths years later, experts say. In fact, radiation bombs could render whole sections of New York City as uninhabitable as the area around Russia's Chernobyl nuclear power plant, scene of a deadly meltdown in 1986. The world is awash in radioactive material that could be made into highly efficient poison when added to a bomb. The theory is simple: Mix radioactive powder or pellets with an explosive — in a suitcase or truck bomb — and blast fallout into the wind. Radioactive elements such as cobalt 60, strontium 90 and cesium 137 are used with little or no security in medical devices, oil-drilling test gear and food irradiation equipment, experts said. Americium 241 is found in smoke detectors. Stockpiles of plutonium, one of the deadliest substances, grow by hundreds of tons per year in Europe, Britain, Japan and India, where processed plutonium oxide is used for reactor fuel. "It's crazy," said Paul Leventhal, president emeritus of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonproliferation group. An assault on a nuclear power plant is a far bigger radiation risk than a dirty bomb, he said, because so much more material could be released. Only those splattered by a dirty bomb's detonation would risk immediate death. The numbers irradiated later are unclear. "In terms of killing people, it may not be effective," Leventhal said. "But in terms of spreading fear and panic, it would be highly effective." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses radioactive material, but it has no central database and recordkeeping is largely left to the states. Radiation Devices Sought In 1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory began a long-planned effort to collect and secure scrapped U.S. radiation devices, so-called orphan sources, which turn up at metal recycling plants or dumped along roadsides. Los Alamos officials estimated there are 6,000 unwanted devices to collect. They expect another 12,000 to be scrapped within this decade. Overseas, secure disposal of such radiation devices can be nonexistent. In March, the Federation of American Scientists stunned members of the Senate with maps estimating the potential lethal range of a dirty bomb in New York or Washington. Scattered deaths from leukemia would occur several years later. Other cancers would prove deadly decades later. "Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed civilian exposure limits," said Henry Kelly, a Harvard physicist who heads the group. "Since there are often no effective ways to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed at these levels, demolition would be the only practical solution." Radioactive elements combine chemically with concrete, asphalt or soil, said Michael Levi, a physicist who managed the study. "You could find yourself hauling off Central Park, in essence," he said. Protecting yourself from a dirty bomb is straightforward. Go indoors, shower, and avoid breathing the open air or eating contaminated food, Levi said. "It's really a matter of closing your windows and waiting for instructions," he said. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the foiled dirty bomb plot revealed yesterday is more reason for Congress to pass his $250 million measure funding new technologies to better detect nuclear materials coming through ports and borders. "If a terrorist wants to smuggle in uranium or plutonium, odds of it going through are relatively high," Schumer said. "That's not a risk we can afford to take." With Tamer El-Ghobashy ***************************************************************** 9 How Bad Can a 'Dirty Bomb' Be? Wired News Wired Magazine The Web -> HotBot By Noah Shachtman [noahmax@inch.com?subject=How Bad Can a 'Dirty 12:17 p.m. June 10, 2002 PDT Science and military experts disagreed on Monday on the impact of a radiological weapon, like the kind accused al-Qaida operative Abdullah al Mujahir was allegedly plotting to explode. Some see only a "minuscule" rise in cancer rates, while others predict that huge sections of New York or Washington would become uninhabitable if such a bomb were ever to go off. See also: • Keeping Track of Atomic Matter [http://r.hotwired.com/r/wn_droplink/http://www.wired.com/news/po litics/0,1283,50878,00.html] All the experts stress that a "dirty bomb" is not the same as a nuclear weapon, which generates intense heat and radiation from splitting atoms, according to a statement from Rob Fanney and Jim Tinsley of defense watchdog Jane's Information Group [http://www.janes.com] . A dirty bomb packs radioactive material inside or around conventional explosives, which are then detonated to spread the radioactive material. The radiation wouldn't immediately kill, Naval War College professor William Martel said. "But it'd create huge amounts of terror, havoc, and panic." The most likely radioactive element in a dirty bomb is cesium-137, according to Phil Anderson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies [http://www.csis.org] . And the "consensus government view," according to a March report in The Washington Post, is that al-Qaida "has probably acquired" the isotope, which has a half-life of 30 years. Cesium-137 is used to treat cancer and to maintain accurate atomic clocks. And it's created as a byproduct of nuclear reaction -- the splitting of uranium in a nuclear power plant, for example. As cesium-137 "cools" from its radioactive to its normal state, the isotope emits gamma radiation, waves of ultra-high electromagnetic energy. These rays, while not as toxic as the heavier, alpha particle emitted by uranium, travel further, and are extremely difficult to contain. Only concrete, steel or lead can keep gamma radiation in check. What's worse, cesium is the most "reactive" metal there is -- in nature, cesium's always found combined with another element. So the isotope becomes easily attached to roofing materials, concrete, and soil, said Fritz Steinhausler, who led the International Atomic Energy Agency's environmental assessment of the disaster at Chernobyl. Once contaminated, it becomes nearly impossible to cleanse the radioactive cesium off of these materials. "The Russians tried to clean it up for years, and they eventually gave up. It just wasn't economically viable," said Steinhausler, who's currently a physics professor and visiting scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation [http://cisac.stanford.edu] . "People had to give up their village or city. Large areas became simply empty," he added. "It really destroys a society." In Goiania, Brazil, four people died and more than 34,000 people had to be individually screened for contamination after a man in 1987 found an abandoned medical device filled with cesium-137 in a junkyard. That's because cesium interacts disturbingly well with muscle tissue because of its chemical similarity to potassium, which muscles need to flex. Fortunately, the body is used to processing these kind of chemicals, and excretes half of the cesium it absorbs within 100 days. (In contrast, radioactive strontium-90, similar to calcium, is absorbed into bone, and can take 30 years for the body to get rid of half.) But the absorbed cesium "would nevertheless cause a radiation dose, potentially increasing the risk for cancer," Steinhausler said. The risk is actually pretty minimal, replied Steve Koonin, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology [http://www.caltech.edu] . "Long exposure to low-level gamma radiation, if you do the numbers, produces a miniscule increase in cancer rates -- one extra cancer per 100,000 people," he said. Members of the Federation of American Scientists [http://www.fas.org] paint a much darker picture. If a relatively tiny "dirty bomb" -- one containing only ten pounds of TNT and pea-sized amount of cesium-137 -- were detonated in Washington, federation scientists recently told Congress, "The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately." "However," the scientists continued, "residents of an area of about five city blocks ... would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer. If decontamination were not possible, these areas would have to be abandoned for decades." In February, a missing medical gauge containing exactly this amount of cesium-137 was discovered in a North Carolina scrap yard. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it receives nearly 300 reports of lost or stolen radioactive materials every year. Have a comment on this article? Send it [newsfeedback@wired.com?subject=How Bad Can a 'Dirty Bomb' Be?] . Related Wired Links: Keeping Track of Atomic Matter [http://r.wired.com/r/wn_related/http://www.wired.com/news/politi cs/0,1283,50878,00.html] March 20, 2002 U.S. Nuke Report: Benign Online [http://r.wired.com/r/wn_related/http://www.wired.com/news/politi cs/0,1283,51097,00.html] March 16, 2002 ***************************************************************** 10 Anti-nuke pills now in greater demand Geoff Hausman New law says KI to be distributed for 20 miles around nuclear plants By Paul Choiniere Paul Choiniere Published on 06/11/2002 Since Sept. 11, the drive to make radiation-blocking potassium iodide pills part of emergency planning around nuclear plants has picked up speed. Pills were passed out this past weekend to residents living near a reactor in New York state, and Connecticut officials are moving closer to formalizing their plans to use the drug. Now comes a new federal law that calls for distributing the potassium iodide tablets up to 20 miles around nuclear plants, double the 10-mile emergency zone on which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has based its disaster planning for more than two decades. This is all a far cry from where things stood prior to the attacks that changed how Americans viewed the threat of terrorism and its potential to wreak havoc. Prior to Sept. 11 the anti-radiation drug, commonly known as KI, was set aside only for use by emergency personnel. The NRC saw evacuation as the best way to protect the public in the event of a major radiation release, and the nuclear industry viewed KI distribution as unnecessarily alarming. After Sept. 11, the NRC announced it would make the drug available to states that host nuclear plants. Connecticut ordered 450,000 tablets, and a special task force, made up of state lawmakers and health, emergency, and environmental personnel, are working on policies for its distribution. John Wiltse, director of the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management, said the plan should be in place by September. This week residents living near the Indian Point nuclear plant 30 miles north of New York City began lining up for their KI pills. At Yorktown High School, parents stood in line with children dressed in their Little League uniforms. Saturday, about 2,600 people obtained 10,500 pills. ?Before September 11th I felt safe,? Jalery Arce told the Associated Press. ?I moved here from the Bronx with my son to be safe. Now I'm getting medicine in case there's a nuclear disaster. I don't feel that safe anymore.? Vermont and Maryland had KI distributions in April, but 20 of 35 states with nuclear plants have so far ignored the federal government's offer to provide KI. Wiltse said the Connecticut plan for KI will likely entail voluntary distribution to residents who want the drug in their homes, as well as distribution to facilities where evacuation is more of a challenge, such as nursing homes and hospitals. There would be some stockpiling of the drug for distribution if an emergency arises. When taken in the proper dosage within four hours of exposure to radioactive iodine, KI floods the thyroid with safe iodine and blocks the radioactive iodine from entering. The thyroid is particularly vulnerable to radioactive poisoning and the associated cancer. The use of KI in Poland following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was credited with greatly reducing the number of thyroid cancers. Emergency officials caution that the drug does not protect against other forms of radiation and that it should not be taken in place of adhering to orders to evacuate or take shelter during a nuclear plant emergency. The drug can also be easily purchased without a prescription over the Internet. *From Westerly to Westbrook* The size of areas in which KI is distributed could soon increase significantly. The ?Public Health Security & Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response Act,? recently approved by Congress, orders the federal government to stockpile KI in quantities ?sufficient to provide adequate protection for the population within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant.? President Bush will sign the act into law on Wednesday, according to the White House press office. Up until now, all emergency planning ? including KI distribution ? has been based on a 10-mile emergency planning zone. Under the act, KI distribution around Millstone Power Station in Waterford would extend south onto Long Island, east into Westerly, west to almost Westbrook and north to Norwich. These regions have never been involved in emergency planning before except, in Norwich's case, to serve as a safe haven for residents escaping from a disaster at Millstone. Wiltse took a dim view of such a dramatic change in emergency planning. ?This could create a great deal of confusion and siphon off much-needed attention from the priority area, which should be within 10 miles of the plants,? he said. While the federal government would be obligated to pay for the additional KI, the act contains no resources for staffing or planning, Wiltse said. Unless ordered to do otherwise, the NRC will continue to focus its attention on the 10-mile emergency planning zone around plants, said Rosetta Virgilio, a spokeswoman for the commission. The new law, however, is likely to give impetus to those groups that have long called for enlarging the area in which planning for a nuclear disaster is needed. U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of the NRC and the nuclear industry, introduced the KI provision into the act. His chief of staff, David Moulton, said there are many in the public health community who feel planning should go beyond 20 miles, and he called the 20-mile figure a compromise. Radiation does not magically stop at the 10-mile point and distributing KI is a fairly inexpensive way of providing greater protection to the public, Moulton said. /p.choiniere@theday.com/ * * * * ***************************************************************** 11 Letters: Water plant was shelter from fallout, not bomb PalmBeachPost.com: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 Because it appears that attention is returning to the possibility of nuclear radiation, it is important that the public know the difference between a bomb shelter (which doesn't exist) and a building that protects one from the effects of radiation for the necessary two-week period. The May 29 article "Explosive chemical sat 5 years at city water plant" described West Palm Beach's old treatment plant as being a bomb shelter. Because of its very thick walls, it was a fallout shelter. If it were hit by a bomb, it would be devastated. The former Emergency Operating Center of Palm Beach County Civil Defense on Belvedere Road was a Quonset building topped by 3 feet of soil that sloped at the sides. This afforded a protection factor of 1,000 (a person inside the building was 1,000 times safer from the effects of radiation than a person outside the building). In the 1960s and later, Palm Beach County Civil Defense, through the state office, compiled a list of buildings in the county that afforded protection from radiation. They, with the permission of building owners, were stocked with federal fallout-shelter supplies consisting of food, water and medication. Later, the emphasis was switched to natural disasters, and the name of the county department now is Emergency Government. A new building has been constructed, and the old Emergency Operating Center no longer exists. JANE M. ALLEN Lake Worth Editor's note: Jane M. Allen served as a radiological defense officer and assistant director of Palm Beach County Civil Defense. 