***************************************************************** 01/14/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.13 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 French nuclear firm sponsoring America's Cup yacht 2 Austrian far-right revives nuclear row 3 UK: Nuclear doubts gnaw deeper 4 US: NRC Schedules Three-day Conference to Discuss Regulatory Issues NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 CA: Cost of nuclear repairs soars 6 Czech reactor: Twenty years of controversy 7 US: Nuclear forum allays concerns NUCLEAR SAFETY 8 US: FedEx pilots question extent of leaked radiation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 9 UK: Dismantling of nuclear pile halted (@ Sellafield) 10 Ireland: Senator Warns of Nuclear Threat 11 US: AU: Mine leak danger 12 US: Subtle partisanship slips into anti-Yucca lovefest 13 UK: Nuclear waste disposal plans scrapped 14 US: Nevada lacks clout to stop dump 15 US: Letter urges Bush to bounce Yucca 16 US: Analysis: Abraham decision prompts political finger-pointing 17 US: Sununu says he is not calling for boycott 18 US: Australian uranium spill angers greens - 19 US: More leaks unearthed at South Australian uranium mine 20 US: AU: Labor demands mine closure after radioactive spill 21 US: Nuclear NIMBY | csmonitor.com 22 US: IEER: DOE Makes Wrong Choice by Selecting Yucca Mountain 23 US: Disposal Site Long Overdue 24 US: High-Level Nuclear Waste Might Move to Nevada Site Over Oregon 25 US: Toxic in Tonawanda? 26 USEC: Turning Arms Into Energy, if Not Into Much Cash NUCLEAR WEAPONS 27 US: A new nuclear policy with old flaws 28 In editorial, Iraq denies weapons program 29 US: Brookings to Hold Briefing on Bush Nuclear Posture Review 30 IAEA Team to Visit North Korean Nuclear Facilities - 31 S. Korean President Urges Dialogue US DEPT. OF ENERGY 32 Battelle predicts R&D spending, touts pros of managing lab system 33 Y-12 to get $5 million gantry mill 34 Letter: LBNL is back for more ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 French nuclear firm sponsoring America's Cup yacht New Zealand News - NZ - 14.01.2002 By ANNE BESTON A French nuclear power company is sponsoring France's entry in next year's America's Cup but it says it is unfair to link its involvement with the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior almost 20 years ago. Nuclear giant Areva will sponsor the French yacht Defi in the event and the French team will be known as Defi Areva. The company has 50,000 employees and a turnover of about $21 billion and was created from company mergers in the industry just over a year ago. Spokesman Jacques-Emmanuel Saulnier said there was a huge difference between the activities of Areva and the military nuclear tests carried out by the French in 1985 on Mururoa Atoll. The Greenpeace protest ship Rainbow Warrior travelled to Mururoa to protest against those tests and was later sunk by a French bomb in Auckland Harbour. The bombing was carried out by two French agents and caused the death of a Portuguese photographer who was aboard at the time. The two intelligence agents were arrested and charged with manslaughter but were back in France by 1988. The incident caused a diplomatic row that ultimately led to the resignation of the French Defence Minister, Charles Hernu. However, Mr Saulnier brushed that aside, saying Areva had been created less than a year ago. "We should not be held accountable for what happened 20 years ago," he said. "New Zealanders know very well the difference between civil and military nuclear capabilities. When we explain this to them then they will understand." He said Areva had a lot of clients in the Pacific, particularly Australia, where the distinction between the two activities was well understood. The winner of the Louis Vuitton Cup, which begins on October 1, will compete against Team New Zealand for the America's Cup from February next year. ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 2 Austrian far-right revives nuclear row BBC News | EUROPE | 14 January, 2002, [Temelin] Prague has promised to tighten safety at Temelin Austria's far-right Freedom Party has launched a petition demanding the closure of the Czech nuclear plant at Temelin, near the Austrian border. It is seeking to block Czech efforts to join the European Union unless the the Russian-designed station is closed. [Susanne Riess-Passer] Riess-Passer: Petition is the last chance The move has caused a rift within Austria's ruling coalition, with the centre-right Austrian People's Party opposing the initiative. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel has urged members the People's Party not to sign the petition on the grounds that it could damage Austria internationally and isolate it within the EU. Prague has promised to tighten safety at Temelin but says closure is out of the question. The plant is due to become fully operational next year. While the result of the petition will not be binding, correspondents say strong support for it could put the coalition under strain, could even hasten its collapse. Temelin has long been a cause for concern in Austria, where nuclear power was banned by a binding nationwide referendum in 1978. 'No capitulation' The Freedom Party leader and Austrian Vice-Chancellor, Susanne Riess-Passer, told supporters on Sunday that success in the referendum was probably the "last chance" to get the plant closed. [Anti-nuclear protests] Environmentalists have previously led opposition to Temelin She said her party would not "go down on our knees and capitulate to the nuclear lobby". But Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kavan said that while the plant would not be closed the referendum could have very negative consequences for Austrian-Czech relations and Austria's position in Europe. "I don't see one single reason for the Czech side to change its position on Temelin on the basis of the Austrian referendum," he told the Austrian weekly Profil. Fierce criticism Temelin was first planned by Czechoslovakia's communist authorities in the 1980s but its completion was thrown into doubt after the transition to democracy in 1989. [Chancellor Schuessel] Schuessel could come under pressure from coalition partners The Czech Government's decision finally to go ahead with the construction attracted fierce criticism from environmentalists and from Austria. Czech and Austrian leaders resolved the dispute with an agreement to set up a joint safety commission for the plant. In return, Vienna promised not to block negotiations on Czech entry into the EU. However, the plant has seen frequent shutdowns and safety scares. Most recently - Reuters news agency reported - it was closed on Friday because of a problem in an electrical generator in the non-nuclear part of the station, after reaching 100% output for the first time. Plant spokesman Milan Nebesar said the glitch, which was fixed the following day, never resulted in any threat to nuclear safety. ***************************************************************** 3 UK: Nuclear doubts gnaw deeper BBC News | EUROPE | 15 June, 2000, 12:46 GMT 13:46 UK [Japanese demonstrators] Japan has big plans for nuclear power - and a strong protest movement By Environment correspondent Alex Kirby Nuclear energy began with very high hopes. Walter Marshall, one of its pioneers in the United Kingdom, told Britons it would provide energy "too cheap to meter". It was going to usher in an era of abundant, clean power, an end to the filth and smoke of coal-fired power plants. But that is not how it has worked out. Agonising Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power follows similar agonising in many other countries. [Lenin in Pripyat] Only Lenin remains in the evacuated town built for Chernobyl staff Sweden decided not long ago to phase out its nuclear plants, and has already shut one. It is now importing energy from Denmark, generated from fossil fuels, and further closures may be politically difficult. Across much of the world, existing nuclear stations are being allowed to work on to the end of their useful lives, but plans to build new ones to replace them are thin on the ground. And the voices calling for an end to nuclear power are increasingly those of hard-headed analysts, not simply of idealistic environmental campaigners. Ambitious programmes The one region bucking the trend is East Asia, where several countries have relatively ambitious nuclear programmes. It's fair to say the industry is feeling a bit beleaguered in some countries Nuclear analyst Japan, strapped by a chronic lack of natural resources, has two reactors under construction. Despite the jolt to public confidence from the Tokaimura accident last year, it plans to start work on four more in 2002, another three the following year, two in 2005, and a further six in 2006. China has three reactors working already, and seven under construction. In western Europe, the picture is very different. One nuclear analyst told BBC News Online: "It's fair to say the industry is feeling a bit beleaguered in some countries. Secrecy "In the UK, where all the older Magnox power stations are to close over the next 15 years, people are rather depressed. [Windscale] Windscale: Scene of the first major nuclear accident "In much of the rest of Europe things are pretty quiet. They're certainly not upbeat." The analyst described the US nuclear industry by contrast as "optimistic - there's new money for research and development. The mood there's changing, though there's little concrete to support it." Part of the nuclear industry's problem is its ingrained habit of secrecy, inherited from the military programmes which spawned it. In the UK it has a sorry record of being economical with the truth, with the falsifying of records at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) only the most recent example. Mistrust There is still deep mistrust of the civil industry on the part of people who believe it to be inseparable from the military embrace. Part of the problem concerns the disposal of wastes which will remain radioactive for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. So far nobody has come up with a safe answer. And a massive problem is the industry's safety record. The world knows of at least three major nuclear accidents - Windscale (UK) in 1957, Three Mile Island (US) in 1979, and Chernobyl (USSR) in 1986. The potential for a catastrophically bad accident remains, and while it does the industry has an almost unclimbable mountain of distrust to overcome. Finally, not many people now believe that nuclear power is the only way of avoiding burning fossil fuels, with all they imply for climate change. Nuclear power is one way, but there are many others. And they involve fewer blind leaps of faith into the far distant future. ***************************************************************** 4 NRC Schedules Three-day Conference to Discuss Regulatory Issues with Nuclear Industry NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 5 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] Public Affairs Web Site No. 02-005 January 14, 2002 Advanced registration is now available for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 14th Annual Regulatory Information Conference, to be held March 5 - 7, at the Capital Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. The conference, sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, will focus on major issues and initiatives associated with the regulation of commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC's revised oversight process, risk-informed regulations, license renewal and decommissioning are among the topics slated for discussion. The agenda for the conference was developed using suggestions provided by attendees at last year's meeting as well as suggestions invited by NRC on its Internet web site. Additional information is available through the NRC's conference Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/regs-guides-comm/ric/2002/index.html [http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/regs-guides-comm/ric/2002/index.html] . The conference is open to the public, but advanced registration is suggested. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations and Samuel J. Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, will open the conference on Tuesday, March 5, at 1 p.m., and Chairman Richard A. Meserve will deliver the keynote speech. Breakout sessions will follow on safeguards/security issues, new reactor licensing, decommissioning, the allegations process, and safety conscious work environments. Commissioner Nils J. Diaz will lead a plenary session in the afternoon. On Wednesday, the conference will begin at 8 a.m. with issue-specific breakout sessions on the revised oversight process, circumferential cracking of control rod drives, nuclear waste, power uprates, risk-informed regulation technical requirements, international issues and perspectives, and public confidence and communications. Commissioner Greta Joy Dicus will conduct a plenary session before lunch. Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr. will conduct a plenary session after lunch. The Wednesday post-luncheon schedule will include Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield addressing the conferees in a plenary session. Afternoon breakout sessions will follow on emergent technical and business topics, license renewal, and technical specifications initiatives. The Thursday session will begin at 8 a.m. with Mr. Collins scheduled to speak about regulatory trends and initiatives for improving nuclear reactor safety. This will be followed by separate regional breakout sessions. A feedback plenary session will be held prior to adjournment. A complete agenda will be posted to the RIC web site when finalized. ***************************************************************** 5 CA: Cost of nuclear repairs soars Hamilton - canada.com network Refurbishing of Ontario's nuclear power stations millions over-budget, years behind schedule April Lindgren The Ottawa Citizen Monday, January 14, 2002 TORONTO -- Ontario's multibillion-dollar effort to refurbish ailing nuclear plants is running years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, the Citizen has learned. Restarting the four mothballed nuclear reactors that make up the Pickering A unit will cost $1.5 billion, $400 million more than previously estimated, and take at least a year longer than forecast. Meanwhile, separate efforts to update the province's other power stations are running three years behind schedule, and information comparing current cost estimates with original projections is sketchy at best. In its 1997 annual report, Ontario Hydro said it would spend $4.9 billion between 1997 and 2001 to refurbish the 12 reactors kept in service at the Bruce B, Pickering B and Darlington power stations. The price tag included the cost of purchasing replacement power during temporary reactor shutdowns. Ted Gruetzner, a spokesman for Ontario Power Generation, a successor company to Ontario Hydro, now says the provincially owned company has not kept track of replacement power costs. The latest estimate for reactor upgrades alone, he says, is $1.4 billion for a project that will run through to 2004. Gruetzner said the total includes some work already done on the four reactors at the Bruce B nuclear station, which the Ontario government leased to British-owned Bruce Power in May. The Citizen tracked the delays and escalating costs through Ontario Hydro and OPG annual reports, recovery plan documents and quarterly financial results issued since 1997. Energy Minister Jim Wilson defended the performance of the government's power-generating company: "The government is satisfied as the shareholder on behalf of the people of Ontario," he said in an interview. "They (OPG) even got into having to develop some new technology along the way to bring these reactors back. So while it may be taking longer and it is costing more, I can't blame the company or the people doing the work, given that it has been fully explained to us all the way along." Wilson said the government went ahead in 1997 with one of the most ambitious nuclear recovery programs in the world because Ontarians had already invested heavily in the construction of the nuclear stations. "There has been some unforeseen work that has had to be done at considerable cost, but I still think at the end of the day, and we've looked at it very carefully all the way along, that relatively emission-free, inexpensive power is going to be very much in demand, particularly in the competitive electricity market that we are about to open." Gruetzner says the improvements have been worth the money, time and effort. After receiving a 58.5 rating out of 100 in 1997 on an international index that measures nuclear plant performance, the rating for Ontario nuclear stations has climbed to 81.4, he said. Although U.S. plants are still ahead with a 91-point rating, "we've made substantial progress," in terms of plant safety and efficiency, Gruetzner insisted. Others are more skeptical. "The Ontario government is the only shareholder in OPG, and ultimately (the cost overruns and delays) will have an impact on electricity rates -- and it won't be a positive impact," says Liberal energy critic Sean Conway, noting also that OPG pays an earnings-based dividend to the province for use against the $21-billion debt run up by Ontario Hydro. In OPG's third-quarter financial results, costs associated with refurbishing the Pickering A station were given as one reason earnings fell to $228 million in the first nine months of 2001, compared to $534 million the year before. Ontario Hydro launched its ambitious plan to refurbish its nuclear reactors in 1997 following a devastating internal review of its nuclear division. The company's president at the time resigned over the safety and management problems pinpointed by the team of American nuclear experts brought in to examine the nuclear operations, and the recovery plan was adopted. Under its terms, eight reactors at the Pickering A and Bruce A power stations were mothballed to free up resources for improvements at the Bruce B, Pickering B and Darlington nuclear stations, where 12 reactors remained in use. Conway, who sat on a legislative committee that reviewed the nuclear division's woes, said there were doubts from the start about Hydro's cost estimates and schedule. Historically, he says, when it comes to Ontario's nuclear assets "you could always count on the costs being higher, the time being longer and the problems being more intractable." But the province was also dependent on nuclear generation for 60 per cent of its electricity needs, and billions of dollars had already been invested to build the nuclear stations, he said. "This is one area of public policy where there needs to be much stronger, much more vigilant public oversight," Conway said. "Unfortunately, we know less about the hydro successor companies today than we did about Ontario Hydro three or four years ago, and we didn't know much back then." Although OPG is still a government-owned enterprise, the provincial government has exempted it from freedom of information legislation, Conway said. He noted that the company, which as of May 1 will have to compete with other firms to sell its electricity, is also using its new status as a competitive enterprise to hide information. Tom Adams of the watchdog group Energy Probe says "every nuclear construction project ever undertaken in Ontario has been over budget and behind schedule. So in some ways, history is repeating itself." He said OPG's claim that it hasn't tracked the replacement power costs associated with the overhaul of its 12 operating reactors is more of "the same old story." "The lack of detailed accounting for these things is one of the techniques that the nuclear industry has used to keep people in such a muddle that they can continue to claim with a straight face that they are cost effective," he said, noting that original costs of the refurbishing project ranged as high as $8 billion. "The whole problem of nuclear accounting has been a swamp from the beginning." © Copyright2002 The Ottawa Citizen ***************************************************************** 6 Czech reactor: Twenty years of controversy BBC News | EUROPE | Friday, 13 October, 2000, The Temelin plant has begun producing electricity after decades of controversy Originally conceived by the Communist Government of Czechoslovakia, the nuclear power plant Temelin was delayed by safety and environmental concerns following the 1989 revolution that brought democracy to the country. The plant lies close to the Austrian and German borders Opponents of the plant point out that its original design is similar to that of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine, the site of a nuclear accident in 1986. But the plant was redesigned to Western safety standards in the early 1990s, following international inspections. The redesign included reducing the number of reactors from four to two. International repercussions Austria, the Czech Republic's nuclear-free neighbour to the south, has been among the most vociferous opponents of Temelin, which lies about 50 kilometres from the Czech-Austrian border. There is only one option: to hope the reactor is safe Czech President Vaclav Havel Just days before the plant went on-line, the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel is reported to have warned the Czech Prime Minister of the consequences for the country's bid to join the European Union. The German Environment Minister, Jurgen Trittin of the Green Party, has expressed reservations about the plant's emergency safety mechanisms. Havel concerned And the plant has domestic critics as well, including the country's President, former dissident Vaclav Havel. Havel has called Temelin "meglomaniacal". He told Czech Radio he believes "There is only one option: to believe and hope that the reactor is really safe". Havel has called the plant meglomaniacal He also said that he did not think Temelin would prevent the Czechs from joining the European Union. The Czech Environment Minister Milos Kuzvart has been an outspoken opponent of the plant. He tried to delay it by demanding new environmental reviews in April 2000. And Czech anti-nuclear campaigners have been active as well. They have pointed out that the nuclear plant has no long-term plan to store waste. Environmental advantages But Ladislav Kriz, a spokesman for the plant's operator, said Temelin can store waste safely for 10 years. The Czech Power Company, which built Temelin, argued that the country will reap environmental gains from opening the nuclear plant. It said that bringing the plant on-line will enable them to shut down polluting brown-coal-fired plants in the north of the country. With Temelin operational, CEZ estimated, "it will not be necessary to mine and burn about 12 million tonnes of brown coal, which will have a positive impact on the quality of the environment." Temelin has cost 98 billion Czech crowns ($2.4bn) to date, said spokesman Kriz. Only one of the plant's two reactors is now operational. Reactor 2 is due online in 2002. ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear forum allays concerns [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ] But some residents say security and safety measures at the nuclear plant cannot protect it against terrorism. By ALEX LEARY, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times published January 14, 2002 SUGARMILL WOODS -- Like many of the people at Saturday's forum on the security of Florida Power's nuclear plant, Barbara Cottey arrived at Southern Woods Golf Club with deep concerns. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she has wondered whether, as friend Ruth Anderson put it, "the nuclear giant that lives and never sleeps in Crystal River," was adequately protected. Cottey was one of many Citrus residents stunned when Florida Power rebuffed National Guard protection. "Why don't they take all the help they can get? The extra eyes could help," she thought at the time. But the retired nurse left the forum convinced the Guard would have been little help, as officials implied during the forum. "I feel much better," she said. With weekend duffers warming up on the greens outside, representatives from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Florida Power faced a searching, skeptical audience but repeatedly said there is nothing to worry about. About 60 residents paid $10 to attend the forum, which included a brunch. Security is "very robust," said Scott Stewart, the NRC's resident inspector in Crystal River. He said Florida Power has gone "well beyond" required safety measures. Although that message resonated with some, others remain concerned. Several raised questions about the spent fuel pool, which is less protected than the nuclear reactor. "They are superconfident that we're so secure; I don't believe we are," said Marian Carubia, 58, who moved to Sugarmill Woods six months ago. That a 15-year-old was able to steal a plane, fly over MacDill Air Force Base and crash into a Tampa skyscraper Jan. 5 should be a reminder that anything can happen, Carubia and several others said. "You should take some assurance that everything from a security point of view that can be done is being done," said NRC liaison Robert Trojanowski, who drove down from Atlanta. Citing security considerations, officials offered few specifics about the steps enacted since Sept. 11. But they stressed that even before then, the plant was patrolled by heavily armed guards. That force has been backed up by sheriff's deputies and the Coast Guard. Florida Power has added barricades to the front of the energy complex off U.S. 19. Spokesman Mac Harris said the nuclear reactor is encased in steel 6 to 8 inches thick and that the walls of the containment building are more than 3 feet thick. He held up a steel reinforcement bar that was as thick as a Coke can. The 3-inch model weighed 5 pounds. "Is it safe?" Harris asked of the plant. "My answer to you is yes, and it's unequivocal." The morning's first question came from Jane Estep, who wanted to know whether the spent fuel pool is as secure as the reactor building. The pool contains two decades of nuclear waste, and more is added every two years. Harris did not directly answer the question but said the pool was designed to withstand a hurricane or earthquake. She pressed on, questioning whether the pool would be safe from an attack by a jetliner, such as those used to topple the World Trade Center. Harris said the question assumed answers to many questions, the largest being whether a person could hijack a plane. "He didn't answer my question," Estep, 71, said afterward. "How can I feel better?" Tony Connole, 86, called spent fuel the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear industry. Panelists agreed. It was never supposed to be stored long at the plants; rather, a plan was devised to ship it to a central location. Last week, the Energy Department took a first step toward creating the repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is far from a done deal, however. A fight is expected in Congress. With waste accumulating at the nation's 103 active reactors, Connole said, Yucca Mountain would fill quickly. It would be designed to hold up to 77,000 tons of waste, but more than than 40,000 tons has been built up already, with 2,000 tons added each year, the Washington Post reported last week. "We need (scientists) to devise a better method to neutralize this nuclear waste," Connole said. Addressing the National Guard issue, Trojanowski said that although many plants accepted extra security, there was nothing wrong with Florida Power's refusal. He played down the issue, saying the Guard was mainly used for traffic control. Florida Power has said it thinks existing security was adequate. Trojanowski took issue with the NRC proposal to distribute potassium iodide, or KI, pills to people who live within 10 miles of nuclear power plants. KI can prevent thyroid cancer, but that is only one danger, and some think the pills give people a false sense of security. Focusing on evacuation plans is probably better, Trojanowski said. KI "may seem like some sort of technical panacea to radiological release, but that's not the case." Second forum planned A second forum on Florida Power's nuclear plant and terrorism will be held Thursday in Crystal River. Nils Diaz, one of the commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will attend. The 7 p.m. meeting will be held at City Hall, 123 NW U.S. 19. ***************************************************************** 8 FedEx pilots question extent of leaked radiation Caller.com: National/world News By RICHARD THOMPSON More FedEx employees in New Orleans, particularly pilots, could have been exposed to radiation from a leaking shipment than previously believed, according to the FedEx Pilots Association. The shipment - a 300-pound steel container with radioactive pellets of iridium-192 inside - was shipped from Sweden on Dec. 27 and arrived at the FedEx air-freight terminal in New Orleans via truck on Dec. 31. The radioactive leak was not discovered until Jan. 2. In that lapsed time, the shipment was in close proximity to an area where FedEx pilots gather between flights, said Capt. David Webb, president of the FPA, which represents more than 4,000 FedEx pilots. "There is some concern that the exposure might be higher because of the proximity to the package," said Webb. FedEx spokesman Sandra Munoz could not confirm where the package was in the New Orleans terminal. However, she said "a few pilots" have had the badges they wear to detect radiation pulled by FedEx to be processed, she said. Munoz said the facility was closed on New Year's Day. So, it's unclear how much additional exposure there is. Employees are being encouraged to come forward, she said. Officials have said it is unlikely anyone was hurt by the leak, which is being investigated in Louisiana, Sweden and Paris. So far, FedEx has interviewed fewer than 100 employees in the United States and Europe combined. There have been no reports of ill health so far. After employees of the recipient, Source Production and Equipment Co., discovered the leak, the package was moved to the company's facility in St. Rose, La., outside New Orleans, where it was safe behind a lead-and-concrete shield as of Friday. Iridium-192 is a radioisotope used to check the structural integrity of oil pipelines and bridges. Officials aren't sure when or where the leak occurred, although circumstantial evidence points toward its happening sometime after the shipment arrived in Memphis on Dec. 28. FedEx hired an outside trucking company, which it will not identify, to make the delivery to New Orleans from Memphis. The shipper, Sweden-based Studsvik AB, a nuclear technology firm, has said the steel container displayed normal levels of radiation when measured with another container in Sweden and after being reloaded at FedEx's hub in Paris. The other container was flown via FedEx to California; no problems were discovered. Also, the FedEx crews on those flights showed no significant signs of radiation exposure. However, the way the shipments were packaged on those flights could have affected the measurements, Henry has said. (Contact Richard Thompson of The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tenn., at http://www.gomemphis.com.) January 13, 2002 ***************************************************************** 9 UK: Dismantling of nuclear pile halted (@ Sellafield) Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Fire