'Cowboy diplomacy' why America is hated abroad Kathleen Parker's defense of George Bush's "cowboy" mentality ("World needs some cowboy diplomacy," June 1) was alternately sad and frightening. Above all, it was illogical. Columnist Parker wonders two things aloud -- what can "they" (vaguely defined) mean when "they" criticize Bush foreign policy as "cowboy diplomacy"? and what's so bad about it anyway? Ms. Parker argues on the basis of evidence gleaned from many years' study of network television, everything from Gunsmoke to Bonanza. She concludes, "Cowboys are the good guys, remember?" The "real cowboy," she notes, was "strong, brave, trustworthy, loyal, wise, resourceful, self-reliant and dutiful." Really? All of them? All at once? All the time? Perhaps on the tube. Never mind -- Ms. Parker can't be troubled to separate film and television imagery from reality. Ms. Parker's guilty conscience reveals itself in her curtsy to political correctness, when she grants that cowboys and Indians "had their disagreements." Has ever there been a more obscene euphemism for genocide? Mythologizing our history is simply a way to avoid looking at the facts, something none of us can afford to do in a world in crisis. It would be disastrous to rely on a mistaken view of the past as a guide to present action. Reducing the complexity of international affairs to "us" and "them" and asserting -- on the basis of some axiomatic virtue -- that it's "lucky for us that a Wild West sheriff is in charge" does have a ring of truth, though not the one Ms. Parker intended. It's lucky for "us," not so lucky for "them." And "them" is whoever the sheriff says it is. What Ms. Parker advocates is vigilante justice, essentially, when what we need is world law. Let the sheriff cooperate with a world court, and he might have some legitimacy. STEVE ELLMAN West Palm Beach Copyright © 2002, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Radioactive fallout would be appalling, experts say KnoxNews: Sci/tech By MICHAEL WOODS June 9, 2002 Radioactive fallout from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan probably would not threaten the United States but could drift over U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan, experts say. Deadly levels of fallout also would drift across southern Asia including Bangladesh, Nepal and China. Depending on weather conditions and other factors, the fallout could cause thousands of deaths for years. The experts, who have studied the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia, foresee a devastating impact in India and Pakistan. Studies predict that millions of people could be killed immediately in both countries from the blast, radiation burns and firestorms sweeping through crowded cities. Major cities could be reduced to rubble. Millions more likely would die in the weeks after a nuclear exchange from starvation, riots, epidemics and radiation illness. Radiation would continue to claim a toll for generations, increasing deaths from cancer, birth defects and other health problems. Both countries would face years of famine, economic chaos and social upheaval. "The use of weapons of mass destruction is the very worst way for nations to solve international disputes," said Dr. Nicholas Wilson. "Nuclear war involving India and Pakistan would have catastrophic impacts on these countries that rival the previous worst disasters they have experienced. These include the 1876-1877 famine in India that affected 20 million and killed 3.5 million." Wilson is a public-health physician in Wellington, New Zealand, who wrote a 1999 study on potential effects of nuclear war involving India and Pakistan. "The immense scale of these effects should make it clear that possible use of such weapons would lead to a major catastrophe," added Dr. Mani Ramana of Princeton University. Ramana wrote another 1999 study, and that predicted the effects of a single nuclear bomb or missile warhead on Bombay, home to an estimated 18 million people. A "small" 15-kiloton weapon (about the same destructive power as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945) would kill 160,000 to 866,000 people, he concluded. A larger 150-kiloton weapon could kill up to 8.6 million. "These estimates do not include the long-term effects like cancers," he noted. Ramana and his associates also calculated the possible overall effects of a "limited" nuclear war between India and Pakistan. They assumed that each country would use one-tenth of its stockpile of nuclear weapons. The weapons, they assumed, would target the 10 largest cities in both countries. In that scenario, 2.6 million people would die or be critically injured in India and 1.8 million in Pakistan. Estimates from the Institute for Science and International Security here indicate that India has about 65 nuclear bombs and missile warheads and Pakistan about 40. Their explosive power, or yield, is a key factor in projecting possible radiation effects in the United States and other areas outside India and Pakistan. When a nuclear weapon explodes at low altitude, it sucks dirt and other surface material aloft, forming the signature mushroom cloud. The material becomes highly radioactive. It eventually drops back to the ground in the form of radioactive fallout. About 50 percent to 70 percent of the material usually falls out within one day near ground zero, said Ramana. Some, however, may stay aloft for months or years, and drift great distances on high-level winds. Weather conditions are one factor that decides where fallout will land. Rain, for instance, quickly could wash more material out of the air and deposit it locally. The annual monsoon rains are now settling over India and Pakistan. In addition to increasing localized fallout, they could give India a strategic edge in a nuclear exchange, experts say. Before the monsoons, prevailing winds are from the northwest, and could blow fallout from nuclear blasts in Kashmir or Pakistan back over India. During the monsoons, they generally blow from the south and southwest and could carry fallout across Pakistan and into Afghanistan and China. Wilson said everyone assumes, based on monitoring of Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests, that the weapons are relatively small - around 15 kilotons. Such a weapon has the power of 15,000 tons of conventional explosive. Both countries have claimed more powerful weapons, in the 50-kiloton range. Dr. Terry Wallace, of the University of Arizona at Tucson, has used earthquake-monitoring technology to study India's and Pakistan's nuclear-weapons test explosions. Like other experts, he suspects that official statements from both countries have exaggerated the power of their nuclear weapons. Pakistan, for instance, claimed that one weapon tested in 1998 was 45 kilotons. Wallace calculated the actual yield at 9-12 kilotons. While India claimed a yield of 43 kilotons from one of its tests, Wallace believes it really was 10-15 kilotons. "I imagine there would be no significant health consequences in the United States from fallout," Ramana said. The United States exploded 90 similar-size weapons in the atmosphere at the Nevada Test Site during the 1950s. A 1997 National Center Institute study found that everyone in the country was exposed to radioactive fallout for about two months after each test. The health consequences, if any, are still unclear. (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com.) The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Scenarios for 'dirty bomb' explosions KnoxNews: National Attack on America All Eyes on Iraq [Iraq flag] Saddam Hussein continues to defy the international community's efforts to monitor Iraq's weapons. As a result, many believe a future military conflict with Iraq is inevitable. Learn more about the country, its military and regional relations in this multimedia Web feature. June 10, 2002 Canister sized - An unshielded medical or industrial device with a small amount of radioactive material capable of causing short- and long-term illness. Range: several yards. Fogger device - Any sort of aerosol or liquid-dispersing device that could disperse radioactive material into air, water or food. Exposure could be external or internal, with immediate and long-term health effects. Range, from a room to several blocks to a neighborhood. Backpack bomb - Conventional explosives packed around or inside radioactive materials. There would be immediate casualties from both the blast and radioactive material and long-term health effects from radiation more distant from the explosion. Range: from a few meters to more than six miles, depending on type and amount of material used, terrain and weather conditions. Truck bomb with spent nuclear fuel - Oklahoma City-sized explosion coupled with cesium, uranium or other materials. Blast, internal and external radiation injuries could kill and injure hundreds to thousands over a wide area. Range: from one-half mile to 60 miles downwind. Sources: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; Center for Defense Information, Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 `Dirty bombs' not rocket science Tuesday, June 11, 2002 By JOSEPH DEE One frightening aspect of so-called dirty bombs is that it doesn't take a team of nuclear physicists to assemble and successfully detonate them, experts say. Another is that at many locations in the United States and elsewhere, radioactive materials are not guarded as closely as they ought to be, say the experts, including Princeton University researcher Robert Nelson. Unlike meticulously engineered nuclear warheads, dirty bombs are relatively crude devices that rely on conventional explosives, such as TNT, to disperse a quantity of radioactive material of the type used in research, medical and industrial settings. There is a lot of such material worldwide, and significant quantities have already been lost or stolen, a U.S. Senate committee was warned recently. A plume of radioactivity emitted by a dirty bomb can be carried by the wind and contaminate people, buildings, crops and soil for blocks or even miles. The extent of contamination would depend on the amount and type of material released, how finely powdered it was and the wind and weather conditions, Nelson said yesterday. Dirty bombs do not trigger nuclear reactions, so they don't create mushroom clouds, fireballs and the destructive blasts of nuclear missiles. But they can pack an economic wallop. A dirty bomb could render an area uninhabitable for years or even decades, or it could trigger an enormously expensive cleanup that could require the razing of every building in the contaminated zone. "The immediate radiation effects would likely be minimal," said Nelson. "It would not kill or even make sick large numbers of people. It could, however, slightly increase the incidence of long-term cancers in a densely populated urban environment. "The economic damage to a large city could be severe from the evacuation and decontamination procedures that (federal) EPA standards would require," he said. The length of time an area would remain hazardous to human health depends on the quantity and type of radioactive material used, Nelson said. "Cesium 137 has a half-life of 30 years, so you're definitely talking decades. It doesn't just wash away. It binds to asphalt and shingles. Demolition might be necessary if you were going to enforce the current EPA standards." Nelson, a member of the research staff at the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security, contributed to an analysis presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March. Excerpts from that testimony are available at the Federation of American Scientists Web site at www.fas.org The danger of radioactive material falling into the wrong hands is not just a worst-case theoretical scenario, according to the Senate testimony by Henry Kelly. "Significant quantities of radioactive material have been lost or stolen from U.S. facilities during the past few years, and thefts of foreign sources have led to fatalities," Kelly said. As an example, an explosion at the southern tip of Manhattan that dispersed a foot-long rod of Cobalt-60 - a radioactive material used to sanitize food - could contaminate 1,000 square kilometers extending into three states, according to the Kelly testimony. "The entire borough of Manhattan would be so contaminated that anyone living there would have a 1 in 100 chance of dying from cancer caused by the residual radiation," Kelly said. "It would be decades before the city was inhabitable again, and demolition might be necessary." Nelson said the Cobalt-60 scenario presented to the Senate committee was a worst-case scenario. "That's really at the extreme of an idealized problem. It's much more likely that you'd contaminate a few blocks. You might have to tear down a few buildings. But it depends on how much material is released, how well it's dispersed and weather conditions." Nelson said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines require radiation cleanups to reduce the risk of cancer to below one additional case per 10,000 people. "Part of the problem is the EPA standards are so restrictive," Nelson said. "If one of these went off, the EPA would have to recommend evacuating an entire city or section of it." He said now is the time to have a public policy discussion on acceptable radiation levels. "It's hard to tell people after the fact that we're going relax the standards. We need to have discussions now on what the policy should be if we have an attack in a densely populated area. " He said about one of five people develop cancer anyway because of environmental and other factors. Copyright 2002 The Times. Used with permission. © 2002 NJ.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Group Maps Nuke Dump Routes Online Las Vegas SUN June 10, 2002 WASHINGTON- It will be years before the first shipment of nuclear waste travels to Yucca Mountain in Nevada if the waste dump gets approved. But an environmental group wants to make it easier for people to find out how close the radioactive waste will come to their neighborhoods. The Environmental Working Group unveiled a Web site on Monday that allows the public easy access to detailed maps of the nearest potential waste routes. Areas within a mile of any route - either highway or rail - are shown in red; those within two miles are in yellow. The site also contains highway accident records. Supporters of the proposed Yucca Mountain project said the Web site was an attempt to influence an upcoming vote in Congress on whether to override Nevada's objections to the waste dump 90 miles from Las Vegas. A nuclear industry spokesman questioned why the environmentalists wouldn't also pinpoint routes of the tens of thousands of shipments of other hazardous cargo already on the highways. The data on the group's Web site is based on preliminary route maps found in the Energy Department's voluminous environmental impact analysis of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. Congress this summer must decide whether President Bush can go ahead with the project. Critics of the Yucca Mountain project - especially Nevada officials - have accused the Energy Department of failing to give the public detailed information about how the 77,000 tons of nuclear waste now in 39 states will get to Nevada. "They want to keep the public in the dark," said Mike Casey of the Environmental Working Group. "We think the public should be given a chance to weigh in on their (transportation) plan." Casey said the Web site is costing $120,000 and is supported by several foundations and the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun. It has no support from the state of Nevada, which is also fighting the Yucca dump. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said no decision has been made on what routes that waste will take. If the Yucca site is built "the actual routes will be classified" and developed in conjunction with state and local officials, said Davis. Davis said the department has no objections to the environmental group's Web site "as long as it reflects the facts and doesn't try to scare anybody." Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's trade group, questioned why the Web site would single out nuclear shipments that won't take place for years and ignore the more than 1 million shipments of hazardous materials, from toxic chemicals to gasoline, now traveling by rail and truck. The Energy Department has estimated that over 24 years there could be as many as 2,200 long-distance shipments of nuclear waste per year if most of it moves by highway. There could be as few as 175 shipments a year if almost all move by dedicated trains, the department said. On the Net: Environmental Working Group: [http://www.mapscience.org] (after midnight) All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Your Turn: Nuke industry manufactures storage crisis By Robert Loux [online@rgj.com] SPECIAL TO THE RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 6/10/2002 11:16 pm The Gazette-Journal’s June 4 story “Nuclear power plants running out of storage space” buys into the nuclear industry’s bogus argument that nuclear power plants will have to close if the proposed repository for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain is not approved by Congress hook, line and sinker. The industry has been using this same “Chicken Little” scare tactic since the 1980s to stampede Congress into making decisions that might benefit the commercial nuke industry but are not in the best interests of the country. Several facts must be understood in the debate that is raging over the proposed nuclear waste repository program. First, there is no crisis that requires immediate removal of spent fuel from nuclear power plant locations where it is currently being stored. Dating back to the early 1980s, each time there’s a congressional debate or vote on the issue, the industry cries wolf. Not a single plant has ever closed for lack of spent fuel storage space, and none are ever likely to do so. There are plenty of good, readily available and economical storage alternatives. New “dry storage” technologies, for example, allow spent fuel to be taken out of cooling pools permanently and placed in steel and concrete storage containers that require very little space and minimal maintenance. Yucca Mountain does not replace the need for at-reactor storage of spent fuel. Even if Yucca Mountain were to open in 2010, as the federal Energy Department proposes, most, if not all, currently operating nuclear power plants will have already implemented expanded on-site storage. Nuclear power plants will continue to generate about 2,000 metric tons of new spent fuel every year, so that by 2010 there will be approximately 68,000 tons requiring disposal, 36 percent more waste than exists today. Assuming that plants continue to operate during the 24 years while the repository is being loaded, another 48,000 tons of new spent fuel will have been created, bringing the total requiring disposal to about 116,000 metric tons. Yet by 2034, only 70,000 metric tons will have been moved from these reactors to Yucca Mountain. There will still be about the same amount of spent fuel stored on site at nuclear power plants as there is today. Second, storing spent fuel on site at nuclear power plants is infinitely safer than transporting tens of thousands of shipments of this dangerous material on the nation’s highways, railroads and waterways. Such a shipping campaign would expose millions of people in hundreds of major metropolitan areas and thousands of communities to risks of accidents and terrorist attacks against these shipments. Third, the Yucca Mountain site is not fit for isolating spent fuel from people and the environment for the tens of thousands of years necessary. Even the U.S. Department of Energy has acknowledged that the mountain’s geology, with its many earthquake faults, highly fractured rock environment and fast water pathways, cannot do the job. The push to continue with Yucca Mountain has nothing to do with any real possibility that nuclear plants will shut down for lack of spent fuel storage space. Rather, it is being driven solely by politics and the inertia of a massive federal program that has taken on a life of its own, independent of science or reason. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that spent fuel can continue to be safely stored on site for 100 years or more. The only “crisis” is the one being manufactured by the nuclear utility companies and their paid lobbyists as a tactic to overcome the state of Nevada’s very valid objections to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Robert Loux is executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 17 Paths to nuclear dump crisscross Iowa [DesMoinesRegister.com] The state is a top pass-through point for trucks heading to Nevada, environmentalists warn. By JANE NORMAN [normanj@news.dmreg.com?Subject=Online: Paths to nuclear dump crisscross Iowa] Register Washington Bureau 06/11/2002 Washington, D.C. - Iowa would be one of the top pass-through states in the nation for trucks carrying nuclear waste headed to Nevada's Yucca Mountain, according to an influential environmental group. The Environmental Working Group has designed a Web site that shows possible routes for waste. It projects 70,768 truck shipments of nuclear waste traveling through Iowa over the 38-year life of the Yucca Mountain project - if trucks are the chosen mode of transportation. The main routes by road would be Interstate Highways 35, 80 and 29. Iowa would rank sixth in the nation among states when it comes to truck shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants passing through its borders, the group says. If trains are used instead, there would be 6,142 shipments by rail through the state over the life of the project, according to the group's calculations based on Department of Energy documents. That would place Iowa 16th in the nation for those kinds of shipments. The Environmental Working Group says there are 219 Iowa schools and 20 hospitals within one mile of proposed truck and train routes, as well as the homes of 330,040 Iowans. "Iowa would get hammered," said Ken Cook, president of the group, because it sits between Nevada and states where much of the waste would originate. States originating most of the truck shipments would include Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York, the group said. It's most likely that a combination of train and truck routes would be used, the group says. No decisions have been made on routes or the mode of transportation. President Bush in February named Yucca Mountain the nation's nuclear dump site, maintaining the step was necessary to "protect public safety, health and the nation's security." The Environmental Working Group caused a stir in the farm community last year by publishing how much in federal subsidy payments every farmer in the nation received. Cook said his group has no position on the Yucca Mountain site, but believes Americans should know how much nuclear waste might be rumbling through their hometowns. He said little information has been disbursed by the government except in complex documents. "It's the most important transportation decision this country will ever make," Cook said. A few heavily protected nuclear waste shipments were sent through Iowa about a year ago, surrounded in secrecy. There were no accidents. Iowa has one nuclear power plant, Duane Arnold in Palo outside Cedar Rapids, and nearly 11 percent of the electricity used in the state is produced by nuclear power, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Senate is expected to vote this summer on whether to overturn the veto by the governor of Nevada of a plan to use Yucca Mountain. A favorable vote would allow the Department of Energy to begin the process of applying for a license for the site from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., has been in favor of the Yucca Mountain site while Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., has been undecided. "Over the last 40 years, tons of high-level nuclear waste have been shipped throughout the country," said Jill Kozeny, Grassley's press secretary. "Regular shipments still occur, and there hasn't been an accident involving environmental contamination." Said Harkin: "We now know that terrorists are trying to attack us with radioactive materials. We must take every precaution to protect these deadly materials. Before we even consider approving a plan to transport thousands of tons of nuclear waste over Iowa's highways and through Iowa's communities, we must have real guarantees that it can - and will - be done safely." The House voted in May to overturn the Nevada governor's veto, with the four Republican members from Iowa all voting to overturn, including Harkin's opponent in this fall's race for the Senate, Rep. Greg Ganske. Ganske has said it will be difficult to continue nuclear power without Yucca Mountain. Rep. Leonard Boswell, the lone Democrat, backed the veto on the 306-117 vote. Supporters of the Yucca Mountain site say it would be better to have a single site for disposal of waste, rather than leaving it scattered around the country, where room is running out for storage. Opponents are worried about the safety of carrying so much nuclear waste on the nation's highways and rail lines, as well as vulnerability to terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Environmental Working Group says that in a serious train or truck wreck, casks carrying spent fuel could be breached. The size of the Yucca Mountain project means shipments on a scale not contemplated in the past. The group says that from 1979 to 1997, there were 1,334 total shipments of spent nuclear fuel in the United States. That compares to a projected 2,700 shipments a year traveling several thousand miles each if the Yucca Mountain project goes forward, the group says. Copyright © 2002, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 18 YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Internet site tracks paths to repository www.mapscience .org [http://www.mapscience.org] Tuesday, June 11, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Group draws upon DOE information about proposed transportation routes By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- An environmental group unveils a tool on the Internet today that allows people to learn how close nuclear waste might pass by their neighborhoods and schools if it were to be shipped to a repository in Nevada. The www.mapscience.org Web site was built by the Environmental Working Group. The Washington, D.C.-based organization is challenging the Department of Energy's plan to transport 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel along railways and highways to Yucca Mountain 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas beginning in 2010. Besides locating their communities along possible waste paths, users can learn how far they live from power plants and other nuclear waste generators. They also can access distances between possible spent fuel shipping routes and schools and hospitals. The site also provides information on shipping aspects of the government's nuclear waste program, drawing on Transportation Department databases of train and truck wrecks and DOE's final Yucca Mountain environmental study. It also links to information developed by Nevada-paid experts who have recommended the project be set aside until more studies are done on transportation security. In its environmental impact report, the Energy Department identified potential truck and rail routes to Yucca Mountain but DOE officials have said routes won't be cemented until four years before a proposed repository opening in 2010. "We want to get people engaged in this debate," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of Environmental Working Group. "People have the right to know whether nuclear waste is coming through their community. The project was funded with $200,000 from Las Vegas Sun editor Brian Greenspun plus support from foundations that provide the Environmental Working Group with its regular operating funds, spokeswoman Laura Chapin said. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said that if the Yucca site is built, transportation routes will be classified and developed in conjunction with state and local officials. Davis said the department has no objections to the Web site "as long as it reflects the facts and doesn't try to scare anybody." Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, questioned why the site would single out nuclear shipments that won't take place for years and ignore the more than 1 million shipments of hazardous materials, from toxic chemicals to gasoline, now traveling by rail and truck. The Environmental Working Group is the same organization that developed an Internet database last year that enabled users to learn the identities of people who have been collecting farm subsidy payments from the government. During debate on a major farm policy bill, the database was cited frequently by members of Congress who argued U.S. farm policy was hurting small growers and the environment. Wiles said Monday that the nuclear waste project "may be more grand in some ways" than the farm subsidy database because it was a more complicated undertaking. Wiles said the mapping also reveals that 38,497,000 people live within one mile of a proposed nuclear waste route, while 109,124,000 people live within five miles. Nevada officials have calculated that more than 123 million people live in the 703 counties traversed by proposed highway routes, while 106 million live in counties along possible rail routes. The Energy Department has predicted between 10.4 million and 16.4 million people will live within a half-mile of a transportation route in 2035, when shipments will be in full swing. The Associated Press contributed to this story. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 19 Nuclear waste may pass through city en route to Yucca Mountain Tuesday, June 11, 2002 By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau WASHINGTON -- If the Senate votes to store much of the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, shipments would go through hundreds of congested population centers, including Pittsburgh, potentially exposing local residents to radioactive material if an accident occurred. On President Bush's recommendation, the House overwhelmingly approved using Yucca Mountain as a central, permanent repository for the radioactive waste that has been created and "temporarily" stored for decades at nuclear power plants. The Senate plans to vote this month, and the debate is focusing on the possible transportation hazards of moving so much nuclear material across the country. If the waste is transported by rail -- the method preferred by the Department of Energy -- likely east-west routes through Pittsburgh would be the Norfolk Southern railroad that runs through the middle of the city before heading west along the Ohio River, and the CSX line that runs along the northern side of the Monongahela River, then north through Lawrenceville and Etna on its way out west. Since 1960, trains and trucks have transported a limited amount of spent nuclear fuel, carrying about 5 million pounds some 1.6 million miles. Eight accidents, none of which released any radioactive material, have been reported, according to the energy department. But over 24 years after 2010, when the Yucca site would be ready, the department would ship an estimated 154 million pounds of radioactive material. Some 100,000 truckloads or 20,000 trainloads would move through 44 states. The Environmental Working Group, which conducts research on health and environmental issues, used information from the energy department and the Census Bureau to map likely routes. In Pennsylvania, it projects that nuclear waste would move within one mile of 853 schools, 45 hospitals and 1.8 million residents. More than 3,000 shipments would go through Pennsylvania during the approximately 36 years it would take for the Yucca repository to fill up, the group projected. Starting today, a Web site sponsored by the working group and other organizations that would like to delay a Senate vote will allow visitors to type in an address and zip code to see how close a nuclear-waste transportation route might be to their home or office. The site is www.mapscience.org. Energy Department maps show general routes without providing much specific information about them. Precise routing would be developed with state and local officials if the Yucca site is approved by Congress. City officials have not been briefed on shipments of nuclear waste, but expect to be if legislation is approved, said Ray DeMichiei, the city's emergency operations coordinator. City hazardous materials teams, paramedics, firefighters and other public safety personnel already receive radiological training, he said, and hazardous materials procedures for other dangerous materials are already in place. Nuclear waste has been shipped through the city before, DeMichiei noted, during cleanup efforts after the accident at Three Mile Island plant in 1979. Nevada officials who oppose hosting the nation's nuclear-waste repository also are raising alarms about the potential for nuclear transportation accidents. They raise the specter of terrorists using anti-tank missiles to attack trains or overturn tractor-trailers. The Energy Department projects some 66 road accidents and 10 rail accidents during the first 24 years of shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, but it says the use of proper containment casks and security procedures can prevent the release of radiation. Jim Hall, a transportation consultant and former head of the National Transportation Safety Board, said after reading the energy department's 5,000-page environmental impact statement that he was "shocked" to find "there isn't a plan in place to deal with transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada. In my experience with government and in the post 9/11 world, I'm very concerned. It's reckless and irresponsible," he said, for Congress to move ahead without a specific plan. Hall said he is pro-nuclear power and has no position on whether Yucca Mountain is a good site for storing nuclear waste, but he worries that "everybody's playing this as Nevada's problem" when "what's been under the radar is that people in 44 states are potentially affected by the mixed-use plan of trucks, train and barges to transport this waste. And after 9/11, Americans have a right to know about this, and government does not have a good track record of performing before the fact [in preventing terrorist acts]." Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said his group does not have a position on Yucca, either. He is concerned "there has been little public engagement but this transportation issue involves everyone and a yes vote in the Senate could end the debate." Cook says the debate so far has also failed to focus on the fact that, by the time Yucca Mountain is full around 2046, the nation's nuclear power plants will have produced enough radioactive waste to fill a second repository of similar size -- more than 40,000 tons. The Nuclear Energy Institute regards the debate over transportation as alarmist. It points out that spent nuclear fuel and weapons grade material have been shipped around the country for decades without any harmful radiation releases. The overwhelming House vote, said institute president Joe Colvin, was "a clear bipartisan signal" to the Senate that a good record and good science show that shipping nuclear-waste is safe. Colvin said the industry seeks a quick decision in the Senate. Supporters also note that $8 billion already has been spent to turn Yucca Mountain into the central nuclear waste repository. Opponents say there is no immediate storage crisis, and they urge the Senate to take its time to thoroughly review the safety and transportation issues. The debate over what would happen if a freight train carrying nuclear waste derailed or a tractor-trailer overturned is far from conclusive. Hall worries that the casks designed to carry spent fuel have not been thoroughly tested and argues that computer modeling isn't sufficient. Backers concede the lack of physical testing but claim the casks would clearly be safe enough since they would be made of steel and lead in a way that would render them puncture-proof and able to withstand temperatures of 1,500 degrees for half an hour. Backers also say shipments would be well guarded and that shipping schedules and routes would likely be kept secret. Copyright ©1997-2002 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 20 Radioactive material 'easy to find' BBC News | SCI/TECH | 11 June, 2002, [Russian ICBM carriers] Material could be obtained from a nuclear weapon By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor The recipe for a "dirty bomb" is startlingly simple: conventional explosive laced with a radioactive component. And the radioactive material is not difficult to obtain. It has been smuggled out of Russia over the past few years by criminal gangs. Only last week, six men were arrested in Lithuania trying to sell caesium-137 and a detonator. All it takes is a small quantity, not necessarily more than a teacup, of a radioactive isotope such as caesium-137 or strontium-90 or iodine-131. These isotopes have industrial and medical uses. The nuclear material could also come from a food irradiation plant or some other research site. More worryingly, US business and research facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500 pieces of equipment with radioactive parts since 1996. Hospital equipment The radioactive material can be packed into anything from a nail bomb to the fertiliser-based device that devastated the Oklahoma City federal building seven years ago or, even more simply, loaded into a crop spraying device on a small aircraft. A dirty bomb has nowhere near the destructive capability of a nuclear bomb, but then you do not need any great technical expertise to build one. Certainly, if the radioactive material used was weapons-grade plutonium, or spent nuclear fuel, it could cause devastating casualties. The more likely threat is something less dramatic. US Government experts have evidence that al-Qaeda has access to both caesium-137 and strontium-90 from dismantled hospital cancer treatment equipment. Missing materials Two million locations in America are licensed to have radioactive materials, according to a recent report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It said that annually about 300 pieces of radioactive material went missing. There have been 1,500 such disappearances in the past five years alone. A recent report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in the US found that a 4,000-lb (1,800-kg) dirty bomb detonated in central Washington containing just a few ounces (grams) of radioactive material would contaminate only a few blocks. However, it would lead to widespread panic, with hundreds of thousands of people trying to flee the area to avoid being affected. ***************************************************************** 21 S.C. plutonium case to be heard The State | 06/10/2002 | Hodges says delaying shipments to SRS won't derail treaty with Russia By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer Scattered across the United States and Russia is a legacy of the world's nuclear past: enough unused plutonium to make thousands of atomic weapons. That's why the two countries, no longer Cold War adversaries, struck a deal in 2000 to render some of that plutonium useless for nuclear bombs. Now, to make sure the Russians honor their end of the agreement, the U.S. government says it soon must ship American plutonium to South Carolina for storage and eventual processing at the Savannah River Site, near Aiken. Without assurances the U.S. program is on track, the Russians could walk out on their end of the deal, leaving tons of weapons- grade plutonium available for theft by terrorists, the government says. Whether those shipments occur anytime soon depends on events this week in South Carolina. On Thursday, a federal judge will hear arguments by Gov. Jim Hodges against sending plutonium from a federal weapons complex in Colorado to South Carolina. The shipments are to start as early as Saturday.. Hodges wants a delay in the shipments, arguing the Department of Energy has not properly studied the environmental impact toxic plutonium could have on the state. The Democratic governor is seeking assurances South Carolina will not become a permanent storage site for plutonium. He says a delay in shipments would not harm national security interests. The DOE, however, says the governor's hard-line against plutonium shipments could hurt national security and tampers with a delicately balanced international arms treaty. The United States must make the shipments to show Russia it's serious about honoring the September 2000 agreement, the agency says. According to the agreement, both countries must convert 34 tons each of weapons-grade plutonium into forms that can't be used for weapons. The main way to do that is by building mixed oxide fuel plants, which fabricate plutonium for use in commercial power reactors. "Uncertainty regarding these shipments could put this vital national security program at risk by, among other things, causing Russia to conclude that the United States will not be able to continue the program," according to court documents filed in the past month by the Energy Department. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the Russian plutonium could be acquired by terrorists via the black market if the plan to dispose of it doesn't stay on schedule. So the U.S. must do all it can to make sure the Russian plutonium program works, he said. An official in the Russian embassy press office, who refused to give his name, declined comment. Hodges' office says it doesn't matter if the plutonium is shipped from Colorado to South Carolina anytime soon because plants to process the mixed oxide fuel won't be built and completed for at least six years. Consequently, Hodges says his action doesn't threaten the international treaty. He claims the DOE has been derelict in not moving more quickly to build mixed oxide fuel facilities at SRS. Several policy experts said they understand Hodges' point. But a senior DOE official under President Clinton said keeping the shipments on schedule is vital to the international agreement. Laura Holgate, now an analyst with the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington, said the Russians need assurances that the U.S. is serious about getting rid of weapons grade plutonium. Shipments to South Carolina are a significant way to do that, said Holgate, a former director of the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition. In her role with the Clinton Administration, she worked closely on the U.S.-Russian plutonium issue for the DOE. "If the U.S. does not soon take action that makes it clear our intentions to follow the September 2000 agreement, the Russians will continue to question their commitment and may well walk away from their own commitments," Holgate said. "If we don't do what we said we were going to do ... they are under no obligations." U.S. intentions became clouded less than a year after the September 2000 nonproliferation treaty, when the Bush administration hinted it might drop the plutonium disposition program scheduled for the Savannah River Site. Bush ordered a review of the treaty with Russia and didn't recommit to the plutonium program until this past January. At the time, the U.S. said it would spend nearly $4 billion building mixed oxide fuel facilities at SRS to process 34 metric tons of U.S. plutonium. But Hodges said the federal government isn't fully committed to a mixed oxide fuel plant. The January announcement to build MOX plants didn't assure Hodges that the plants will happen, in part because the government has changed positions several times on its intentions, the governor's office says. DOE officials have dropped plans to turn some of the excess U.S. plutonium into glass, and they have declared SRS a long-term repository for plutonium, Hodges says. Holgate agreed that the changing nature of the U.S. program "left a bad taste in the Russians' mouth." Even so, she said that if the U.S. is serious about ridding the world of bomb-grade plutonium, the country must honor the Russian agreement and ship the plutoniumparticularly because the Russians were reluctant to sign on in the first place. The Russian government would prefer to store the surplus plutonium, she said, in hopes of using it later for another type of nuclear reactor. That reactor hasn't been built but is a potential source of electric power that the Russians believe is better than the traditional reactors that would use mixed oxide fuel, she said. Russia has had trouble raising the more than $1 billion needed to build plutonium processing facilities. Parts of an abandoned plutonium fuel plant in Hanau, Germany, were to be sold for a Russian mixed oxide fuel plant, but that proposal also is falling by the wayside, experts say. Officials in Hodges' office say the state's position isn't jeopardizing the international arms agreement. The Russians aren't interested in whether it stays in Colorado or is stored in South Carolina, Hodges' office said. Billy Want, a lawyer representing Hodges in the dispute, said nothing in the arms agreement with Russia addresses where plutonium is stored. "The Russian agreement requires that plutonium be processed, not stored," Want said. He argued that Hodges' position actually complies better with the U.S.-Russia treaty. Hodges wants stronger federal assurances that plutonium will be processed through mixed oxide fuel plants, which would be a sign to Russia that the U.S. is serious, South Carolina officials say. "We feel like this national security issue turns the facts on their head," Want said of DOE contentions. "It is exactly the opposite of what the DOE is arguing." Dmitry Kovchegin, a Russian research associate with the PIR Center for Policy Studies in Moscow, agreed with Hodges that the Russian government doesn't care whether plutonium is stored in Colorado or South Carolina. Still, if the U.S. program ever faltered, the Russians would be reluctant to process excess weapons grade plutonium into forms not suitable for bombs, he said. "It would be a bad signal, and the Russians will not dispose of their own plutonium," he said. All told, Russia has an estimated 130-160 tons of plutonium, compared to about 100 tons in the U.S. That includes the collective 68 tons both countries have agreed to process into fuel. Kovchegin said the main Russian interest now is getting the money to pay for its plutonium disposition program, including a mixed oxide fuel plant. The United States, Canada, Japan and major European countries this summer might discuss paying for the Russian program because "the Russian government has no funds for it," Kovchegin said. If the other countries perceive problems in the U.S., they will be less likely to pay for a Russian mixed oxide fuel plant, the Bush administration says. "The Russians are mostly concerned about whether their facilities are going to be built and whether there will be financial support from abroad in building these facilities," said Bill Hoehn, an analyst with the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a Washington, D.C. group that examines policy. ***************************************************************** 22 Officials concerned about possible nuclear waste shipments through Bibb The Macon Telegraph | 06/11/2002 | By Christopher Schwarzen Telegraph Staff Writer Bibb County officials say they're frightened that an information lapse on nuclear waste shipments to a planned federal repository leaves them defenseless against terrorist attacks or radioactive accidents. The Department of Energy plans to begin shipping radioactive waste from nuclear power plants as early as 2010, pending congressional approval. A vote on a repository under Yucca Mountain in Nevada could come as early as the end of summer. Until now, nuclear waste, including spent nuclear fuel, has been stored on site at each nuclear power plant or processing center, waiting for shipment to a central repository like Yucca Mountain. At many sites, like Hatch Nuclear Power Plant near Baxley, they're running out of room. So while Energy Department officials say necessary shipments will come by train, truck or barge, they haven't specifically said Macon will be part of any route. But maps show rail and highway routes running through the city from Plant Hatch and from waste sites in Florida. This leaves local officials worried they're out of the loop and won't be able to protect public safety once the shipments eventually begin. "Maybe we'd want to close that part of the highway until they get through here," said Bibb County Commission Chairman Tommy Olmstead. "Maybe we'd want to send an escort. We'd at least want to know when they're going to be here." Olmstead isn't alone in his concerns, says Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog that chides the Energy Department for giving too little safety information to the general public about nuclear waste. "We have no position on the repository in Nevada," Cook said. "But we do believe the public deserves better information on transportation routes than this." The Environmental Working Group is releasing today what it says is comprehensive information on proposed routes that people can access through the group's Web site. The data collected pinpoints routes through Macon and other U.S. cities by zip code, showing the number of schools and hospitals along the way. Local leaders say recent terrorist threats - including Monday's announcement of the arrest of Jose Padilla, who allegedly was creating a "dirty bomb" made from nuclear waste - have put them on full alert. They want to be prepared. "Oh man, can you imagine a truck carrying radioactive waste rolling (over) on Interstate 75?" asked Johnny Wingers, director of the Macon-Bibb County Emergency Management Agency. "That would be a nightmare." But the Energy Department ships nuclear waste every day, and in more than 1.6 million miles traveled during the past 30 years, there have been no accidents that involved a radioactive release, said Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis. "We're shipping waste from defense sites to New Mexico and haven't had any problems," Davis said. "Yucca will be different in the fact that we're building and training for Yucca off what we're learning in New Mexico." The Energy Department already has spent more than $20 million training first-responders, such as Wingers, to deal with accidents across 22 states, including Georgia. And in each state, someone in the governor's office is informed of shipments, although at the latest possible moment, Davis said. "We can't tell everyone when they're coming, for obvious security reasons," Davis said. Shipments are and will continue to be heavily guarded by U.S. marshals trained to prevent terrorist attacks, Davis said. And the fact that nuclear power plants such as Hatch are running out of permanent storage for spent fuel makes a repository all the more necessary, said Mike Kimble, a Southern Nuclear spokesman. Southern Nuclear, which operates Plant Hatch, has been waiting years for a central repository. "That's always been part of the energy plan, that the department would take the waste from us the minute it reached the property gates," Kimble said. "We have no concerns whatsoever about the Department of Energy taking the waste from us and shipping it across the country. They're regulated just like us." Environmentalists say they fear increased nuclear waste shipments eventually will lead to an accident or attack, killing hundreds, maybe thousands, of people. "Federal and state agencies across the country have continually failed to inform the public about the real dangers of nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants and their waste," said Rita Kilpatrick of Georgians for Clean Energy. "People need to realize that nuclear dangers aren't just a transport issue. Real dangers exist 24 hours a day for communities that live in the broad area of any nuclear power, weapons or research facility." The Environmental Working Group hopes residents nationwide will plug in their addresses and take a look for themselves. "If the Macon community is OK with what they see, then fine, at least they're informed," Cook said. "But if they're not, then they need to take action by speaking to their elected officials about this before a vote is taken on Yucca Mountain." There's also the challenge for local officials working to protect the community from any unforeseen dangers. With the Energy Department's "need-to-know" attitude, that becomes difficult, Olmstead said. "I think we have time to determine what's got to be done, and I think being practical, we have to move (the waste) out some way," he said. "But we've got to be assured it's safe going through our community." To contact Christopher Schwarzen, call 744-4213 or e-mail cschwarzen@macontel.com [cschwarzen@macontel.com] . ***************************************************************** 23 Media Outlets Sue Over Plutonium Las Vegas SUN June 10, 2002 COLUMBIA, S.C.- Several media companies have sued to keep a judge from sealing records in a lawsuit to block federal shipments of weapons-grade plutonium to South Carolina. Arguments were to be heard Thursday before U.S. District Court takes up Gov. Jim Hodges' case. The Energy Department said the records should be sealed under a federal law limiting the release of nuclear information. The documents were described by the agency as pertaining to the long-term storage of nuclear material. The media companies argue the material does not qualify to be kept secret under the law. The federal government wants to begin shipping plutonium from a nuclear complex in Colorado to the Savannah River Site near Aiken as early as this week. The plutonium is to be reprocessed as nuclear fuel. Hodges says he is worried the plutonium might never be reprocessed and might stay in the state indefinitely. Media outlets involved in the litigation include The Associated Press, 13 newspapers, six TV stations, and the state's press and broadcast associations. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 Yucca: Nevada fails to reach funding goal Las Vegas SUN June 11, 2002 Guinn: Fund-raising sources 'tapped out' By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Nevada has fallen short of raising $3 million in state matching funds to fight Senate approval of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, officials said. The state has raised $1.9 million in private donations so far, but hasn't been able to raise the rest. The Senate could vote at any time, although a vote is expected later this month or in July. Gov. Kenny Guinn, who has led the fund-raising, said he can do little more than he already has to drum up the remaining $1.1 million. In April Guinn appealed to the public and local governments, and the state launched an advertising campaign for the Nevada Protection Fund to pay for the fight. "I've tapped out all my contacts," Guinn said. The money already committed will go toward the state's legal fight against Yucca Mountain as well as television ads in various states to lobby senators to vote against the dump. "Certainly, any additional funding could be used," most likely for advertising, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said today. But Nevada is in its own budget crunch, requiring cuts to make sure it finishes in the black, Guinn said. He said he can't ask the state to put up any more money and defended his actions. "I was the one who suggested we start putting money aside for our legal battles," Guinn said. "I wish some of the governors before me had done the same during better economic times." Raising $1.1 million may not seem like a huge task, but those close to fund-raising efforts for political campaigns have already begun noting the money difficulties this year. "Fund-raising is down since 9/11," said Pete Ernaut, Guinn's re-election campaign chairman and the governor's former chief of staff. "It's a very tight year because of the downturn in the economy, and a lot of people are keeping their money close. "I also think a lot of people are cynical about our chances in the Senate," Ernaut added. Ernaut also said he thought any criticism of Guinn's fund-raising efforts is misguided. "Where was Las Vegas?" he asked. "What about Henderson and North Las Vegas?" Guinn said the state has come with as much money as it can given the huge shortfall. He has repeatedly said he hoped local governments could contribute more to the fight. Local governments have contributed to the fight, and responded to the governor's call by chipping in smaller amounts. Local governments have also said their budgets are stretched thin due to the economic downturn. Guinn requested $5 million from the 2001 Legislature -- an amount cut to $4 million for passage -- and later got Clark County to contribute another $1 million. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., asked Guinn in March to convene a special session of the Legislature to appropriate additional funds for a television ad campaign in states with senators who remain undecided about the Yucca Mountain issue. Aides to Reid and Ensign today could not confirm whether the senators, Guinn and other Nevada officials planned to discuss a final-push fund-raiser. After lawmakers expressed hesitance over such a session, Guinn went to the Legislature's Interim Finance Committee for the money. Lawmakers would only agree to the matching funds due to the state's budget shortfall and medical malpractice crisis. Guinn said he would listen to what Reid and Ensign have to say. But he added, "It's becoming a steeper uphill battle," in the Senate. Ensign and Reid, he added, are still optimistic. Guinn also said he was immersed with other issues such as the medical malpractice controversy and the budget cuts he must make to keep Nevada in the black. Nevada has spent close to $2 million. The state conducted advertising campaigns in Vermont, Wyoming and Utah in hopes of getting citizens to call their senators to vote against the proposed nuclear dump. "We're looking at (advertising in) a couple more states," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Office of Nuclear Projects. Guinn's April call for help resulted in about $1.9 million with the biggest contribution coming from Clark County at $1.5 million. That money can only be used for legal expenses but may be used to meet the matching requirement of the legislative committee. About $400,000 has been collected in addition to Clark County. That includes $150,000 from the city of Las Vegas; $20,000 from Steve Cloobeck of Las Vegas; $10,000 from the city of Sparks; $75,000 from Dorothy Lemelson of Incline Village and $25,000 from the Marshall-Rousso Company of Las Vegas. The state has already committed $3 million toward hiring attorneys Joseph Egan in Washington and Antonio Rossman in San Francisco to carry the legal fight. Sun reporters Erin Neff and Benjamin Grove contributed to this story. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 Nuclear waste in the neighborhood Las Vegas SUN: Photo: A map of nuclear waste routes Las Vegas SUN June 11, 2002 New website, which shows planned shipping routes, hopes to hit Americans close to home By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials say a new website that shows users exactly how close they live to proposed nuclear waste routes could damage Yucca Mountain's popularity in the Senate. The site, www.mapscience.org, was developed and launched today by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based nonprofit research organization. The website is the most interactive and easy-to-use source yet for people who want to see exactly where the Energy Department plans to ship nuclear waste bound for the proposed Yucca Mountain dumpsite. The website is far more advanced than maps drawn by the Energy Department, the state of Nevada and other environmental groups. The site asks users to put in an address and then using Census data and Energy Department proposals, shows how far the address is from a waste route, a nuclear reactor and how many people live within a mile of the route. As well, the site shows the number of schools and hospitals near the route. If the website receives immediate, widespread attention, it has the potential to shock users and trouble senators, Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., said. A Senate vote on Yucca, expected before July 25, could happen within days, Senate sources said. Ensign and Reid are negotiating with Senate leaders to delay a vote, in part to buy time to publicize the website, sources said. "It's a question of do we have enough time," Ensign said. "If we had gotten this six months ago, for sure it would have had an effect." Energy Department and nuclear industry officials shrugged off the website launch as another ploy by anti-Yucca forces to influence the Senate vote. The website relies on the Energy Department's proposed routes, which have not been finalized, said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "It's a bit irresponsible to say that this is going to come through your neighborhoods when nobody has determined that it is going to go there," Singer said. Energy and industry officials say waste can be shipped safely on trucks and trains, based on nearly 3,000 shipments of high-level waste made with few accidents and no radiation releases in the past 38 years. "If (the Environmental Working Group) is trying to scare people, they are not going to be very effective," Energy spokesman Joe Davis said. "Transporting waste has been safe and secure for years." Davis encouraged people to visit the department's Yucca Mountain website, www.ymp.gov and follow links to the site's newly posted "spent nuclear fuel transportation" section. The mapscience.org website allows users to type in their address for instant access to a map that shows them whether they are within one, two or five miles of a waste transportation route. Additional data reveals exactly how far, to the tenth of a mile, they live from the route. "If we're going to do (Yucca) properly, people have to know what it means to them," Environmental Working Group senior vice president Richard Wiles said. "We're saying that before the Senate votes to continue with Yucca Mountain, the people ought to be included in the debate about whether it's the right thing to do." The website also: + Includes truck and train accident statistics by state. + Shows users the distance to the nearest nuclear power plant, and the number of waste shipments that will pass through their state from other states. + Uses 2000 Census data to calculate the number of people in each state within one mile of a transportation route (370,120 in Nevada). "This will offer, by far, the most accurate data available about the number of people along the routes," group president Ken Cook said. As an example, the website says that the Bellagio's address, 3600 Las Vegas Blvd. South, at a busy intersection on the Strip, is 0.4 miles from the nearest nuclear waste route -- apparently, the rail tracks or Interstate 15. The nearest nuclear power plant to that address is 226.2 miles away, the Palo Verde plant in Arizona, the website says. The United States has 103 commercial nuclear reactors that would ship waste to Yucca, but none in Nevada. The website also offers data on how much waste the nation's nuclear plants will still have in 2046 -- even if the plants begin shipping waste to Yucca. If Yucca opens, Palo Verde, like all active plants, will continue to produce waste, even as it ships waste to Nevada that has cooled enough for transport. By 2046, the Palo Verde plant will actually have 854 more tons than it has now, even after years of shipping waste to Yucca, according to the website. Those numbers shame lawmakers who argue that the nation needs Yucca Mountain to eliminate waste accumulating in their states, EWG officers said. "It's basically a lie," Wiles said. The website is the result of a massive, three-week data-crunching project involving more than 600 billion calculations, group officers said. The computers compiled data from a number of sources including the Transportation Department; Energy Department; U.S. Postal Service (ZIP codes); U.S.Census; and a number of private databases. The project's cost -- about $400,000 to $450,000 to develop and publicize the website -- was paid for with private money, mostly from foundations that had contributed to the Environmental Working Group's project fund. Those contributors included the Bauman Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation and mogul Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. Sun President and Editor Brian Greenspun contributed $200,000 directly to the website project. The state of Nevada did not contribute, although the Environmental Working Group was initially inspired to take on the project after Reid asked the organization for help publicizing the risks of waste shipping, Cook said. The challenge now for the group is to get the word out about the website -- before the fast-approaching Senate vote, group leaders said. They spent more than a week briefing reporters in advance of today's website unveiling, and a number of newspapers nationwide ran stories today. The group's officers have shown the website to five senators and plan to meet with "lots more" in the next few weeks, Cook said. "If people across the country realize that in terms of transportation, Yucca Mountain is in St. Louis, it's in Des Moines, in Washington, D.C., Wilmington and Miami -- I think we have a shot in the Senate," Cook said. "We can stem the tide here." The Energy Department has been irresponsible by not presenting route information in a clear, easy-to-use format, Cook said. "We need people to have what the government has denied them -- the right to know how this affects them," Cook said. Energy's Davis countered, "We did provide people with route information as it applies to their states. The information the Environmental Working Group uses came from the DOE." The Environmental Working Group prides itself on developing splashy projects that create a buzz inside and outside the Beltway. Group leaders hope their effort grabs as much attention as their last project, which created an easy-to-use Internet list of farm subsidies doled out by the federal government. The list showed that most subsidies go a small number of the biggest producers. The project irked both the big producers and small farmers who suddenly found their financial information on the Internet. The project received media attention and helped change the way some lawmakers look at federal farm subsidies. Davis called the farm subsidy project "forgettable." "We believe this one will be, too." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 Group Warns N-Shipments Are Not Safe The Salt Lake Tribune -- Tuesday, June 11, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Four of every five Utahns live within five miles of routes that trains and trucks could use to haul high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for disposal. Also nearby are 520 schools and 24 hospitals, according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C., advocacy organization critical of the federal government's plans for the repository about 90 miles from Las Vegas. Utahns, in particular, have cause to be concerned about transportation safety because, next to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City can expect more shipments passing through it than any other urban area in the nation if the facility is built, said Ken Cook, president of the group. There could be as many as 2,408 trucks or 448 trains carrying the lethally dangerous waste through Utah each year over 38 years, according to the group's analysis. "You are going to have the lion's share of the waste going to Yucca Mountain coming through your state," Cook told Utah reporters. The Utah rail routes could also be used to deliver the spent nuclear fuel to a private storage facility that has been proposed by a consortium of out-of-state utilities on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, now considering a license for the Utah storage, is expected to approve it by year's end and clear the way for the facility to open in 2004. Sue Martin, a spokeswoman for the utility consortium, bristled at the implication that anyone who lives near one of the transportation routes is in danger. "That simply isn't true," she said, adding that casks, routes and emergency response plans are painstakingly reviewed. "It is not something that is done lightly," said Martin. Maps depicting the rail lines and highways approved for the discarded nuclear-plant fuel shipments go online today for anyone curious about how close they live to the probable routes. The Internet site, www.map science.org, also answers common questions about nuclear-waste shipping, including the possibility of transport accidents, past mishaps and shipment frequency. "We are not trying to scare people," said Cook. "We are trying to inform people." With national attention focused on a Yucca Mountain vote in the U.S. Senate that could take place as soon as June 25, the new information on nuclear-waste routes is welcome, said Dianne Nielson, director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and a leader of the state's campaign against the Goshute storage facility. "This issue isn't [that nuclear waste is going to] Yucca Mountain first," said Nielson, whose office is two blocks from a waste route, according to the new Web site. "It will be Skull Valley first." The Environmental Working Group funded the project with money from private foundations and individuals, including opponents of the U.S. Energy Department's Yucca Mountain proposal. The group developed its Web site by melding mapping software, 2000 census data and rough maps of the transportation routes the Energy Department has generally approved for nuclear-waste shipments. Routes for both the Yucca Mountain site and the Goshute facility have yet to be finalized. Critics of the Web site note that those routes have already been used for 3,000 shipments of high-level waste without any lost lives or proven health damage from radiation exposure. Cook, of the environmental working group, countered that Yucca Mountain proponents have offered little more than a vague outline of their shipping plans for the lethally dangerous waste, while, in truth, it will be cruising past the back yards of millions of Americans. Contrary to the policymakers' idea that it is safer to consolidate waste at a single site, the maps suggest the spent nuclear fuel is about to be scattered thoughout the United States on transportation routes, including those in the heart of America's most populated areas, the Environmental Working Group said. "It [the consolidation argument] is misleading because there's going to be a cask waste and reactor waste all over the country, regardless of when Yucca Mountain opens," said Cook. Utah mayors, Realtors and doctors also have opposed high-level nuclear waste in Utah. "It is an issue for everybody in our state because of our nuclear legacy," said Louis Borgenicht, a Salt Lake City pediatrician and board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "I don't know anybody who would be comfortable with the government or scientists telling them it will be safe." © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 27 Former governor tells court he didn't try to block nuclear waste dump site Lawrence Journal-World: The Associated Press Tuesday, June 11, 2002 Lincoln — Former Nebraska Gov. Ben Nelson denied in federal court Monday that he acted "deranged" in an attempt to block construction of a regional nuclear waste dump in his state. Nelson, now a U.S. senator, also denied that he wanted to "create noise and difficulty" for the site's developer, U.S. Ecology. Nelson's testimony came in the trial about whether the state acted in bad faith in refusing to license a regional nuclear waste dump in Boyd County. The site near Butte, along the South Dakota border, was meant to store low-level radioactive waste from Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. Nelson was asked by attorney Alan Peterson, who represents the four states suing Nebraska, about notes former policy research office staff member Kate Allen made during a 1992 meeting that Nelson attended with dump opponents. Allen's notes said Nelson wanted the site's developer to think he was deranged and make the process difficult for U.S. Ecology. "Did you have a strategy of seeking a pose to be deranged?" Peterson asked Nelson. "Not in my line of work," Nelson said. Nelson, who served as governor from 1991 to 1999 and was elected to the Senate in 2000, has been accused of trying to block licensing of the site in 1998. Nelson testified for 3 1/2 hours, explaining that he sometimes used the word "deranged" in a different context. He said he told staff members to do careful work because "you never knew when you may be followed by a deranged governor." "My administration acted entirely appropriately," Nelson said. Copyright © 2002, the Lawrence Journal-World. All rights ***************************************************************** 28 Nuclear waste routes could go through Florida cities Tuesday, June 11, 2002 News-Journal wire services TALLAHASSEE -- A plan to bury radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear plants in a Nevada mountain would bring potentially dangerous cargo close to more than 2 million Floridians, an environmental group says. The Environmental Working Group said in a report to be released Tuesday that if the plan to ship waste to Yucca Mountain is approved by the U.S. Senate, potential truck or train routes could take radioactive waste along heavily traveled interstate highways such as I-95 and on railroads through densely populated cities. If the plan is approved, waste would be shipped from Florida's three nuclear facilities: Florida Power &Light's Turkey Point plant near Miami and St. Lucie plant north of West Palm Beach, and Florida Power Corp.'s Crystal River plant on the Gulf coast. "Yucca Mountain is about thousands of communities in this country, hundreds of communities in Florida," said Ken Cook, president of the group, which is lobbying against the waste shipping proposal without a more detailed transportation plan. The nuclear power industry says that there's little or no danger in shipping the spent fuel, noting high-level waste is already shipped. "The nuclear energy industry has carried out more than 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel over 1.7 million miles of U.S. highways and railroads since 1964," the Nuclear Energy Institute says on its Web site. No nuclear fuel container has leaked or cracked during shipment, the institute says. There have been four accidents involving spent fuel, including an overturned truck in 1971, but no radiation was released in any of them. "No injuries, no fatalities" during that shipping, said Mac Harris, communications supervisor at Florida Power's Crystal River plant. "They are very, very secure containers." The U.S. Department of Energy cautions that final routes for shipping the waste haven't been chosen. But maps in the environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain project identify possible routes. While the department prefers rail routes, highway routes including I-95, I-10 and I-75 could possibly see truck shipments of waste. Rail routes along the Atlantic coast that would go through parts of Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, near Cape Canaveral and through Jacksonville are also identified as potential routes. In Tallahassee, spent nuclear fuel rods could move within a half-mile of the Capitol building on a rail line that runs just south of downtown, according to the DOE preliminary plan. If the routes on the DOE maps are used, the Environmental Working Group has calculated that more than 1,000 schools and 57 hospitals would be within a mile of the waste's path. The group notes that between 1994 and 2000 there were nearly 1,700 fatal tractor-trailer wrecks in Florida and there have been more than 1,800 train accidents in the state since 1990, and says there's no guarantee that containers can withstand all accidents. The Energy Department has also said that some nuclear waste could be carried by barge from Port St. Lucie to Port Everglades and from Turkey Point to the Port of Miami. "Yucca Mountain is not the middle of nowhere," Cook said. "It's downtown Miami." Florida Power &Light officials favor storing nuclear waste in the Nevada mountain. The company has about 800 metric tons of waste stored at each of its two nuclear plants. Florida Power Corp. has about 380 metric tons of high level waste stored at the Crystal River. FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott said the company is prepared to move the waste to barge loading areas or railheads, but after that it would be the federal government's responsibility, so the company hasn't done any research on what routes might be best. In testimony to Congress, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said nuclear waste shipments would make up just a tiny fraction of annual radioactive material shipments and an even smaller share of all the hazardous waste shipments in the United States. Critics argue the material can be safely kept at nuclear plants, where it is now. journalonline.com ***************************************************************** 29 Nuclear waste route could run through Green Bay Green Bay Press-Gazette - Posted June 11, 2002 Group’s Web site details potential railroad course By Peter Rebhahn [prebhahn@greenbaypressgazette.com] Waste route The Environmental Working Group’s Nuclear Waste Route Map project is available online at [http://www.mapscience.org] . It came as news to Karen Marino of the town of Humboldt that rail cars loaded with nuclear waste could someday roll past her home on Courier Road. “How close would it come?” Marino said. Beginning today, people with Internet access can answer that question for themselves, courtesy of the Environmental Working Group — a Washington D.C.