fears stop plans to take apart Sellafield reactor core Paul Brown, environment correspondent Monday January 14, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Fears that the Windscale Pile No 1 at Sellafield in Cumbria, which is packed with melted nuclear fuel, may spontaneously catch fire has led to the suspension of a £60m programme to dismantle it. A consortium including British Nuclear Fuels and Rolls Royce has spent more than £20m over three years on the project, but has been told to reconsider the method chosen because it may not be safe. The giant pile of graphite blocks with uranium fuel rods running through them that produce plutonium is in effect a primitive nuclear reactor core. In 1957 it caught fire, melting hundreds of rods and producing the world's worst nuclear accident prior to Chernobyl in 1986. Since then it has been sealed and guarded, undisturbed for fear of the consequences if air were allowed to reach the tonnes of melted fuel within. Over the past three years, fuel rods and pieces of uranium and plutonium that had scattered outside the core and spilled into water, have been collected by underwater swimming robots. That was difficult, but the next step was the most dangerous - because of the possible presence of uranium hydride, believed to have formed inside the core when water was used to put out the 1957 fire. This would ignite on exposure to air and could cause another serious fire. The UK atomic energy authority, which had awarded the £60m contract, admitted it was a "set-back and a disappointment" that the dismantling could not go ahead. The first idea had been to flood the entire pile with water, but there might have been leaks. The agreed plan was to use argon, an inert gas, instead, and then get a new breed of purpose-built robots to remove 200,000 segments of burnt fuel. However, despite years of planning and work, it was concluded that the pile weighing 2,000 tonnes might partially collapse under the weight of the robots. Ian Caine, the authority's commercial manager, said: "It will be many months, possibly years, before we are in a position to try again." The consortium has to convince the government's safety watchdog, the nuclear installations inspectorate, and the environment agency that its choice of a solution would not lead to another accident. However, no one has ever attempted to dismantle such a mess of highly active fuel. The cost comes from the Ministry of Defence budget, because the pile is one of two built at Windscale, as Sellafield was formerly called, to produce plutonium to make Britain's first hydrogen bombs. The second is also sealed but undamaged, and by comparison is simple to dismantle. Decommissioning the piles, and other remains of 50 years of various nuclear experiments at Sellafield, is expected to cost more than £24bn in all. The government's safety watchdogs are anxious to make progress before the buildings and their contents deteriorate further. The Windscale fire began on October 8 1957 and burned until October 11, when water at the rate of 200 gallons a minute was poured into the pile. It was not known whether such drastic action would cause an explosion and meltdown; fortunately it did not. As a result of fallout, millions of gallons of milk laced with radioactive iodine were poured down the drains for months afterwards - but the true nature of the disaster was kept from the public. Thirty years later the national radiological protection board estimated that, as well as those injured fighting the fire, 100 people would probably have died or would die of cancer as a result. Useful links [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] [http://www.cnduk.org/] [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 10 Ireland: Senator Warns of Nuclear Threat International News, Us Retaliation, war, terrorism, President Bush APROMINENT local politician has warned that the year 2000, and the so-called millennium bug, may have serious implications for the nuclear industry's computerised system, and has called for adequate measures to be taken to ensure that public safety remains a priority. New Ross based Senator, Jim Walsh, was referring to the expected problems that will arise on January 1st, 2000, because of computers inability to read the new date. 'Sellafield and the rest of the world's nuclear plants, which are highly computerised will be among those at risk to the fall-out from the non-compliance with year 2000 specifications,'Senator Walsh said. 'In the coming twelve months, there is an increased risk factor because of this, and there is much concern among people in our eastern coastline counties and elsewhere in the county,'he added. Senator Walsh suggested that it might now be timely to activate the national emergency plan for a full drill. 'We should ask the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland together with the County Councils, to undertake such an emergency plan at this stage in order that any weaknesses in it could be clearly identified,'he said. In calling for a 'dry run', rather than being unprepared for the potential chaos of the millennium bug, Senator Walsh said that in the past when this was done on a more limited scale, weaknesses had been identified which could obviously have been catastrophic in a real-life emergency. 'Given the increased level of exposure arising from any failure of computer systems to comply with year 2000 specifications in any of the installations in Britain, it would be important that at least we would be in a position to respond properly in the unlikely event of a serious incident,'Senator Walsh said. © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 11 AU: Mine leak danger news.com.au - Daily Telegraph] DEMANDS for a full independent inquiry mounted last night after 60,000 litres of radioactive liquid gushed from a pipe at a uranium mine. Government inspectors today will visit the Beverley Uranium Mine, which has resumed operations. Green groups yesterday demanded a full independent inquiry into the Friday night leak, saying it was the third problem at South Australian mines in recent months. Up to 60,000 litres of radioactive liquid gushed from a pipe at the mine, 600km north of Adelaide, during a maintenance shutdown. A spokesman for the mine's operator, Heathgate Resources, said pressure built in a pipe, causing it to rupture and leak the fluid. Much of the liquid was contained in a purpose-built run-off drain surrounding the plant, and the rest was cleaned up, he said. "There's been no impact on the environment and no impact on workers' safety," he said. Australian Democrats spokeswoman Sandra Knack yesterday said it was outrageous the plant was allowed to reopen before a full inspection by government officers. "Until government inspectors from the Mines and Radiation Protection Branch have arrived, made their inspection and given the all clear, operations at Beverley must be suspended," she said. The plea echoed calls from the Australian Conservation Foundation. It claimed there had been no official report on the nature or extent of the leak, and moves by the company to resume operations at the mine were premature. ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said there must be a full public inquiry into the leak, which he said was further evidence of the dangers of uranium. South Australia's Acting Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rob Lucas, yesterday announced a full inquiry into the leak would be carried out. Australian IT [http://australianit.com.au] . ***************************************************************** 12 Subtle partisanship slips into anti-Yucca lovefest http://www.townnews.com/ --> By Jimmy Boegle All the big names were present in front of the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse. Reid, Ensign, Guinn and Goodman - it was a who's who of Nevada politics, with all the whos coming together to show their unity against the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Big Four - two Democrats and two Republicans - all spoke (as did Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams, a Democrat) at the Jan . 7 media event, emphasizing to the assembled reporters that they would do anything and everything in their collective power to thwart the Yucca project. They all nodded in agreement with criticisms of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who was touring Yucca Mountain as they spoke. He's expected to recommend the Yucca site to President Bush any day now. Yes, it was a veritable political lovefest, with Democrats and Republicans, as well as city, county and state entities, all putting their differences aside. Well, mostly. Upon closer examination, the speakers' words (spoken without a microphone and often drowned out by passing traffic on Las Vegas Boulevard) actually were laced with subtle partisanship and individual interests. The most blatant partisanship came from John Ensign, who emphasized - twice - that "every energy secretary" in recent times has "blindly" supported the Yucca nuclear waste dump. In other words, don't blame the Republicans, because Clinton's cabinet members wanted Yucca Mountain here, too. Without launching any criticisms toward the president, Ensign politely urged Dubya to keep his promises to Nevada. "How can [Abraham] go forward with a site recommendation when so many scientific questions are still out there, when the president campaigned that sound science would determine whether this project became a reality?" Ensign asked. Mayor Oscar Goodman also did some politicking of his own when he announced that he would ask the city to donate "a substantial amount" of money to a legal fund to fight the Yucca project - but refused to say what that substantial amount was until his State of the City address later that day. (It's $100,000, by the way.) The politicos all seemed resigned to the likelihood that Abraham is going to recommend the p roject, although nobody came right out and said that. Guinn - who had met with Abraham just hours before - seemed especially resigned to that likelihood, emphasizing several times how Nevada's chances of defeating the project in court are better than ever. Goodman also brought up the court possibilities after mentioning that he would lobby the U.S. Conference of Mayors in an effort to gain support from his colleagues along the nuclear waste travel routes. "I'll tell you one thing: I wasn't a bad lawyer, and this is a fight we won't lose," he said. While most of the comments were merely repetitions of arguments made before, one surprise came from Reid, who said that even if Abraham recommends Yucca to Dubya as expected, there's an "absolute possibility" that the president would go against the recommendation. However, he failed to explain why Bush would do that. "You wait and see," he said. "This is receiving nationwide attention." Interesting. We're waiting. 2002 Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 13 UK: Nuclear waste disposal plans scrapped BBC News | ENGLAND | 14 January, 2002, [Avonmouth incinerator] South West Energy has withdrawn its nuclear plan Plans to burn low-level nuclear waste at an incinerator at Avonmouth have been withdrawn. A company called South West Energy, formerly known as Medipower, submitted an application last June to burn nuclear waste. Green campaigners carried out an opinion poll of almost 900 people, and found that 84% of people living near nuclear power stations were against any new plants being built. Mike Birkin of Friends of the Earth in Bristol said he was pleased at the company's decision to withdraw its plans. 'Complained bitterly' "It sounds like a good victory for the moment but we always have to be wary that the application may come back again." Jim Duffey of the Shut Oldbury campaign said: "We found out by a call from Oxford that the company had plans to bring nuclear waste from Harwell. We found out by a call from Oxford that the company had plans to bring nuclear waste from Harwell Jim Duffey "They wanted to ship waste from a specific section to the Avonmouth plant, but the Environment Agency had only told the city council about this - we weren't informed which we complained bitterly about. "We were very pleased when the consultation period was extended and we wrote a report about the risks of the practice. They chewed on this and, although the Environment Agency seemed happy to go ahead, the owners withdrew the application, about which we are delighted." But Mr Duffey said he warned the company could reapply for a licence to burn nuclear waste at the Avonmouth plant. "We think the company also had plans to bring 400 tonnes of contaminated soil to the plant." It is claimed the burning procedure could lead to tiny particles of radiation lodging inside the body, which can trigger cancers. "In the area between Avonmouth and Oldbury, women are 50% more likely to die of breast cancer than in other areas," said Mr Duffey. South West Energy's managing director, Bill Blyde, said the decision was taken because the company wanted to concentrate on other business. "We bought the site in July 2000 to focus on clinical waste materials from hospitals and the NHS." Mr Blyde said the now aborted-plan to take nuclear waste from Oxfordshire had been taken by a group of managers no longer employed by the company. ***************************************************************** 14 Nevada lacks clout to stop dump Las Vegas SUN Today: January 14, 2002 at 9:41:57 PST By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- If President Bush endorses the plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and Gov. Kenny Guinn files an official objection as expected, both the House and Senate likely would have the votes to override the Nevada objection. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., said last week they do not have enough allies in the Senate to stop an override. And the Republican-controlled 435-member House will "overwhelmingly" override it, said Samantha Jordan, spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leading Yucca supporter in the House. Barton, chairman of a key House Energy subcommittee, has consistently prodded the Department of Energy to complete the Yucca project. "I will continue to work with the administration on this matter and urge President Bush to formally recommend Yucca Mountain as the location for the federal government's disposal facility as soon as possible," Barton said in a statement after Abraham's decision last week. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham last week signaled that in 30 days he will make a recommendation to President Bush that Yucca Mountain is a safe and suitable place to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from around the country. Bush likely will give the project the green light, most observers agree. At that point, Gov. Kenny Guinn can veto Bush's action, batting the issue back to Congress. Both the House and Senate would have 90 days to override the formal objection with a simple majority. Powerful pro-Yucca lawmakers also are already looking forward to the vote, including pro-Yucca House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who released a statement blaming "left-wing political grandstanding" for delaying the Yucca project thus far. Waste is piling up in Illinois, one of the top nuclear-power producing states in the country. Lawmakers from other states with nuclear plants joined in calling for congressional action on Yucca this year. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said, "This is a major step toward finally moving hazardous nuclear waste off the shores of Lake Michigan once and for all. And it's about time," Upton said. "At the end of the day it's nice to have an administration that realizes the urgency and importance of this issue and is willing to act." For an idea about how a congressional vote might go, insiders point to a February 2000 Senate vote on a bill that would have sped up the Yucca project timeline. Reid and former Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., were able to muster 32 other senators to vote against it. Although the bill had passed, Reid and Bryan called the vote a victory because it was exactly the number they needed at the time -- more than one-third -- to sustain a veto by President Clinton. This time around, Reid and Ensign would need to round up support from 49 senators for a simple majority, which will not be easy. Lawmakers, with a few exceptions, often vote on the issue based on whether nuclear waste is piling up in their states -- not based on what their party leaders like Majority Whip Reid -- say. It is not clear how many allies Reid and Ensign, will be able to corral for support. The Senate's leading Yucca advocates will be lobbying their colleagues, too, aides said. "Secretary Abraham came to this decision using the sound and objective science that must guide all policy makers through each step of this project, including the coming congressional debate," Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, said last week. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, another leading Yucca supporter, said, "This is another major step in the critical and necessary move to get waste out of Idaho and into a permanent waste facility." Pro-Yucca lobbyists also will be out in full force. Officials at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the leading pro-Yucca lobby firm in Washington, rejoiced at Abraham's announcement. NEI president and CEO Joe Colvin called it the "right scientific thing to do." Another lobbyist, Geraldine Ferraro, plans to look past Bush and focus her efforts on Congress. The consultant and former vice presidential candidate in November signed on to help lead an alliance of energy companies in a new pro-Yucca lobbying campaign under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ferraro has no intention of lobbying White House officials. "I don't know if that will be necessary," Ferraro told the Sun. But Ferraro has already spoken with a few senators, she said. "A lot of (lawmakers) are concerned about these waste sites in their state," Ferraro said. If in fact the Yucca issue comes to a vote in Congress, there are a few wild cards to consider this time around. Nevada lawmakers say they have added ammunition in a final General Accounting Office report released in December that faults the Yucca project and recommends delaying indefinitely a decision about its suitability. The GAO is the auditing arm of Congress. Also, this year Nevada has a senator from each party -- Ensign will be on the spot to put his influence to the test. Also, the Senate has 10 other new members to consider since the last Yucca vote in 2000. And it is unknown how the post-Sept. 11 environment might affect the vote. Pro-Yucca forces argue that storing the nation's nuclear waste in one secure desert location is safer than storing it on-site at nuclear plants nationwide. But Yucca opponents say shipping waste on trucks and trains for decades through 41 states and major cities provides terrorists with thousands of rolling targets. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Letter urges Bush to bounce Yucca Las Vegas SUN Today: January 14, 2002 at 9:41:57 PST By Jeff German Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera were sending a letter today to President Bush urging him to reject Yucca Mountain as the site of the nation's high-level nuclear waste dump. Both planned a news conference this morning to disclose the contents of the letter. "We're telling him he has to protect Nevada," Goodman said, adding the two elected leaders also are stressing Yucca Mountain has become a national transportation issue. "We told him this can't be a political issue, it has to be in the best interests of the nation," he said. Goodman said he has invited 109 mayors to a reception next week in Washington to explain to them the dangers of transporting the deadly waste through 43 states to Yucca Mountain, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin is co-hosting the reception, which will take place during the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors, he said. Last week Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham informed Gov. Kenny Guinn that he has concluded Yucca Mountain is suitable to store 77,000 tons of the nation's high-level nuclear waste. Abraham has 30 days to formally make his recommendation to President Bush. Former Nevada Gov. Robert List, who has a consulting contract to help the nuclear industry promote Yucca Mountain, said he believes Bush will "probably accept" Abraham's recommendation. "I think the national security and energy independence issues and the attacks on Sept. 11 certainly argue in favor of getting a secure and safe location for the nation's spent nuclear fuel," List said. "It's now in nearly 40 states. It needs to be cleaned up and consolidated." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Analysis: Abraham decision prompts political finger-pointing Las Vegas SUN Today: January 14, 2002 at 9:41:57 PST By Erin Neff Nevadans immediately decried politics as the reason behind Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's decision to recommend Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste dump. But it was politics, not necessarily leadership, that Nevadans used to respond to Thursday's decision. Democrats immediately blamed the Republican administration and vowed Abraham's decision would hurt congressional hopefuls in the other party. Republicans countered that Democrats also had a history with Yucca Mountain decisions. Amid the finger-pointing were few examples of the type of leadership many expect in a crisis. And while last Thursday was no Sept. 11, the decision was the first major step to bring the most radioactive material known to man within 90 miles of Las Vegas. "This decision stinks," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. Not exactly a Churchillian response during what many considered a D-Day for Nevada. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman lobbed another knee-jerk statement, proclaiming Abraham, "a piece of garbage." For years Nevada environmentalists have said there is no scientific evidence that Yucca Mountain can safely hold 77,000 tons of the waste. A recent General Accounting Office report urges the Bush administration to postpone a decision on Yucca because of the numerous scientific doubts. But there was no science behind the finger-pointing on Thursday. Democrats immediately decried the decision and tried to take out Republicans running for Congress in the process. After all, this is an election year and the balance of power in Washington, D.C., is more important outside Nevada than nuclear waste. "I'd guarantee you that Nevada families don't want 77,000 tons of the world's most toxic substance buried in their back yard," said Mark Nevins, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington. "I don't think there's any question the Republicans are tied to the decision. "Ultimately this decision will be decided by the United States House of Representatives, and their leadership wants this waste shipped to Nevada," Nevins added. "A vote for Jon Porter or Lynette Boggs McDonald is a vote for a Congress who will do just that." Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he thought Porter and Boggs McDonald were vulnerable to criticism about Yucca Mountain even though both Republican congressional hopefuls are staunch opponents of the dump. Clark County Republican Chairman Steve Wark disagreed by pointing some fingers of his own. "The majority of the Yucca Mountain development was done under the Clinton administration," Wark charged. "Clinton's Democratic administration probably has more to do with us being where we are today than any Republican." What's more, Wark said, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., did nothing as majority whip to alter Abraham's expected course. While partisan politics erupted within Nevada after the decision, Yucca Mountain is still largely unknown throughout the nation. And with nuclear waste stored at plants in 31 states, most Americans would be happy to shove it into the Nevada desert. Ann Wagner, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, did not even know what Yucca Mountain was when she visited Las Vegas on Friday. No matter that news of the decision ran on the front page of The Washington Post that day. Wagner responded to a question detailing Abraham's decision and the potential fallout for Republicans with a blank look before stammering, "Uh, the local issues, I do leave for the people most familiar with the topic." Jerry Longfellow, a tourist visiting Las Vegas this weekend from St. Louis, said if such a decision came down against Missouri, he would expect his leaders to immediately file a lawsuit or beat a constant drum about the science. "I didn't know about Yucca Mountain until I came here and read the paper calling it Yuck-a," Longfellow said on Friday looking at a copy of the Sun in a gas station. "I think you all should start a national campaign about how Yucca isn't safe and that they should look somewhere else." The federal government has been focused on Yucca Mountain since 1987, although it once also considered sites in Hanford, Wash. and in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Marlene Rios, who moved to Las Vegas in December, said she thought Thursday's decision was the final one the way politicians talked about it. "I heard them say they were going to fight it, but I also saw on the news complaining about who was to blame," she said. "I think they should all work together." Whether it is the Republican Guinn's work with Democrat Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa or Reid and Ensign joining together, politicians in Nevada do show bipartisan opposition to Yucca Mountain. "I want to see more of that," said Rios, a cocktail waitress who plans to register to vote as a Democrat. "Just do what they can to stop it." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 17 Sununu says he is not calling for boycott Las Vegas SUN Today: January 14, 2002 at 10:46:40 PST Yucca Mountain lobbyist warns Nevada that tourism might suffer By Benjamin Grove and Jeff German Leading Yucca Mountain project lobbyist John Sununu today backed away from published reports Saturday and said that he is not encouraging tourists to avoid Nevada if the state will not accept the nation's nuclear waste. Sununu, who served as chief of staff to former President George Bush, told the Sun this morning from Washington that he personally is not advocating a tourist boycott of Nevada. "Nevada has to be careful in not creating a perception that it is not willing to do its part," Sununu told the Sun. "It may find that folks around the country may be less willing to visit." In the published remarks Saturday, Sununu was quoted as saying, "If Nevada is not willing to do its part in what is part of a national plan for homeland security -- maybe Americans ought to vacation somewhere else." The remarks enraged Nevada leaders. Nevada's work force and the state's economy rely heavily on the tourism industry. Gaming could suffer if the federal government proceeds with a plan to bury 77,000 tons of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, state officials have said. American Gaming Association President Frank Fahrenkopf, the industry's chief Washington lobbyist, today criticized Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor, for questioning Nevada's patriotism. "If he thinks we ought to be patriotic, let's see how patriotic he feels if we put it in New Hampshire," said Fahrenkopf, who is good friends with Sununu. Nevada has proved its patriotism, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the Associated Press. Nevada soldiers are fighting the war on terrorism and the Nevada Test Site is scarred by Cold War-era nuclear bomb blasts, Reid said. "Maybe John should come to Nevada before he speaks and see for himself what we've given already," Reid said. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Sununu's original comment was "outrageous." Ensign said Nevada has done its part to promote homeland security in part because air ranges for Nellis Air Force Base in Southern Nevada and Fallon Naval Air Station in Northern Nevada cover a good part of the state. He also stressed that Nevada -- not New Hampshire -- had been scarred by decades of nuclear bomb blasts. "It was an ignorant statement," Ensign said. "Maybe the money from the nuclear industry is clouding his judgment." Gov. Kenny Guinn this morning said, "He just doesn't know the history of what we've done with the military bases and the Test Site. He didn't have above-ground testing in his state." Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman had the harshest words for the nuclear industry lobbyist. "To call him a prostitute would elevate him," Goodman said. "This guy wouldn't even qualify as a low-class prostitute, let alone a call girl. Let them bury this crap in New Hampshire if it's so safe." Sununu and former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro are leading a pro-Yucca lobbying campaign under the umbrella of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 Australian uranium spill angers greens - CNN.com - January 14, 2002 The ruptured pipe at the Beverley uranium mine ADELAIDE, South Australia -- Australian environmental groups are calling for the closure of the Beverley uranium plant in South Australia after a 60,000-liter (13,300-gallon) radioactive fluid spill. The remote desert plant, about 520 kilometers (300 miles) north of the city of Adelaide, has been shut down until a full inspection of the accident site has been completed. The company which runs the plant, U.S.