-based organization that hopes to spark debate about the government’s plan to ship spent nuclear fuel from 131 sites nationwide to a permanent disposal site inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada. “Their plan — at least it appears to be — is that, as long as we don’t tell anyone that there will be nuclear waste shipped through their community for 30 years, then we can get it approved,” said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group. The Kewaunee Nuclear Plant and Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, about four miles apart on the Lake Michigan shore between Kewaunee and Manitowoc, hold 97 percent of the 2.6 million pounds of used fuel stored in Wisconsin. The U.S. Department of Energy has pegged the rail line running from Luxemburg to downtown Green Bay south to Neenah and points west as a possible waste transportation route. But no official transportation plan yet exists for moving the waste west. “It’s questionable how accurate the database is going to be since we don’t have a transportation plan,” said Doug Day, a spokesman for Nuclear Management Co., which operates the two plants and four others in the Midwest. The Environmental Working Group’s database uses information buried within the federal Department of Energy’s 5,000 page Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca Mountain project, which pegs likely routes based on locations of interstate highways and railways. The Department of Energy’s information is necessarily fuzzy. Some is incorrect. For example, the department’s map shows rail line running from Kewaunee to Luxemburg — a portion of the Wisconsin Central line that no longer exists. “There is no track there,” said Dan Hall, who manages the territory from Menominee, Mich., to Wrightstown for the Wisconsin Central Division of Canadian National Railroad. “We have no tracks, no ties. The only thing that’s left is the railroad bed.” But haulers could load waste from Kewaunee and Point Beach onto trucks for shipment north to a rail head in Luxemburg or Green Bay — a move that would bypass Milwaukee and other southeastern Wisconsin population centers. Hall doubts that will happen because tracks in the Green Bay area don’t meet federal specifications for movement of hazardous waste of any type. “I couldn’t haul it over that track even if Kewaunee (Nuclear Plant) were to truck it up here,” Hall said. Day said residents have nothing to fear from the transportation project, which will take place under strict federal supervision. “There’s been more than 3,000 shipments of spent fuel over the last 40 years in the U.S., and there’s been more than 21,000 shipments across the world over the past 40 years, without an incident,” he said. Many opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan also dislike local storage, Day said. “So you just pretend it doesn’t exist? You have to do something with it,” he said. But Wiles said his organization hasn’t taken a position against the Yucca Mountain project — or against nuclear power in general, for that matter. “That’s not what this is about,” he said. “You need to have the plan first. You shouldn’t lock the country into this decision with the flippant idea that we’ll do a plan later when we need one.” The Environmental Working Group caused a stir in the farming community last year with an online database that listed government subsidies paid to every U.S. farmer since 1996. Wiles said his group isn’t anti-nuclear power any more than it’s anti-farmer. The point of both projects, he said, is to empower the public with information. “We’re very firmly against government by secret cabal in the back room,” Wiles said. “We’re for the public’s right to know about major decisions that could affect their health, their property values, that government wants to make in secrecy.” Marino, whose home in Humboldt lies just two-tenths of a mile from the railroad tracks, said she’s not overly concerned. “Mainly because I don’t have any children left at home,” she said. “It probably would concern me if I had children here. I do understand how for people with children, or nowhere to go, it would concern them. But the stuff has to be moved. It has to be disposed of.” [http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/forums/] ***************************************************************** 30 Nuclear shipments tracked via 'Net [http://cincinnati.com] [http://enquirer.com] Tuesday, June 11, 2002 Web site will tell you how close they'll be to home By Faith Bremner Gannett News Service WASHINGTON — A national environmental group today is launching a Web site the public can use to see how close their homes, schools and jobs could be from proposed transportation routes for high-level radioactive waste. The Web site, [http://www.mapscience.org] , shows highway and rail routes the Energy Department will likely use starting in 2012 to move spent fuel from 72 commercial nuclear power plants and five federal facilities to the proposed underground storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. ON THE NET [http://www.mapscience.org] , Environmental Working Group's nuclear waste route maps. [http://www.ewg.org] , Environmental Working Group. [http://www.ymp.gov] , Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain project. [http://www.nei.org] , Nuclear Energy Institute. The Washington-based Environmental Working Group estimates 109 million people — or more than 1 out of every 3 Americans — lives within five miles of one of the proposed transportation routes. The routes won't be finalized for years, but the group's president said the public must be involved in the debate over moving high-level radioactive waste before any more decisions are made on opening Yucca Mountain. He said the waste could be targeted by terrorists or become involved in a catastrophic accident. “We are absolutely hoping to influence the debate and to actually have a debate instead of an inside-the-beltway spinfest,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. “This (Web site) is the only tool the public will have to find out what this decision means to them.” Vote slated The Senate will vote soon on whether to uphold President Bush's decision to designate Yucca Mountain the nation's nuclear waste repository and to override the Nevada governor's veto. A Senate committee voted 13-10 Wednesday in favor of the designation. The House already has approved it. Web users will be able to type in an address, prompting a map to pop up showing the nearest nuclear waste transportation route, be it highway or rail. Shaded bands on either side of the routes show one-, two- and five-mile distances. The shaded areas show all schools and hospitals. According to the site, the route closest to Cincinnati passes through the Louisville area. Path to Yucca Mountain If the Yucca Mountain repository opens, there could be as many as 2,856 truckloads of spent nuclear fuel on the nation's highways every year for 38 years. The Energy Department estimates there would be a minimum of 245 train, barge and truck nuclear fuel shipments every year for 24 years. Since 1964, the nuclear power industry has made more than 3,000 spent fuel shipments without major incident. The Energy Department prefers to use trains, because they can carry more waste and are safer than trucks. However, 24 power plants and Yucca Mountain are nowhere near rail lines. Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute said the environmental group's Web site also should provide information about all hazardous materials shipments, which exceed 1 million annually. Nuclear waste shipments are much better protected than other hazardous materials shipments and are safer, he said. The Energy Department projects 10 accidents over a 24-year span if the nuclear waste is moved to Yucca Mountain mostly by train and 66 if it's moved mostly by truck. A worst-case accident would result in five cancer deaths caused by radioactive materials leaking out with a cleanup cost ranging from $300,000 to $10 billion depending on location, weather conditions and other variables, the department says. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the debate should be over whether nuclear waste should be stored in a safe and highly regulated repository or scattered among 39 states, above ground, near towns and, in some cases, on the shores of rivers and lakes. “For every environmentalist that is opposed to the shipment of nuclear waste, I can probably find 100 people who live next to it that support shipping it out of their town,” Davis said. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates there are 865,000 people who live within five miles of commercial nuclear power plants. The environmental group developed the Web site from “representative” rail and highway routes the Energy Department published in March in its final environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain project. The department has said it will begin working with the states on a transportation plan four years before the dump opens. Commercial power plants have been already using some of these routes for radioactive shipments. [http://cincinnati.com/copyright] 1995-2002. [http://enquirer.com] , a [http://www.gannett.com] newspaper. ***************************************************************** 31 Diablo Canyon Nuclear waste en route? Los Angeles, CA Published: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 By Bill Hillburg Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- A new study to be released today details how vast amounts of California's nuclear waste likely would travel through the web of freeways and rail lines cutting through Ventura County, the San Fernando Valley and nearby communities en route to the proposed Yucca Mountain storage complex in Nevada. On the Net: • MapScience.org [http://www.mapscience.org] It was reported in March that the Department of Energy was considering shipping high-level radioactive waste from the Diablo Canyon plant by barge from San Luis Obispo County to Port Hueneme in Ventura County but the truck and train routes that would be used to get it to the planned underground repository in Nevada were not provided. In the new report, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based watchdog organization, said rail lines in Ventura County, the Valley and the Antelope Valley and the 5 and 210 freeways through Santa Clarita and the Valley would meet federal safety standards for nuclear shipments. The study, based on the recent DOE environmental impact report, forecast that Nevada-bound trains and trucks carrying spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials could move along a variety of routes through Southern California east through the San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino and Riverside counties to Nevada. Shipments from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas also could go through eastern desert areas of California to Nevada. In all, the report estimated that nuclear shipments via rail and truck would pass within a mile of 7.5 million Californians' homes, as well as 1,567 schools and 130 hospitals. "This is a right-to-know issue," said Laura Chapin, Environmental Working Group spokeswoman, who said the DOE plans 14,479 truck and 13,690 rail shipments in California by the time the Yucca Mountain facility is filled to capacity in 2034. "President George W. Bush and the Energy Department are asking Congress to approve Yucca Mountain before people have all the facts on the routes and the risks," she said. The Daily News reported March 24 that the DOE was considering shipping high-level radioactive waste from the Diablo Canyon plant by barge from San Luis Obispo County to Port Hueneme but the DOE hadn't made any recommendations on truck or train routes to get it from there to the planned underground repository at Yucca Mountain. The new report provides likely scenarios for how freeways and major rail routes could be used for those and other shipments bound for Yucca Mountain. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation officials on Monday said no routes to Yucca Mountain, located north of Las Vegas and east of Death Valley, have been formally designated. Extensive security and safety measures would be in place before shipments begin in 2010, they said. "This is very preliminary information and is not a true reflection of any plan," said Joe Davis, a DOE spokesman. "We have eight years to work with the states on these decisions. By then, there could be new roads and rail lines in place." The U.S. House of Representatives last month voted overwhelmingly to back Bush and rebuff an attempt by Nevada officials to veto the Yucca Mountain plan. Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Oxnard, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, and Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, joined all local Democrats in voting against the project. All three lawmakers represent districts featuring potential nuclear shipment routes. A final Senate vote on Yucca Mountain is expected before the end of July and possibly as soon as June 25. Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are opposed to the project. "Congressman Lewis cannot, in good conscience, support Yucca Mountain until all of the transportation and security issues have been worked out," said aide Jim Specht. "San Bernardino and Inyo counties are not equipped to handle the kinds of disasters we might be looking at. An accident could turn into a huge logistics nightmare." For more than 20 years, officials have debated where to store 77,000 tons of waste byproducts from 131 nuclear reactors throughout the United States. Yucca Mountain foes point to a 1996 incident in Nebraska as a prime example of the type of nightmare that could snarl Southern California's major rail or freeway links to the east. In that incident, a truck carrying nuclear warheads overturned in a blizzard. No radioactive material was released, but the investigation and the righting of the truck by specially trained crews kept a major highway closed for 24 hours. "I recognize the importance of finding a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear waste," said McKeon, whose current district includes possible nuclear shipment routes through Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley. McKeon -- who under reapportionment will represent Inyo County, adjacent to Yucca Mountain, in the next Congress -- added: "I am concerned that my district would bear a disproportionate risk. The environmental needs and safety of my district and the many communities that this nuclear waste must travel through must take priority." "DOE is taking the most extreme safety precautions," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Covina, who voted to approve the Yucca Mountain plan. "And I also believe that having these materials secured in one place is the best plan for dealing with nuclear waste." According to the new study, California's waste load would not be limited to shipments from in-state nuclear plants like San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. Because of Yucca Mountain's remote location and limitations of the Southwest's existing freeway and rail networks, waste from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas could also be shipped to Nevada through California's desert areas. Possible routes would be the 40, 15 and 10 freeways, as well as rail lines that intersect near Barstow. DOE officials said spent fuel and other waste would be transported in specially designed, lead-lined containers that can withstand fire and collisions. All shipments would be closely monitored, with advance notice given to local public safety officials. However, due to concerns over terrorist attacks, notification of nuclear waste shipments would not be given to the general public. "In 30 years, we have conducted 2,700 shipments of nuclear materials covering 1.6 million miles and have never had a serious accident or a significant release of radioactivity," said the DOE's Davis. He also argued that centralized storage at Yucca Mountain is much safer than the current method of housing materials at 131 nuclear plants and other sites in 31 states. "If Yucca Mountain is not approved, California will have to leave its nuclear waste right where it has been sitting for years, scattered around the state," said Davis. The report cited the potential risk of spent nuclear fuel, noting that the contents of a single shipping container could pack 200 times the level of radiation generated by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. It estimated that an unprotected person standing within three feet of unshielded spent nuclear fuel would receive a lethal dose of radiation within two minutes. Beginning today, the public can go online for information from the study. Go to www.mapscience.org and type in an address and ZIP code to get customized information about proximity to possible routes. Copyright © 2002 Los Angeles Daily News ***************************************************************** 32 Media outlets sue to block court from sealing Energy Department records in plutonium suit 06/11/02 The Oak Ridger Online -- State News -- COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Several media companies have sued to keep a judge from sealing records in a lawsuit to block federal shipments of weapons-grade plutonium to South Carolina. Arguments were to be heard Thursday before U.S. District Court takes up Gov. Jim Hodges' case. The Energy Department said the records should be sealed under a federal law limiting the release of nuclear information. The documents were described by the agency as pertaining to the long-term storage of nuclear material. The media companies argue the material does not qualify to be kept secret under the law. The federal government wants to begin shipping plutonium from a nuclear complex in Colorado to the Savannah River Site near Aiken as early as this week. The plutonium is to be reprocessed as nuclear fuel. Hodges says he is worried the plutonium might never be reprocessed and might stay in the state indefinitely. Media outlets involved in the litigation include The Associated Press, 13 newspapers, six TV stations, and the state's press and broadcast associations. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 33 Nuke waste could pass within miles of millions KnoxNews: National By JOAN LOWY June 10, 2002 Nuclear waste destined for Nevada could travel through hundreds of densely populated communities and pass less than a mile from thousands of schools and hospitals, according to maps of proposed transportation routes. Using potential truck and rail transportation routes identified by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental research group in Washington, D.C., estimated that waste shipments to the Yucca Mountain repository could pass within a mile or less of 14,510 schools, 933 hospitals and the homes of 38.5 million people. When the distance from routes is expanded to five miles, waste shipments could pass 36,228 schools, 1,831 hospitals and the homes of 109 million people. The environmental group is set to launch a Web site (www.mapscience.org) on Tuesday that allows users to punch in an address anywhere in the country and call up maps that show the nearest proposed waste transportation route. Ken Cook, the environmental group's president, said most people are unaware that nuclear waste may pass through their communities if a waste repository is approved at Yucca Mountain, which is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The House has already voted to approve the site. A vote in the Senate is expected next month. "People are beginning to focus how we get it from here to there, which is not using Star Trek beaming technology but on trucks and rails,'' Cook said. "We should tell people along the routes that they have a stake in this that they don't know about yet.'' If the site is opened as planned, waste shipments to Yucca Mountain would begin in 2010. The number of waste shipments per year would depend on whether the government settles on primarily truck routes or rail and barge routes. Most likely, there will be a combination of truck and rail since there is no railroad to the repository. Ultimately, there could be as many as 100,000 shipments over the 24 to 38 years of the project. The waste would pass through 43 states. Governors may express preferences to the federal government about routes, but they have no power to veto routes, Cook said. The waste routes have already become an issue in some communities, but there has been little attention to the issue in many others. For example, safety officials in Abilene, Texas, were unaware that a proposed rail route would take waste directly through the center of the city of 110,000 people, within a stone's throw of some of the town's most prominent buildings. The nearest waste source is two reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear plant southwest of Dallas, 114 miles away. Preliminary routes in Southern California slate waste from the Diablo Canyon power plant to be shipped about 200 miles on a barge to Port Hueneme in suburban Ventura County just north of Los Angeles. Local officials are trying to block the spent fuel from coming through the port, which is one of California's five busiest and the nation's biggest export site for citrus. Another route takes waste through the heart of Camden, N.J., just across the Delaware River from Philadelphia and less than two miles from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. One rail route goes through Chicago, coming a little over a mile from the 110-story Sears Tower, the world's third tallest building. Both Independence Hall and the Sears Tower were temporarily closed after the attacks of 9/11 because of concern that terrorists might target them. Environmentalists "are trying to scare people by saying (nuclear) waste is coming by your town,'' said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the energy department. "Waste may be coming by your town, but the alternative is leaving it in your town.'' The government has transported nuclear waste 1.6 million miles over the past 30 years without a single accident, Davis said. "The fact of the matter is the shipment of waste is safe,'' he said. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 131 above ground sites in 39 states. As proposed, Yucca Mountain would receive up to 77,000 tons of waste in casks that would be stored in tunnels beneath the desert. The facility is expected to fill up within 38 years. However, environmentalists said that since nuclear power plants are continuing to operate and receive new licenses, more waste will be created while currently stored waste is being shipped to Nevada. Thus, there will be nearly as much waste stored at nuclear plants around the country after Yucca Mountain is full as there is now. On the Net: Environmental Working Group - www.mapscience.org Department of Energy - www.ymp.gov (Joan Lowy is a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail LowyJ(at)shns.com) The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Nuclear waste transport carries grave risks 06/11/02 JIM HALL T ransporting high-level nuclear waste through our cities and towns always posed significant risks. After Sept. 11, those risks have multiplied, because each of these shipments has the potential to become a "dirty bomb" in the hands of terrorists. Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday that just that kind of plot was disrupted with the arrest of Abdullah Al Muhajir, who was identified as an American conspiring with al-Qaida. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has utterly failed to address the potentially catastrophic risks associated with shipping this material on our roads, rails and waterways in the proposal to build a high-level nuclear waste dump outside Las Vegas. When it comes up for a vote later this summer, the U.S. Senate should reject the poorly planned Yucca Mountain project. Despite major transportation accident and terrorism risks, the federal government has no plan to ensure the safe and secure transportation of some 77,000 tons of this material. Specifically, the Energy Department has neither finalized modes or routes; it also hasn't informed those living and working near potential routes. The appropriate federal agencies have not conducted full-scale tests of the containers that would be used for repository shipments. Finally, the department has no plan to assess the risk of human error, which is responsible for over 80 percent of all accidents. Even more alarming in the post-Sept. 11 world, the Energy Department has not re-evaluated the risk of terrorist attacks on shipments. Out of $8 billion spent to develop the Yucca Mountain site, the department has spent less than $10 million a year on transportation studies. Secretary Spencer Abraham's recent testimony that the Department of Energy is "just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan" is simply not good enough. As a current member of the National Academy of Engineering's Committee on Combating Terrorism, I have been working to help the president formulate an effective and timely response to the threat of catastrophic terrorism. In the post-9/11 world, nearly every federal agency has reevaluated its preparedness to deal with terrorist attacks and adopted new measures to counter this new threat. The Department of Energy, however, has not re-examined the potential terrorist threat against high-level nuclear waste shipments to a national repository. We know that terrorists view nuclear material as a weapon of choice and that they have made efforts to obtain it. Each transport container will carry enough radioactive material to create a massive dirty bomb -- an ordinary explosive packed with radioactive material that would spew over the area where it was detonated. The target in the alleged plot revealed Monday was the U.S. Capitol. Terrorists could target any one of tens of thousands of nuclear waste shipments. We should not proceed with plans for a repository without a full transportation risk assessment Accidents could be just as devastating as a terrorist attack. Even the Energy Department expects 66 truck accidents and 10 rail accidents over the first 24 years of shipments. Recent accidents like the barge crash in Oklahoma that collapsed a section of Interstate 40, sending trucks and cars into the Arkansas River, are a stark example of what can happen. With the government and other experts telling us that without a doubt accidents will occur, the next question becomes, "How bad will it be?" The straightforward answer is that we are talking about high-level radioactive material that, if released, would have long-term devastating effects. The only things that protect the children and families along these routes during an accident or terrorist attack are the shipping containers. Unbelievably, no government agency -- not the Department of Energy, not the Department of Transportation and not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- requires that shipping casks undergo full-scale tests. The Energy Department and the nuclear industry oppose mandatory full-scale testing. But it must be required for nuclear waste shipping casks before we even think of putting them on trucks, barges and trains moving through our communities. The American people should demand that the Department of Energy submit a comprehensive transportation plan and demonstrate that shipments can be made safely and securely. Until that's done, the U.S. Senate should oppose moving forward with the proposed repository. Jim Hall was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1993 to 2001 and is the current chairman of the Transportation Safety Coalition. © 2002 OregonLive.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Letters: nuclear waste and terrorism One big target more tempting The May 28 piece on nuclear waste to be transported to one site in Nevada [Yucca Mountain] evokes concern about anti-terrorism strategies. One big target is much more tempting than a lot of smaller targets, and the damage and far-reaching effects of an attack could be more serious. The Oregonian One big target more tempting The May 28 piece on nuclear waste to be transported to one site in Nevada [Yucca Mountain] evokes concern about anti-terrorism strategies. One big target is much more tempting than a lot of smaller targets, and the damage and far-reaching effects of an attack could be more serious. 06/11/02 %%head%%One big target more tempting The May 28 piece on nuclear waste to be transported to one site in Nevada [Yucca Mountain] evokes concern about anti-terrorism strategies. One big target is much more tempting than a lot of smaller targets, and the damage and far-reaching effects of an attack could be more serious. %%endhead%%%%bodybegins%% Have the departments of Transportation and Energy reviewed the program in light of Sept. 11? Have they looked in the military manuals on defensive strategy? CLARENCE AHLSTROM Beaverton © 2002 OregonLive.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Kucinich and House Dems to file lawsuit against Bush Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:37:28 -0500 (CDT) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020610/ap_wo_en_po/us_congress_abm_treaty_1 Ohio lawmaker to file lawsuit to stop withdrawal from ABM treaty Mon Jun 10, 5:21 PM ET WASHINGTON - A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich ( news, bio, voting record), plans to file a lawsuit Tuesday to block the Bush administration from withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Kucinich's office said the lawsuit will ask a federal district court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the withdrawal, scheduled to go into effect Thursday, six months after President George W. Bush ( news - web sites) announced his plans to leave the treaty. The Ohio lawmaker said the suit will also seek a decision on whether the Constitution permits the president to withdraw from the treaty without the consent of Congress. He said 29 other Democrats and an independent who usually votes with the Democrats would join as plaintiffs. Kucinich tried last Thursday to bring to the House floor a resolution asking Bush to get the approval of Congress before pulling out of the treaty, which barred the United States and the Soviet Union from erecting missile defense systems. He was defeated 254-169, with all House Republicans supporting a ruling of the chair that denied Kucinich a vote on his resolution. In 1979 Sen. Barry Goldwater filed a lawsuit against President Jimmy Carter, saying Carter had acted unconstitutionally in unilaterally abrogating the U.S. mutual defense pact with Taiwan when the United States formalized diplomatic relations with the Beijing government. The Supreme Court declined to take the case after a lower court decided against the senator. ***************************************************************** 37 Greenspun: 'Net reveals DOE folly Las Vegas SUN: June 11, 2002 Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. HOW ABOUT anti-cancer pills for 100 million people? The story in Sunday's newspaper was buried back in the A section but the import of its message screamed out loud and clear: radioactive poisoning is bad for children and other living things. As if we have to be told that more than once! I bring this up in light of Monday's news that the government has arrested an al-Qaida terrorist whose job it was to make plans for or secure the makings of a "dirty" nuclear device and then detonate it in the United States. A "dirty" bomb is designed to kill a few people through impact and make many more fatally sick through the radioactive fallout that is released. If you read the two stories together, it becomes abundantly clear that every American who lives within miles of the Department of Energy's proposed nuclear waste shipping routes planned for Yucca Mountain should be given the anti-cancer pills. That would be more than 100 million American men, women and children, depending upon who is counting. According to medical sources in Nevada, we are already the thyroid cancer capital of the country. Without knowing the specific reasons for this unhealthy designation, it is not much of a stretch to conclude that the high incidence of disease is a result of the years of above-ground nuclear testing that took place not too far from Las Vegas in the '50s and '60s. Worried that his area of the country might wrest control of that dubious distinction from Las Vegas, the deputy commissioner of emergency management for Westchester County in New York is taking no chances. Tony Sutton, whose jurisdiction is located near the Indian Point nuclear complex, said that by the end of the first day of pill distribution, 2,617 people had obtained 10,533 tablets of potassium iodide. The pill, it is claimed, could protect people from thyroid cancer in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. Today marks the opening of a website that the public can use to see how close to their homes, schools and hospitals the government will transport some 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste headed for Yucca Mountain. The site, www.mapscience.org, will respond to an address and ZIP code by showing the user how many shipments of deadly plutonium waste will go within one, two or more miles from his or her home, a child's school or a place of work. That's the kind of information the DOE and the nuclear power producers have tried to keep hidden from regular Americans because it brings home in living color the folly of the government's plan to move tons of radioactive waste -- from its current safe and relatively secure storage where it is being made -- through almost every city and town in the United States. And if the president and his attorney general are right about al-Qaida's plans to detonate a "dirty" bomb in this country, what better place to get the ingredients for such a bomb than from one of the thousands of shipments that will be rolling through a city near you as soon as the DOE gets the OK. That means to be safe from at least one form of cancer, thyroid, our government should take the lead from the Westchester County folks and make sure that every one of the 100-plus million Americans who will be put in harm's way gets a proper dosage to ward off the ill effects of a radiation event. Once that is done, the government should then make sure every school child and factory worker along the way to Yucca Mountain gets the appropriate medicines to protect them from other forms of cancer that will attack them if the inevitable accident does happen or, worse, the certain attack by terrorists does occur. Just in case you are wondering if you or your family and friends across the country will be included among the millions of Americans who are not yet exposed to the deadly cargo trucks, but who will be if the U.S. Senate votes for Yucca Mountain, go to the website and type in the address. If you don't like what you see, notify your friends and family to do the same and then act. The instructions are simple and clear. There is absolutely no reason why America should make it easier for the terrorists to blow us up. Tell that to our president and our senators -- and tell them today. Tomorrow may be too late. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 ORNL celebrates 1 million hours of safety The Oak Ridger Online -- Feature: Business -- 06/11/02 Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Friday celebrated reaching one million hours worked without an injury resulting in days off the job, and officials ordered "ice cream for everybody" for the occasion. ORNL Director Bill Madia praised the lab's 3,800 staff for achieving the safety milestone and encouraged them to make the level of performance "the standard rather than the goal for safety at the laboratory." To mark the event, lab managers dished out ice cream at several locations around the multipurpose research facility. Especially for safety officials, it was a sweet moment. "This is only the third time in the past five years that we've reached one million hours," says Carol Scott, director of the lab's Operational Safety Services Division. "It not only means that our employees aren't experiencing pain from a serious injury, but it also means that our science mission work is going more efficiently and more smoothly." The statistic, called lost-workdays-away cases, reflects injuries that are serious enough to cause an employee to be unable to come to work. Although serious injuries are rare at ORNL, less serious, so-called "nagging" injuries such as cuts, abrasions and strains have become as much a target for prevention as the serious injuries. "We asked our employees to make a commitment to safety -- to watch out for themselves and also for their fellow workers-- and the million safe hours worked reflects their effort," Scott said. Many of the lab's injuries occur among the maintenance and operations staff members. Ed Mee, vice president of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, said the lab's collective bargaining unit members have put extra emphasis into safety on the job. "The jobs that our ATLC members do are often the hands-on tasks that put them most at risk for injuries," Mee said. "We've worked hard to build a culture of safety in planning and performing the work. We're paying attention to safety all of the time. I think these results show that." ORNL last reached one million hours without a lost workday away in February 2000, shortly before UT-Battelle took over as contractor. December 1998 was the most recent string before that. Scott said ORNL, as a large, multipurpose research laboratory, has many of the standard hazards common to many industrial facilities. ORNL's total recordable incidence rate is lower than private industry's, according to a press release from the lab. "But they've been too high as far as we're concerned," Scott said. ORNL is a Department of Energy multiprogram research facility managed by UT-Battelle. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 39 Lawmakers push for uranium waste plants in Ohio, Kentucky [enquirer.com] Tuesday, June 11, 2002 The Associated Press WASHINGTON — Buried within the Senate's anti-terrorism spending bill is a measure intended to accelerate the cleanup of uranium waste in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, but the fate of that provision is uncertain. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., inserted the measure in the bill approved by the Senate last week. It would require the Energy Department to build two facilities to convert depleted uranium at nuclear sites in the three states into a safer form. Congress passed similar legislation in 1998, but the Bush administration has maintained that the language wasn't mandatory and that it might only build one facility to save money. McConnell's measure requires that construction of waste conversion facilities begins by July 2004 at uranium plants in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Ky. The project is expected to add about 200 jobs to each site. Congressional aides estimate the cost of building two plants and running them for about 20 years at roughly $1 billion. The administration has estimated it could save $100 million by building just one facility. The converters would take the uranium compound being stored in about 60,000 steel cylinders at Paducah, Piketon and Oak Ridge, Tenn. and turn it into forms that are less toxic. Some of the cylinders are in poor condition and could leak, releasing toxic gas and uranium, said Richard Miller, a policy analyst with the Government Accountability Project, a Washington watchdog group. “This stuff is very corrosive and it's sitting in cylinders that are rusting,” Miller said. “These cylinders were never intended to sit there and hold this for 50 or 60 years.” The House spending bill does not include a measure dealing with the uranium plants, and some in that chamber are expected to oppose including McConnell's provision in the final bill. They say the Energy Department has more serious cleanup problems around the country. The administration also objects to it. The House approved a $29 billion anti-terror bill in May. The Senate bill costs $31.5 billion, a figure the White House has said is too high and could prompt a veto. McConnell said Monday he was pleased his measure got in the Senate bill but voiced concern about its future. “I will stay the course, but it remains to be seen if the final bill will contain my provision or even if the president will sign the appropriations bill,” McConnell said. Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who represents Paducah, said it makes more sense to build two conversion facilities, since it would be expensive to transport all the cylinders to one site. He also said that could be hazardous. “You're dealing with some material that people don't like to see going through their communities,” Whitfield said. [http://cincinnati.com] Cincinnati Enquirer [http://enquirer.com] , a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Livermore lab plan: $1 billion misprint Bush budget would take the money, but leave the staff [http://sfgate.com] [msandalow@sfchronicle.com] Tuesday, June 11, 2002 --> Washington -- In an arrangement that still has top officials at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scratching their heads, President Bush plans to send 80 percent of the lab's budget to his new Department of Homeland Security and as few as 4 percent of its employees. Nearly a week after Bush proposed the most comprehensive reform of the federal bureaucracy in half a century, it was evident that not all the details had been worked out -- or fully understood by senior White House aides. Tom Ridge, the president's director of homeland security, said that, contrary to the suggestion of a report issued by the White House last week, the overwhelming majority of the lab's 7,500 employees would not be transferred to the proposed Cabinet department, and the lab's long-standing relationship with the Department of Energy would remain largely intact. However, neither Ridge nor other White House aides could explain why the plan's fine print calls for the new department to employ just a fraction of the lab's workers while consuming $1.2 billion of its $1.5 billion budget. "I cannot give you the kind of explanation you need to deal with that imbalance," Ridge said Monday in response to The Chronicle's queries. He raised the possibility that the discrepancy could be the result of a billion- dollar misprint. "I just have to give you a better dollar amount," Ridge said. "The bigger issue to be framed here is for you to understand that we are not going to take over the traditional relationship they (the Department of Energy) had with Lawrence Livermore." Ridge said only employees who work specifically on countermeasures to protect Americans against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons -- a small fraction of the lab's work -- would be affected. "Historically, and at least for now and for the future, the Department of Energy is going to control and work with Lawrence Livermore as it relates to nuclear weapons systems," Ridge said. The sprawling lab in southeastern Alameda County is operated by the University of California under a contract with the Department of Energy. Bush's plan to reorganize the federal bureaucracy, announced in a nationally televised address last week, calls for the wholesale transfer of entire agencies -- including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- into a new Cabinet department charged primarily with protecting Americans against terrorist attacks. The 24-page plan also says the department "would incorporate and focus the intellectual energy and extensive capacity of several important scientific institutions, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory." A chart contained in the plan shows $1.2 billion and 324 workers from the lab being added to the new department, which is estimated to have a workforce of 169,000 and a $37 billion budget. Ridge, talking about the Coast Guard, FEMA and other federal agencies, said "it is important to transfer the departments in whole." But in the case of the labs, where almost all the employees work for UC and not the federal government, he said only a tiny fraction should be a part of the new Cabinet department. A White House aide clarified Monday night that the figure of 324 workers mentioned in the plan referred only to the number of federal employees at the lab, and that it is possible many more might be added to the new agency and not count toward the total number of federal employees. No one at the lab could confirm the number of federal employees, although two sources thought the number was probably closer to half that amount. Lab officials, who said they were not consulted on the reorganization plan, have not received any official notice from Washington. "We're still waiting for specifics and details," lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver said. Several Bush administration critics suggested that the confusion was symptomatic of a plan put together hastily and in secret. "This is what happens when you have secrecy in legislative drafting," said Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher, whose East Bay District includes the lab. Tauscher is the co-sponsor of an alternative plan to create a Cabinet department to counter terrorism, which would not move lab employees but would tap into their expertise. E-mail Marc Sandalow at [msandalow@sfchronicle.com] ***************************************************************** 41 From nuclear production to nonproliferation, Y-12 changing The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 06/11/02 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff The Y-12 mission is changing, the Y-12 infrastructure is changing and the Y-12 workforce is changing. That's the word from Bill Brumley, manager of the Y-12 site office for the National Nuclear Security Administration, who gave the "State and Future of the Y-12 National Security Complex" address Monday night at the American Museum of Science and Energy. The talk was part of the Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Community Lecture series. "The world is changing," said Brumley, who was named manager of the site office in April of 2000, and noted it had been a whirlwind trip ever since. "We've got less dependence on nuclear weapons and more dependence in keeping them from proliferating." Brumley said currently about one-third of the plant's $692 million budget goes toward nonproliferation efforts, and he expects that to increase in the next few years. "It's a little strange -- Y-12 has been viewed historically as a producer of weapons of mass destruction, but we're also helping in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. "As the number of weapons decrease and the number of signed treaties increase Š our support of nonproliferation will continue to increase." The complexion of the plant is also changing, and much more rapidly. By year's end (Sept. 30), Brumley expects to see a reduction of at least 500,000 square feet of building space, with the goal of eventually reducing the plant size by half. "We're changing the landscape at Y-12 almost every day," said Brumley. Construction during "modernization" efforts should create about 800 jobs, with "hundreds" of those jobs permanent. However, said Brumley, the work force should decrease in the future due to automation of manufacturing. Brumley's administrative and technical staff has grown from about 20 just after his arrival to about 80, which he says "is probably one of the strongest technical staffs of any DOE (Department of Energy) facility across the complex." With the nation on high terrorist alert, Brumley says his top priority is protection of special nuclear materials. "That's particularly important in light of Sept. 11," said Brumley, who noted that nuclear weapons were "not terribly hard to build. "But the one thing the bad guys probably do not have, or they would already have used them, is access to strategic quantities of special nuclear materials," said Brumley. Brumley said that as technology changes, so will Y-12, and that plans call for spending about $50 million in the next five years on technology upgrades. In addition, Y-12 is benefiting and will continue to benefit from its proximity to the technology corridor and partnerships with ORNL, the University of Tennessee and Tennessee State University. Brumley said the Y-12 mission is in Oak Ridge to stay, and that "it is just a very exciting time" for the plant. The Community Lecture series is sponsored by Friends of ORNL with support from the American Museum of Science and Energy, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Bechtel Jacobs Co. LLC, BWXT Y-12 LLC, UT Battelle LLC and The Oak Ridger. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] . [http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 42 City tax collections at Y-12 increase The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 06/11/02 by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff According to officials with BWXT Y-12, tax collections from activities at the Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex saw an almost 24-percent jump from the first quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2002. Bill Wilburn, spokesman for BWXT Y-12, said that though total procurement spending at Y-12 is down, taxes paid by BWXT are up due to two factors: One, the shift in the type of tax paid after elimination of MK Ferguson as a subcontractor handling construction work; and two, the increase in spending on "infrastructure reduction and facility modernization." With MK Ferguson as subcontractor, the tax was paid in the jurisdiction where the suppliers did business, said Wilburn. Under the current system, the same tax is paid in Anderson County as "use" tax. "In the case of some suppliers, this converts sales tax paid by Ferguson in Knox County to use tax paid by BWXT Y-12 in Anderson County," said Wilburn. "A general increase in spending on infrastructure reduction and facilities modernization has created a higher level of taxable purchases," continued Wilburn. "The shift in spending patterns means that currently a larger proportion of our spending is subject to tax." The city has seen an overall increase in sales tax collections since July over the previous year, and city staff has indicated that jump is likely due to activity at Home Depot, Wal-Mart and increased construction at Y-12. The Anderson County local option taxes paid by BWXT Y-12 during the first quarter of 2001 averaged a little less than $67,000 per month, according Wilburn. Those same taxes during the fourth quarter of 2001 had dropped to a little less than $63,000 per month. "But during the first quarter of 2002 the Anderson County local option taxes jumped to just slightly more than $88,000 per month, a $25,000 per month increase over our low point," said Wilburn. Overall sales tax collections for the city are up about 13 percent over the previous year's collections, even though the Roane County portion is still below collections for the same period. As of March, tax collections in the Anderson County portion of the city for fiscal year 2002 totaled $4,027,189, which is $460,741 over the same period in FY 2001, according to city documents. In the Roane County portion of the city, sales tax collections through the first three quarters of FY 2002 were $881,774, or about $10,100 below collections for FY 2001. That leaves the total city-wide tax collections through the first three quarters of FY 2002 at $4,908,963, an increase of $450,640 over the same period in FY 2001. The city has budgeted for sales tax collections to remain flat for fiscal year 2003. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] . [http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 43 Lawmakers try to speed up uranium cleanup in Kentucky, Ohio The Oak Ridger Online -- State News -- 06/11/02 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Buried within the Senate's anti-terrorism spending bill is a measure intended to accelerate the cleanup of uranium waste in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, but the fate of that provision is uncertain. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., inserted the measure in the bill approved by the Senate last week. It would require the Energy Department to build two facilities to convert depleted uranium at nuclear sites in the three states into a safer form. Congress passed similar legislation in 1998, but the Bush administration has maintained that the language wasn't mandatory and that it might only build one facility to save money. McConnell's measure states that construction of waste conversion facilities must be begin by July 2004 at uranium plants in Paducah, Ky., and Piketon, Ohio. The project is expected to add about 200 jobs to each site. Congressional aides estimate the cost of building two plants and running them for about 20 years would be roughly $1 billion. The administration has estimated it could save $100 million by building just one facility. The converters would take the uranium compound being stored in about 60,000 steel cylinders at Paducah, Piketon and Oak Ridge, Tenn., and turn it into forms that are less toxic. Some of the cylinders are in poor condition and could leak, releasing toxic gas and uranium, said Richard Miller, a policy analyst with the Government Accountability Project, a Washington watchdog group. "This stuff is very corrosive and it's sitting in cylinders that are rusting," Miller said. "These cylinders were never intended to sit there and hold this for 50 or 60 years." The House spending bill does not include a measure dealing with the uranium plants, and some in that chamber are expected to oppose including McConnell's provision in the final bill. They say the Energy Department has more serious cleanup problems around the country. The administration also objects to it. The House approved a $29 billion anti-terror bill in May. The Senate bill costs $31.5 billion, a figure the White House has said is too high and could prompt a veto. McConnell said Monday he was pleased his measure got in the Senate bill but voiced concern about its future. "I will stay the course, but it remains to be seen if the final bill will contain my provision or even if the president will sign the appropriations bill," McConnell said. Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who represents Paducah, said it makes more sense to build two conversion facilities, since it would be expensive to transport all the cylinders to one site. He also said that could be hazardous. "You're dealing with some material that people don't like to see going through their communities," Whitfield said. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 44 [OFFTOPIC:1196] Nuked food and dioxin Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:57:47 -0500 (CDT) Heating Food In Microwaves On T.V. this morning they had a Dr.Edward Fujimoto from Castle hospital on the program. He is the manager of the Wellness Program at the hospital. He was talking about dioxins & how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat and plastics releases dioxins into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxins are carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells of our bodies. Instead, he recommends using glass, Corning Ware, or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results without the dioxins. So such things as TV dinners, instant saimin & soups, etc. should be removed from the container & heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. Just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He said we might remember when some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. Pass this on to your friends.... To add to this saran wrap placed over foods as they are nuked, with the high heat, actually drips poisonous toxins into the food, use paper towels. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************