-based Heathgate Resources Ltd, and the South Australian State Government have both assured the public that there has not been any risk to workers, the public or the environment from the spill, which happened on Friday. "Initial findings of the Radiation Protection Branch inspectors indicate that there has been no risk to workers, the public or the environment from the accident, and that most of the spill was contained within the mine site's evaporation ponds," South Australia's acting energy minister Rob Lucas said Monday. "Nevertheless, inspectors will continue to closely monitor remedial operations, including the repair of the affected area of the plant, with a final report to be submitted following the completion," he said. "The mine is not currently in production mode and will not recommence until approvals are given," Lucas said. The closest community to the mine is an Aboriginal settlement about 60 kilometers (37 miles) away, Heathgate vice president Stephen Middleton told Reuters Monday. Inspectors from South Australia's Office of Minerals and Energy and the Radiation Protection Branch are currently inspecting the mine, which is not expected to resume production before the end of this week. The Australian Conservation Foundation, an environmental group opposed to in situ uranium mining, said any move to restart the mine prior to any independent assessment of the accident would be unacceptable. "At a minimum, mining at Beverley must be halted until there has been a detailed and independent assessment of what went wrong and what the impacts are," nuclear campaigner for the foundation Dave Sweeney said. Heathgate's Middleton told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation measurements in the plant immediately after the spill found radiation to be only marginally above normal background levels. "It wasn't a catastrophe in environmental or worker safety terms," he said. The spill is believed to have been caused after a pipe ruptured after liquid kept flowing into the plant during a shutdown due to a computer error. The Heathgate mine produces about 1,000 tonnes of raw uranium or "yellowcake" a year which is used in nuclear power plants in the United States and Japan, and is one of three such uranium mines in Australia. © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 19 More leaks unearthed at South Australian uranium mine ABC News - 14/01/02 : Radioactive: Govt denies Beverley uranium mine cover-up claims The South Australian Government has ordered urgent changes to reporting procedures for leaks at uranium mines, with revelations there has been more than 20 spills at the Beverley mine in the state's far north. It comes after a spill of 60,000 litres of radioactive liquid at the mine last Friday, caused by a computer malfunction. A spokesperson for acting Energy Minister Rob Lucas says some of the spills have been minor, but three have been more than 2,000 litres. The Government says the reporting process needs to be independently reviewed to make it more publicly transparent. Closure The Federal Opposition wants the mine to be closed immediately, until an investigation into the spill is completed. Acting Environment Minister Amanda Vanstone claims the Commonwealth has no role and it is up to the South Australian Government to respond to the spill. Labor's Environment spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, says the Federal Government can intervene, having the power to review the conditions for exporting uranium. He says it is a serious spill and there has to be an investigation, not done by the mining company. "An independent investigation [is needed], one which establishes the causes for the leak and one which assures the public that we won't have some further problem like this occurring in the future," he said. Mr Thomson says the Government is wrong to claim it has no role in responding to the spill. "It can review, set and change conditions concerning uranium mining export," he said. "It should be using those powers to protect the public interest in this case by shutting down the mine immediately and carrying out an independent, comprehensive investigation." Operators The mine operators say the radioactive water burst from a pipe in the mine on Friday night during a routine maintenance operation, and up to 4,000 litres of the liquid escaped from the plant. Heathgate Resources vice-president Stephen Middleton says inspectors should have a report to the South Australian government today. Mr Middleton says he believes the department representatives were satisfied with how the spill was handled. "They were shown over the entire area that was affected [and] they were given a run-through on what we believed happened," he said. "They inspected the failed piece of piping and they had a look at the area that was covered during the spill and they inspected the measures that were taken to minimise impact." Govt denies cover-up Meanwhile, the South Australian Government has denied attempting to cover-up the latest spill. The government did not release a statement about the incident until 24 hours after it occurred, and did not confirm the liquid contained uranium until two hours after that. The state Opposition has accused the government and Heathgate of conspiring to minimise bad publicity surrounding the spill. Acting Minister for Minerals and Energy Rob Lucas says the government has become the victim of unreasonable criticism. Premier Rob Kerin says the government notified the public as soon as possible. Heathgate Resources also disputes allegations of a cover-up. The Environment Protection Authority says it has not been officially informed of the incident, but expects a full report on the spill from Heathgate Resources today. Environmental impact Environmental groups are demanding the mine be shutdown until an independent inquiry into the spill is completed. Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, says the plant is dangerous. He says the in situ leaching method of extracting uranium is not allowed in any other western countries. "The only places where it has been used in the past are in the former east block countries in particular East Germany and Bulgaria and in those countries it was responsible for very significant and continuing contamination including contamination of groundwater," he said. Heathgate Resources says radioactive readings show the site is safe. The Conservation Council of South Australia estimates that 13 kilograms of uranium and two and a half kilograms of cadmium dust escaped during the leak. Nuclear issues spokesman for the Conservation Council Dr Denis Mathews says the radioactive liquid would have turned to dust and could have been ingested or inhaled. Dr Mathews says mining should not be allowed to resume until a thorough investigation has been completed. © 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 20 AU: Labor demands mine closure after radioactive spill ABC Politics - 14/01/02 : Mon, Jan 14 2002 6:24 PM AEDT The Federal Opposition wants South Australia's Beverley uranium mine to be closed immediately, until an investigation into a radioactive spill is completed. Acting Environment Minister Amanda Vanstone claims the Commonwealth has no role and it is up to the South Australian Government to respond to the spill of up to 60,000 litres of liquid from a burst pipe on Friday. Labor's Environment spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, says the Federal Government can intervene, having the power to review the conditions for exporting uranium. He says it is a serious spill and there has to be an investigation, not done by the mining company. "An independent investigation [is needed], one which establishes the causes for the leak and one which assures the public that we won't have some further problem like this occurring in the future," he said. Mr Thomson says the Government is wrong to claim it has no role in responding to the spill. "It can review, set and change conditions concerning uranium mining export," he said. "It should be using those powers to protect the public interest in this case by shutting down the mine immediately and carrying out an independent, comprehensive investigation." Operators The mine operators say the radioactive water burst from a pipe in the mine on Friday night during a routine maintenance operation, and up to 4,000 litres of the liquid escaped from the plant. Heathgate Resources vice-president Stephen Middleton says inspectors should have a report to the South Australian government today. Mr Middleton says he believes the department representatives were satisfied with how the spill was handled. "They were shown over the entire area that was affected [and] they were given a run-through on what we believed happened," he said. "They inspected the failed piece of piping and they had a look at the area that was covered during the spill and they inspected the measures that were taken to minimise impact." Govt denies cover-up Meanwhile, the South Australian Government has denied attempting to cover-up the spill. The government did not release a statement about the incident until 24 hours after it occurred, and did not confirm the liquid contained uranium until two hours after that. The state Opposition has accused the government and Heathgate of conspiring to minimise bad publicity surrounding the spill. Acting Minister for Minerals and Energy Rob Lucas says the government has become the victim of unreasonable criticism. Premier Rob Kerin says the government notified the public as soon as possible. Heathgate Resources also disputes allegations of a cover-up. The Environment Protection Authority says it has not been officially informed of the incident, but expects a full report on the spill from Heathgate Resources today. Environmental impact Environmental groups are demanding the mine be shutdown until an independent inquiry into the spill is completed. Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, says the plant is dangerous. He says the in situ leaching method of extracting uranium is not allowed in any other western countries. "The only places where it has been used in the past are in the former east block countries in particular East Germany and Bulgaria and in those countries it was responsible for very significant and continuing contamination including contamination of groundwater," he said. Heathgate Resources says radioactive readings show the site is safe. The Conservation Council of South Australia estimates that 13 kilograms of uranium and two and a half kilograms of cadmium dust escaped during the leak. Nuclear issues spokesman for the Conservation Council Dr Denis Mathews says the radioactive liquid would have turned to dust and could have been ingested or inhaled. Dr Mathews says mining should not be allowed to resume until a thorough investigation has been completed. © 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 21 Nuclear NIMBY | csmonitor.com Commentary > The Monitor's View from the January 14, 2002 edition Long after Enron is forgotten as the political issue of 2002, future historians will note a decision made last week by US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. He formally recommended that 70,000 tons of radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants be disposed below Yucca Mountain in Nevada, for the rest of its natural half-life. The decision sets a clock ticking for other necessary decisions to be made by Nevada's governor, then the president, and finally Congress, as each is handed this hot potato under a sequence of steps. Nuclear-waste disposal has been on America's agenda for four decades, with delay after delay only leaving more and more nuclear waste being stored temporarily in near-capacity power plants. Mr. Abraham's move will hopefully be the beginning of the end of this critical debate. Even if no new nuclear plants are built, the federal government agreed at the outset of the nuclear age that it would take responsibility for waste storage. It was supposed to have opened a facility in 1998. Even if the Yucca site is approved this year, it wouldn't be ready for use until 2010 at the earliest. Why such a drawn-out process? As sparsely populated as Nevada is, its governor and US senators still pack some political punch. And unlike, say, the problem of suburban sprawl around Vegas, Nevadans don't want their state to be a "hot" property for tens of thousands of years. Beyond these concerns is the question of whether the proposal facility can remain leak-proof, especially since it lies in a seismic zone. Any leakage might leach into ground water. An added point of contention is the possible vulnerability of such wastes to terrorist attack. Mr. Abraham argues that centralized storage will make security much easier than using multiple sites spread across the US. His critics counter that the constant transport of nuclear waste to a central site, passing through populated areas, will greatly increase opportunities for terrorists. Yucca, for now, is the best among poor choices. The question of disposal was of little concern decades ago when nuclear power was promised as a cheap and clean fuel. But now the waste must go somewhere. The nuclear plants that supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity aren't closing down any time soon. Yucca Mountain has been the sole site under serious consideration for well over a decade now. The federal government has already spent $6 billion analyzing the pros and cons. It's time to move forward. Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 IEER: DOE Makes Wrong Choice by Selecting Yucca Mountain For further information contact: Arjun Makhijani [ ieer@ieer.org] : (301) 270-5500 Department of Energy Makes the Wrong Choice by Selecting Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a Suitable Nuclear Waste Repository, according to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Takoma Park, Maryland: "The Department of Energy has made an historic error in declaring that Yucca Mountain, Nevada is a suitable site for a nuclear repository," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), in Takoma Park, Maryland. "Put simply, it is the wrong choice." IEER has long criticized the government's process of selecting and characterizing the repository as well as the problems with the repository itself. The government has changed the rules to accommodate the repository a number of times. Because Yucca Mountain could not meet rules for all other repositories, Congress asked the Environmental Protection Agency to make special rules for Yucca Mountain, for instance. Those rules exempted the site from meeting Safe Drinking Water standards for all water under federal land within more than 11 miles of the site. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also changed its rules more than once to accommodate Yucca Mountain. "Moving the goal post doesn't make for a better site," said Dr. Makhijani. "This is a site that even by the DOE's own estimates will do little to keep wastes from moving into drinking water. That whole job depends on a recently invented metal container that has had just a few years of testing." The DOE plans to use a nickel-alloy container and a titanium drip shield as the principal engineered barriers to contain the water for thousands of years. But Yucca Mountain is an oxidizing environment in which metals could rust under certain circumstances, notably the presence of humidity. "Putting a metal container in an oxidizing environment condemns one to fighting the second law of thermodynamics for eons. It is not a sensible approach from a basic science point of view. A metal container belongs in a reducing environment, not an oxidizing environment," said Dr. Makhijani. "When I pointed out this basic problem during a presentation to the National Research Council panel on Yucca Mountain last summer, none of the scientists on the panel challenged my assertion." DOE has put all the eggs in the engineered-barrier basket, according to IEER. Normally, the barriers and the geologic medium should each be able to contain the waste on its own, thereby providing a back up. That is not the case with Yucca Mountain. IEER has advocated a different approach to selecting a repository or disposal method. It involves studying a variety of different deep geologic media. Such an approach involves (i) selecting geologic media that would retard waste and (ii) designing engineered barriers that mimic natural materials in those specific environments in retarding waste movement and in durability, and finally (iii) selecting a site where there is minimal risk of inadvertent human intrusion. "There is no really good solution to the waste problem and its creation must be minimized," said Dr. Makhijani. "But there are ways to handle the burden of waste that we have with scientific prudence and technical ingenuity. The selection of Yucca Mountain, unfortunately meets neither criterion." A considerable amount of literature on Yucca Mountain is available on IEER's web site. Available on this site: + "If not Yucca Mountain, then what?" - An alternative plan for managing highly radioactive waste in the United States [http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/yuccaalt.html] , IEER/ANA fact sheet, December 2001 + EPA's Rule on Repository for High-level Radioactive Waste Undermines Safe Drinking Water Standards [http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/epa-prl.html] , IEER press release, June 6, 2001 + Unresolved issues regarding the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain [http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/nwtrb.html] , letter to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, May 15, 2001 + Alternative Plan for Highly Radioactive Waste Management in the United States [http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_7/7-3/index.html] , Science for Democratic Action vol. 7 no. 3, May 1999 + Fluid Inclusion Studies at Yucca Mountain [http://www.ieer.org/reports/yucca/index.html] , December, 1998 (technical report) + More at our Guide to the Site [http://www.ieer.org/webindex.html] , look under 'Radioactive Waste' Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org [ieer@ieer.org] Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Posted January 10, 2002 ***************************************************************** 23 Disposal Site Long Overdue Sun-Sentinel: Posted January 14 2002 America now has a place to store all its radioactive nuclear waste materials -- maybe. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says "sound science and compelling national interests" support his recommendation to bury 70,000 tons of atomic power plant and nuclear weapons factory waste in caves deep under Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas. That ought to bring relief to all South Floridians: In a few years, Florida Power & Light Co. will start running out of space to store spent but radioactive nuclear power plant fuel rods. About 1,700 tons of rods now rest in four water-filled, thick, steel-reinforced concrete bunkers at two nuclear plants, Turkey Point, 24 miles south of Miami, and St. Lucie, 10 miles north of Stuart. FPL is exploring ways to create new local storage space long before Yucca Mountain opens at the earliest in 2010. The pros and cons of using Yucca Mountain have been studied and debated openly for 15 years, at a cost to taxpayers of $4.5 billion. Everyone from Nevada ranchers and politicians to nuclear scientists to anti-nuclear activists have made their voices heard. Nevertheless, critics say the government cannot provide assurance that the site won't leak radiation for the 10,000 years needed for safety. Abraham makes a good point: Consolidating all nuclear waste in one isolated, underground spot far from population centers will enhance security against possible terrorist attacks on 131 waste storage sites in 39 states. The decision to use Yucca Mountain is far from final. Nevada's governor vows to veto the decision, something that can only be overruled by Congress, and some members vow to fight the site location. Abraham will present his recommendation to President Bush within 30 days. Choosing a nuclear waste disposal site should have been finalized four decades ago. It was irresponsible of the U.S. government not to have a safe place to dispose of waste materials, and the site decision has been stalled far too long Nuclear energy, and the creation of nuclear waste, won't go away. Nuclear plants provide 20 percent of U.S. electrical energy, 25 percent in South Florida. FPL customers have a big financial incentive to see the waste problem resolved: They have already paid more than $425 million into a national fund to finance study and construction of a waste depository. Do the responsible thing, Mr. President and Congress: Bring closure to the debate and move forward. Don't leave the decision for future generations to resolve under greater pressure of mounting piles of nuclear waste, now enough to cover a football field to a depth of four feet. Copyright © 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel ***************************************************************** 24 High-Level Nuclear Waste Might Move to Nevada Site Over Oregon Highways Hoover's Online January 13, 2002 11:55pm Jan. 11--Some of the United States' most radioactive waste probably would be trucked over Oregon highways if the federal government moves ahead with plans to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Any central storage area would take tons of radioactive waste stored at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeast Washington, near Richland, said site spokesman Manny Van Pelt. That includes nearly 2,000 capsules of strontium and cesium, which may be the country's most concentrated collection of radioactivity. Hanford also has tons of plutonium. And underground tanks there hold 55 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste that workers should soon start encasing in glass logs. "In all likelihood, this would travel through northeast Oregon on Interstate 82 or 84," said Ken Niles, administrator of the Nuclear Safety Division of Oregon's Office of Energy. The law requires trucks carrying high-level nuclear waste to stay on interstates if possible, he said. In addition to Hanford waste, spent fuel rods from the closed Trojan Nuclear Plant near Rainier would be shipped to Yucca Mountain, Niles said. Van Pelt said Hanford's waste probably would travel by truck to a storage site, though he doesn't know yet how the waste would be stabilized, packaged or shipped. States can regulate nuclear shipments over their lands to a great degree, he said. It will take years to open Yucca Mountain, Niles said, allowing time to plan shipments. He said waste also could travel by rail rather than truck. And politics or other factors could derail the Yucca Mountain project entirely. The U.S. Department of Energy hasn't announced truck routes to Yucca Mountain, largely because officials don't want people living along the route to fight shipping plans, Niles said. But he said that Nevada, which opposes the Yucca Mountain project, has been trying to pin down the routes. To see more of The Oregonian, or to subscribe the newspaper, go to http://www.oregonian.com © 2002, The Oregonian, Portland, Ore. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. Copyright © 2002 Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News Copyright © 2001, Hoover's, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 Toxic in Tonawanda? Buffalo News - Toxic in Tonawanda? As state investigates, a neighborhood in fear DEREK GEE/Buffalo News On and around Dunlop Ave. in the Town of Tonawanda, residents are fearful that high rates of illness are related to the former Linde plant, which worked on development of the nuclear bomb. Among those expressing concern are, from left, Don Finch, Ed Connette, Tom Czerwinski and Dayton Kane. DEREK GEE/Buffalo News "I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Love Canal." Gwen Connette, Dunlop Avenue resident since 1957 By T.J. PIGNATARO News Staff Reporter 1/13/2002 'This neighborhood is killing us. There's death all around us' Gwen Connette had bladder cancer. Judith Fox survived breast cancer. Rebecca Czerwinski has a thyroid condition and a list of other ills that force her to swallow a pile of medications every day. The stories of these three families living on Dunlop Avenue in the Town of Tonawanda are only the beginning. In the tight-knit neighborhood surrounding what once was a site for the Manhattan Project - which helped build the first nuclear bomb - people have often whispered that something just wasn't right. But now, the state Department of Health has confirmed what many feared for a long time: Unusually high cancer rates in this post-World War II working-class community - with its own neighborhood school and even town golf course - surrounded by industrial properties just west of Military Road. The cancer rates, the state found, are at least 10 percent higher than normal. And with that, fear grows among those closest to the former Linde Plant, where radioactive uranium was processed during the 1940s as the first step toward developing nuclear bombs. "This neighborhood is killing us," said Czerwinski, 55, of 117 Dunlop. "There's death all around us. None of this should be happening." Czerwinski, who has lived in the area since 1964, doesn't have cancer. But she believes her neighborhood is responsible for her husband, Thomas', heart disease as well as her many ailments. They include a thyroid condition, autoimmune disease, osteoarthritis and deterioration of the lining of her ribs. Czerwinski and others in this neighborhood say they recall that, as children, they used to fish golf balls out of a murky creek near the Linde site, or play in sandboxes at a nearby park containing what some now suspect was mercury. "Most of the boys used to play in the creek," Czerwinski said. "I used to play in the park, in the sand. There was mercury there. I was probably 10 or 11 at the time." Now the Czerwinskis, like some others in the community, say they just want "the hell out" of the only neighborhood they've known for four decades. They're moving to the quiet Adirondacks community of Lake Placid. "I love my home," she said. "I have a beautiful home, but we live on a toxic dump. We have to get away." State health officials last month announced results of a yearlong investigation into cancer incidences in two ZIP codes, 14150 and 14217, surrounding an industrial area of Tonawanda that includes the Linde plant. The study of 21 types of cancer reported to the state between 1994 and 1998 found an overall cancer rate 10 percent higher than expected. But with some specific cancers, the rate was much higher. Especially high cancer rates Colorectal cancer, for example, was 25 percent higher than expected in males. Bladder cancer in women was 26 percent higher than expected. Breast cancer in women was 12.5 percent higher than expected. Thyroid cancer in women was 81 percent higher than expected. Medical evidence has found that each of those four cancers can be associated with radiation exposure, according to the state Health Department. However, the state has not made any connection between the higher-than-expected cancer rates and any environmental factors, said Claire T. Pospisil, a spokeswoman for the Health Department. "This kind of study is not going to establish a cause, per se," said Pospisil. And while residents are quick to point to the former Linde plant, company officials said they don't believe the plant is responsible. Four studies conducted on plant workers by the company between 1943 and 1999, and one last year by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, did not find any abnormal cancer rates associated with radiation, said Site Manager Dennis A. Conroy. "None of these studies show an excess of cancers normally associated with radiation," Conroy said. "These studies were of people who were literally knee-deep in uranium ore seven days a week." Given that, he said, it doesn't appear the plant is responsible for neighborhood illnesses. Remediation of the Linde site began in 1995. About 75 percent of the contaminated soil, about 80,000 tons, has been removed and taken out of New York State, Conroy said. The Linde site is now owned by Praxair, which produces industrial gases. State plans more study To learn more about the health situation in the Tonawanda neighborhood, the state has announced a follow-up study to further understand the higher-than-expected cancer levels. The study will be more detailed than the last one, offering a 10-year look, and it will also focus on a smaller area. The exact boundaries of the new study have not been finalized, but the area immediately surrounding the Linde site is under consideration. "At this point, we are proceeding with the next step of this study to look at a smaller area of this site over a longer time period to strengthen our findings," Pospisil said. Residents - some of whom worked at the Linde plant - have long been skeptical of the clean bill of health the plant has issued itself through its worker studies. They welcome the Health Department studies. "They are full of condensed applesauce. They are going to do everything to disprove their responsibility," Donald L. Finch said of the Linde studies. He lives half a mile from the plant, where he worked for 20 years before retiring in February 1994. Finch, who had his cancerous prostate gland removed in 1988, is the person who spearheaded efforts to get the state to conduct a neighborhood health study. Finch said he is glad the state's upcoming study will narrow the study area. Looking at the two broad ZIP codes, as was originally done, "dilutes the problem," Finch said. Beyond that, there's a feeling among some residents that the state's study still isn't going far enough. Some would like the Health Department study to go beyond cancer and look into other diseases they said are plaguing their neighborhood. Czerwinski, for example, has a noncancerous thyroid condition. "It's not just cancer. This whole area is a myriad of disease," Czerwinski said. "I'd like to see some kind of a study for diseases other than cancer." Ex-residents want study In addition, former Tonawanda residents with health ailments are concerned that they are not included in the state study. Among them is Gayle Parker, who lived in the industrial Sheridan Parkside neighborhood, about half a mile from the Linde plant, before moving to Phoenix in 1992. She lost her son in 1998 at age 42 to bone cancer. Her daughter, diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995, beat the disease. "I just wonder how much the plants had to do with this," Parker said. "I can't specifically say where my kids played, but all I know was they were always in that area." Former Tonawanda resident William A. Kish, who now lives in Florida, agreed. "I am presently recuperating from surgery to remove a rather large, nonmalignant tumor from my brain," Kish said. "Having been raised on the other side of the golf course from Linde Air and having spent countless hours looking for golf balls in the creek that split the golf course from my parents' house - which is where the dumping took place - and also having spent many hours playing baseball at the old Linde ball field, I find it no surprise I became afflicted with this terrible malady." Dunlop Ave. neighbors Such concerns among people with serious illnesses are easy to find on the streets around the Linde plant, such as Dunlop Avenue. Czerwinski said she has spent countless hours walking on Dunlop and nearby streets, even on Linde grounds, thinking that the exercise was good for her. Now she wonders if all that environmental exposure made her sick. And she wonders if the hours her husband, Thomas, spent as a child looking for golf balls in the creek near the Linde plant have anything to do with his heart problems. Just across the street from the Czerwinskis, Gwen Connette, 67, says her son, Eddie, played in the same creek. She wonders if that's related to the noncancerous brain tumor he suffered. Connette herself is recovering from bladder cancer, having had a tumor removed in 2000. "I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Love Canal," said Connette, a home health care nurse who has lived on Dunlop Avenue since 1957. Not far down the road, Judith Fox, 58, who moved to 265 Dunlop in 1972, wasn't surprised by the recent Health Department finding. Fox is a breast cancer survivor. "Everybody here has always kidded about "not digging too deep in your back yard because you can't be sure what you might find,' " Fox said. At 97 Dunlop, Irv and Alice Hils saw their daughter Cheryl die of breast cancer two years ago, at age 43. Irv Hils believes his neighborhood and Western New York's pollution in general were "contributing factors" to his daughter's death as well as his wife's thyroid problems. "You don't know really for sure. I think it probably had a lot to do with it, but you can't just say every cancer is caused by this," he said. Still, residents say, they wonder. And they've been wondering more and more since learning about the Health Department study. Eileen Nicosia, who has lived on Dunlop Avenue for five years, for example, thought about her daughter's heart defect after learning about the higher-than-normal cancer levels in her neighborhood. Meghan was born with her heart on the wrong side of her chest. When the fetus was developing, doctors said, it read chromosomes backward. The girl is otherwise healthy, as are the family's two other children, Nicosia said. But Nicosia remains worried, and said she's now nervous whenever her children play outside. "If they found something green and goopy out in the back yard, you wouldn't know anything unless they came in covered with it," she said. Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 26 USEC: Turning Arms Into Energy, if Not Into Much Cash January 13, 2002 By DANIEL GROSS When it went public in July 1998, the United States Enrichment Corporation was a bright light in the nuclear energy industry. The company, a former government agency, had a monopoly on uranium enrichment in the United States and was responsible for carrying out a government policy to convert Russia's military uranium into commercial nuclear fuel. USEC, as the company is known, had annual sales of $1.4 billion, healthy profits and a promising future technology. It appeared to be an ambitious experiment in harnessing private sector energy to meet a public policy goal. "The beauty of the program is that it disarms former weapons of mass destruction, and it does it through a mechanism that only works if you have a market price," said Robert J. Moore, USEC's general counsel. But while the company has turned swords into plowshares, it has had far less success spinning its common shares into gold. In the last two years, it has mothballed one of its two uranium fuel plants, reduced its work force by 40 percent, halved its dividend and become embroiled in a bitter trade dispute with its chief European competitors. Its stock is at $7.16, about half the offering price of $14.25. Now its prospects may hinge on an International Trade Commission ruling, due on Friday, on whether the company's European rivals sell uranium fuel in the United States at unfairly low prices. USEC has reduced its work force by 40 percent in the last two years. USEC, based in Bethesda, Md., is not speculating publicly about the trade commission's decision. Henry Z. Shelton Jr., the chief financial officer, would say only that "having fair prices in the United States is very important to USEC's financial status, but also to our ability to make investments." USEC occupies a unique niche in nuclear power, as a former federal agency owned by shareholders. Some critics say its problems show a failure to adjust from running a government bureaucracy that served a captive, regulated market to managing an independent company in an industry dominated by nimble, unregulated customers. "They came into this clubby nuclear world and were very aggressive," said Matthew Bunn, assistant director of the science, technology, and public policy program at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "They have few friends." USEC sells chemically "enriched" uranium, which the company produces domestically and buys from Russia, for use as fuel to nuclear power plants. It has dozens of customers in 10 countries, holds a 70 percent market share in Asia and about half the market in the United States, where 103 nuclear plants operate. The company's origins lie in the end of the cold war in the early 1990's, when the federal government created the "Megatons to Megawatts" program that pays Russia cash for uranium fuel made from its dismantled nuclear warheads. USEC was designated as the government's sole executive agent, the exclusive buyer and marketer of the Russian uranium. Since 1995, it has paid Russia more than $2 billion for fuel derived from 130 metric tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium — enough to arm 5,600 warheads; USEC is obliged to buy fuel derived from a total of 500 metric tons by 2013. As the bull market raged, USEC emerged as a prime candidate for privatization. In July 1998, the government raised $1.4 billion by selling shares. "We were enamored with the possibility that this was a company that possessed a vital link with government, which would certainly limit the downside risk," said David M. Schanzer, an analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott, which helped to underwrite the offering. Within a year, the outlook darkened. USEC had inherited long-term contracts with utility companies — pacts drafted in the 1980's, when uranium prices were high. As those contracts expired, newly deregulated utility companies like Exelon (news/quote) and Duke Energy (news/quote) sought cheaper fuel. They bought from two aggressive European companies — Urenco, owned by the British and Dutch governments and two German utilities, and the French-owned Eurodif. "The markets became more open and more competitive," said James P. Malone, vice president for nuclear fuel at Exelon. The competition depressed the price of the fuel, measured in separative work units, or S.W.U.'s. The price went from $90 per S.W.U. in 1997 to $79 in 2000. USEC accused European competitors of illegally selling below cost in the United States, called dumping, and of benefiting unfairly from government subsidies. "The market price started to deteriorate substantially coincident with a substantial increase in the orders taken in the U.S. market by European suppliers," said Richard Cunningham, a lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson, who represents USEC. "This is the classic situation in which you find dumping." The declining price was disastrous for USEC because it was locked into an agreement with Russia to buy 5.5 million S.W.U.'s of fuel — about half of the company's annual sales — at fixed prices that rose annually from a 1997 base. The company also stumbled in betting on a promising laser technology to upgrade its plants, in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Ky. The technology failed in commercial tests, and USEC abandoned it in June 1999, angering investors. "We were repeatedly informed that in fact this was going to be the next great technological development," said Mr. Schanzer at Janney Montgomery. Struggling with excess capacity and credit ratings that had fallen to junk-bond level, USEC tried to close the Portsmouth plant. That move angered the plant workers' union and local politicians, and some called for the government to reassume control of the company. By the spring of 2001, USEC suspended uranium enrichment at Portsmouth, part of a bigger cut that reduced its staff, research and dividend. The company also found its freedom constrained by government ties. It reached a tentative agreement with Russia on a new uranium price in May 2000 but approval was delayed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Last Nov. 26, the Bush administration authorized negotiations for a new price agreement. USEC's biggest problem, though, is foreign competition. In December 2000, the Commerce Department agreed to investigate the company's European rivals. During the investigation, USEC showed that from June 2000 to June 2001, its North American market share plummeted to 47 percent from 73 percent and its world share to 29 percent from 35 percent. Revenue slumped to $1.14 billion in the fiscal year ended June 30, from $1.49 billion the previous year. Net income, excluding special items and inventory valuation, fell to $41.1 million from $109.1 million. Critics say the company should blame itself. "It has old technology and the highest costs in a market that is oversupplied," said Thomas L. Neff, a senior scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who came up with the Megatons to Megawatts idea but opposed the privatization of USEC. The competitors' lawyers contend that the company still benefits unfairly from its former status as federal agency. "USEC is a huge beneficiary of subsidies received from the government of the United States," said David E. Birenbaum, a partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, who represents Urenco. "It has very low rent on its plants." USEC won partial victories last May, July and December in Commerce Department rulings that Urenco and Eurodif were selling fuel at unfairly low prices. The department ordered a 34.16 percent duty on the French imports and 7.07 percent duty on the British. The International Trade Commission is scheduled to vote on Friday on whether those penalties are justified. Although the Commerce Department rulings were preliminary, they helped to push up uranium prices to $105 per S.W.U. The company's stock, while still nowhere near its offering price, did rise 66 percent in 2001. Nonetheless, the company is not making much money at its basic business. Some critics say there is a fundamental conflict between serving USEC's shareholders and carrying out the Megatons to Megawatts agreement. The company must sign a deal with Russia regardless of the market price of uranium, so "the Russians can take a much harder negotiating position,"said Dan M. Collier, senior vice president at NAC International, a nuclear energy consulting firm in Atlanta. William H. Timbers, USEC's chief executive, said there was no conflict. "The early perceived `tension' between these two interests has dissolved to where the success of the national security deal is now integral to our commercial success," he said. "Critics said it couldn't be done but we did it." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy ***************************************************************** 27 A new nuclear policy with old flaws Chicago Tribune | January 13, 2002 Steve Chapman It wouldn't be hard to make the world safer by getting rid of a couple of thousand nuclear warheads, any of which could vaporize entire cities full of people. But it takes some doing to eliminate all that killing power and make the world less safe. That's the strange achievement promised by the Bush administration's new policy. During his recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Bush said the United States would cut its arsenal from 6,000 warheads to no more than 2,200 over the next decade, and Putin promised to go as low or lower. The Nuclear Posture Review issued by the Pentagon last week is the first big step in that direction. It calls for removing about 2,200 warheads from missiles that can reach Russian soil. This is supposed to confirm Bush's campaign declaration: "Our mutual security need no longer depend on a nuclear balance of terror." Well, two nations that are each pointing hundreds of unimaginably destructive missiles at each other can still instill plenty of terror. And we won't even reach those supposedly negligible levels of weaponry until 2012. Downsizing the superpower arsenals and minimizing the chance of nuclear war are sound goals--sound enough to deserve a better program than this. Instead of making things better, the new approach would make them worse. How? First of all, by making cuts that aren't really cuts. Many of the warheads would not be destroyed but simply put in storage for some rainy day when we might need them--or, as the Pentagon puts it, keeping "some responsive capability that we could respond to unforeseen contingencies." There's nothing wrong with that, until you consider that if we take some of the weapons we're getting rid of and put them in storage, the Russians will do the same thing. The greatest nuclear peril posed by the Russians is not that they will launch a missile attack. It's that some of their bombs or nuclear material might find their way into the hands of terrorists. Moving these weapons from silos, where they are extremely secure, to warehouses, where they may not be, would be a gift to Al Qaeda and every other outlaw group that lusts after Russia's "loose nukes." If we want to reduce the danger, we have to persuade the Russians to destroy nuclear weapons so that no one can ever use them. But they won't do that unless we agree to do the same. The administration boasts that it has put Cold War thinking behind us even as it clings to the old way of doing things. One major example is that we (and the Russians) still keep our missiles on a hair trigger. If we have a "completely new relationship with Russia," as the Pentagon declares, why do we need to be able to incinerate the place in less time than it takes to watch the evening news? The basis of nuclear deterrence, after all, is not that we can strike our enemies first. It's that if any country attacks us with nukes, we can turn its entire territory into radioactive rubble. Whether that takes half an hour or half a day could not possibly matter less. Dealerting missiles on both sides, in a verifiable way, would create a cushion of hours or even days, so that neither side can take a hasty and ill-informed leap into nuclear war. "That's the single most important thing we could do, in any area, to improve the security of the United States," says John Steinbruner, a nuclear strategy expert at the University of Maryland. But the most important thing we could do is not being done. This failure is not the only way in which Bush is exposing Americans to unnecessary peril. Another is suggesting that we may go back to nuclear testing. The first President Bush agreed in 1992 to stop such tests, and Bill Clinton stuck by that. But now, the Defense Department wants money to speed up any possible resumption. No country in the world has less reason to conduct nuclear tests than the U.S., simply because we have done more of them than anyone else. A ban on all tests would serve the selfish purpose of preserving American nuclear superiority, in quality as well as quantity. Imagine if there were a law banning all new soft-drink formulas. Who would be put at a disadvantage? Not the big beverage-makers, but fledgling companies hoping to compete with them. In the nuclear arena, the U.S. is bigger than Coke and Pepsi combined. Why would we want to give upstart nations the chance to learn everything we know? But grasping that point means overcoming the rigid dogmas of the Cold War. Bush campaigned on the need for a whole new approach to nuclear strategy. Maybe someday he'll provide it. ---------- E-mail: schapman@tribune.com Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 28 In editorial, Iraq denies weapons program - January 13, 2002 CNN.com - BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq denied it has weapons of mass destruction in a Sunday editorial published in a government-run newspaper, in response to claims by the United States that Iraq continues to develop such weapons. "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction to develop," the editorial stated. "All the long-range missiles were destroyed in addition to all equipment and machinery." The editorial repeated Iraq's long-held stance in the official newspaper al-Thawra, the organ of the country's ruling Ba'ath party. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraq continues its plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, in a statement published in the U.S. newspaper the Washington Times. The al-Thawra editorial charged that Powell's allegations were aimed at preventing the United Nations Security Council from lifting the economic embargo imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. One of the obligations Iraq must meet for sanctions to be lifted is a clean bill of health with regards to its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program. U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq ahead of U.S. airstrikes in 1998, and have not been allowed back into the country since then. The al-Thawra editorial said the weapons inspectors that the United States is now pushing Iraq to allow in are "teams of spies." The editorial accused Israel of being a regional threat, saying "it is the Zionist entity (Israel) which has weapons of mass destruction in the region. And it threatens the security and stability of the region." Al-Thawra said the United States' foreign policy was the main cause of instability in the Middle East. "To do Iraq injustice, to appease the Zionist entity at the expense of Arabs and favor America's double standards will not bring security to anybody. Nor will it create stability." -- CNN's Rym Brahimi contributed to this report ***************************************************************** 29 Brookings to Hold Briefing on Bush Nuclear Posture Review U.S. Newswire 9 Jan 11:28 Brookings Scholars to Hold Conference Call Briefing on Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review To: Assignment Desk, Daybooks Contact: Colin Johnson of the Brookings Institution, 202-797-6310 News Advisory: WHAT: Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (telephone conference call and analysis paper) WHEN: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 1:30 p.m. EST The Bush Administration publicly releases the results of its Nuclear Posture Review today. The Review's principle conclusion-that over the next ten years, U.S. strategic offensive forces can be reduced from the more than 7,000 warheads that are currently deployed to 1,700-2,200 weapons-was foreshadowed by President Bush during his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last November. Today, the Brookings Institution releases an analysis paper arguing that the Administration's Review falls far short of what President Bush promised during the campaign -- and of what is needed in the current strategic environment. The offensive weapons cuts are far smaller than advertised, cold-war thinking continues to dominate strategic considerations, and the important decisions of what forces will remain and what will happen to the weapons that are to be withdrawn remain to be made, the Brookings analysis paper argues. Brookings Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy Studies, James Steinberg, and the authors of the analysis paper, Brookings Senior Fellows Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, will outline their views and answer reporters' questions via telephone conference call, beginning at 1:30pm (ET) today. Media may access the conference call by dialing 800-230-1092 and asking for the "Nuclear Posture Review call." For those unable to participate live, the call will be replayed in its entirety for the 24 hours following by dialing 800-475-6701, and entering 623345. Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire ***************************************************************** 30 IAEA Team to Visit North Korean Nuclear Facilities - International Atomic Energy Agency [-] PR 2002/01 (10 January 2002) Vienna, 10 January 2002 -- A technical team from the IAEA will visit nuclear facilities in the Nyongbyon area of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) from 15-19 January. The visit will include the Isotope Production Laboratory, an installation that the DPRK has stated was involved in the early stages of development of their nuclear programme. "This is a small but welcome step towards a return to full-fledged inspections required under North Korea's safeguards agreement," said Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA Director General. Since 1993, the IAEA has been unable to fully implement its comprehensive safeguards agreement with the DPRK, and has been therefore unable to verify the completeness and correctness of the DPRK's initial 1992 declaration of its nuclear inventory. If it were to resume these inspections, the Agency estimates the work required to verify that all nuclear material in the DPRK had been declared to the Agency would take 3-4 years with full co-operation on the DPRK side. In May 2001, the Agency proposed to the DPRK concrete steps that need to be carried out in that verification process, and indicated its readiness to start implementing these measures immediately. At a technical meeting between the DPRK and the Agency in Vienna in November 2001, the DPRK did not agree to promptly start to implement those proposals, citing the delay in implementation of the USA/DPRK Agreed Framework as the principal reason for declining. However, the DPRK did agree to a visit, not an inspection, by Agency inspectors to the Isotope Production Laboratory. Pursuant to a UN Security Council request and in accordance with the "Agreed Framework" between the USA and the DPRK, the Agency has since November 1994 been monitoring the "freeze" of the DPRK's graphite moderated reactors and related facilities. It has also maintained a continuous inspector presence at the Nyongbyon site. The DPRK withdrew its membership from the Agency in June 1994. The Director General encourages the DPRK to normalize its relations with the Agency including resumption of full safeguards inspections. ***************************************************************** 31 S. Korean President Urges Dialogue Las Vegas SUN January 13, 2002 SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - President Kim Dae-jung on Monday urged North Korea to reopen talks with the United States in order to get stalled inter-Korean dialogue back on track. At a nationally televised news conference, Kim also said he wants the United States to take a conciliatory gesture to encourage the reclusive communist North to come to the conference table. "North Korea-U.S. relations have a functional relationship with South Korea-North Korea relations," Kim said. "Dialogue on one side is not enough." Kim's remarks reflected the prevailing view in South Korea that inter-Korean dialogue can't make progress without improvement in U.S.-North Korea relations. Currently, both talks remain frozen. Kim said he will raise the issue when President Bush visits Seoul in February as part of an Asian tour that will also take him to Tokyo and Beijing. "To reopen talks with North Korea, I think the United States needs to assume a posture that will save face for the North," Kim said. Kim did not elaborate but many South Koreans think that North Korea may find it difficult to come to the conference table without a good excuse amid what it feels is Washington's high-handed policy toward it. After months of a policy review, Bush in June offered to reopen dialogue with North Korea on the communist country's missile and nuclear programs and its heavy deployment of conventional weapons near the border with South Korea. In October, Bush put North Korea in the same breadth as Iraq as he declared a global war against terrorism. North Korea is on a U.S. list of terrorism-sponsoring states. North Korea, through its media, has rejected Bush's offer of dialogue for having too many conditions. "As far as I know, North Korea wants dialogue with the United States. In fact, I think North Korea is eager for dialogue," Kim said. Kim also said he can't say when North Korean leader Kim Jong Il will visit Seoul as he promised in an agreement reached between the two men at a summit in Pyongyang in 2000. The Koreas share the world's most heavily armed border. About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against the North. Touching on domestic affairs, Kim again apologized for a series of scandals involving government officials, and said he will set up an independent investigative agency as part of a stepped-up anti-corruption drive. Last week, Park Joon-young, who served as the chief government spokesman, resigned after he was accused of trying to help a businessman on trial on murder and corruption charges. On Sunday, Prosecutor-General Shin Seung-nam offered to resign after a younger brother was arrested on charges of being involved in a growing influence-peddling scandal. The president said he planned to replace the prosecutor general, even though he was not directly implicated. In South Korea, it is common that a high-ranking government official is held responsible for wrongdoing committed by subordinates or relatives. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 Battelle predicts R&D spending, touts pros of managing lab system By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer In its annual forecast, Battelle predicts the United States will spend about $285.6 billion on research and development in 2002. That's an increase of about 3.5 percent. The Ohio-based organization develops and commercializes technologies and manages laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Battelle says three major events are influencing the R picture: change of administrations in Washington; a "faltering'' economy; and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath. In a release to the news media, the report's co-author, Jules Duga, offered this perspective on the three events: "The effects of these are not simply isolated and cumulative. It is clear that there are interactions among the three and - when superimposed upon what one might consider a `normal' set of circumstances of change - their effects are somewhat more difficult to deal with.'' Duga, a senior researcher at Battelle, said the "triple-whammy'' of major events adds much complexity and uncertainty to the situation. In other words, Battelle is hedging its bets on the accuracy of this year's forecast. According to the report: * Industry is again expected to be the big spender on research, with a total expenditure of about $195 billion (up 3.2 percent from 2001). The rate of increase, however, is less than in previous years, reflecting economic conditions in the country and a possible era of "retrenchment.'' * The U.S. government is projected to spend about $75.5 billion, up 4.7 percent, fueled in part by the post-Sept. 11 activities related to intelligence and advanced information processing. Other areas bolstered by the response to terrorism are electronics for computers and telecommunications; pharmaceutical and medical systems related to development and administration of vaccines. * Not-for-profit ventures probably will spend about $15.4 billion on research and development initiatives - an increase of about 3 percent. Meanwhile, Carl Kohrt, the new president and chief executive office of Battelle, was in Oak Ridge recently for briefings at ORNL. It was his first visit since assuming the Battelle helm in mid-October. Kohrt, a former executive at Kodak, holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of Chicago. He joined ORNL Director Bill Madia for a meeting with local members of the news media. There was no great news to be had at the session, but Kohrt talked a bit about goals for Battelle-managed labs - growth, refreshment, sustainability - and offered a few thoughts about those labs and commercial development of government-funded technologies. Kohrt is still familiarizing himself with activities at ORNL, which Battelle manages in a partnership with the University of Tennessee. He's a newcomer to the job, but Kohrt will soon be joined in that regard by a new president at UT. While in East Tennessee, Kohrt met with UT's interim president, Eli Fly, and others from the university. According to Kohrt, the UT contingent acknowledged "they've been a little slow to learn how to participate in a real way'' in the ORNL partnership with Battelle. "And that's understandable because this is an acquired taste,'' he said, noting there'll be opportunities ahead for better use of University of Tennessee resources. Currently, Battelle manages (by itself or with partners) four national laboratories under the U.S. Department of Energy flag. Besides ORNL, there is Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory. Kohrt and Madia acknowledged Battelle has an active interest in managing Sandia National Laboratories, if in fact DOE opts to put that contract out for competition. Sandia currently is managed by Lockheed Martin, and Battelle has a little experience in tracking LockMart's footprints. Battelle, of course, touts the benefits of managing multiple laboratories. Kohrt and Madia talked about ongoing scientific collaborations that might not take place as freely in an environment in which the labs are fighting each other for the same funding base. Battelle recently provided a strategy sales report to DOE, titled, "Benefits of Managing the U.S. DOE's National Laboratories as a System.'' In the executive summary, Battelle offers this pitch: "Given the pressures on federal spending and the increasing economic and social challenges requiring technological solutions, it is important to DOE, Battelle and its partners that we optimize the integration of programs and management systems of these four national laboratories to deliver mission-critical results in a more timely and cost-effective manner.'' Therefore, the report said, Battelle's strategy is to treat those four labs as a "system'' and improve overall performance, at the same time respecting the individuality of the laboratories. The number of collaborations among the Battelle-managed labs has increased significantly, boosting work in advanced computing, climate change, genetics and other areas, the report said. "A conservative total for new funding at the laboratories is $50 million,'' the report said. The biggest impact of the strategy has been many millions of dollars in reduced overhead costs by sharing management systems and other processes, Battelle said. Money saving has an obvious gut-level appeal to DOE. But other companies and universities no doubt will argue that diversity in approach and fresh thinking are much more important. They also will surely raise warning flags about any strategy that seems to point toward a Battelle-run national lab complex. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 33 Y-12 to get $5 million gantry mill By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE - A new high-speed milling machine will be installed later this year at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, further advancing what's already one of the nation's top machining operations. The $5 million, five-axis gantry mill is being built especially for Y-12 by Henri Line Co. of Canada. Officials said the new machine will not be used directly in weapons production. Instead, it will be used for high-precision machining of tools, punches, dies and other special equipment at the nuclear production complex. Also, the high-speed milling capabilities are expected to boost the plant's prototype work, such as extensive projects done previously for the U.S. Navy. In the 1990s, Y-12 produced full-scale prototype propulsors for the Seawolf and Virginia-class submarines. The Oak Ridge plant is designated as a National Prototype Center for the federal government. "Now we can do more work for the Navy and other potential customers,'' said Darrel Kohlhorst of the plant's general manufacturing organization. Mike Allen, who heads that organization, said the mill will be used primarily for work with steel and aluminum. He said the machine will not process uranium, the primary material used in weapons production at Y-12. While not applied directly to the manufacture of warhead components, the machining activities will help retain the employee expertise needed for national-security projects, officials said. The high-speed milling technology will be evaluated later for possible applications in the plant's defense work. The Henri Line Co. is scheduled to deliver the new machine to Y-12 in November, and workers from the Canadian firm will help with the three-month installation. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 34 Letter: LBNL is back for more letters to the berkeley voice ContraCostaTimes.com Published Friday, January 11, 2002 Last September, the National Institutes for Health defunded the controversial Tritium Facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for lack of worthwhile activity there. Community leaders and activists rejoiced that a 10-year campaign to close this radioactive nightmare had succeeded. For over 30 years this building has been continuously dumping clouds of rad-waste out a stack 25 feet from the fence of the Lawrence Hall of Science children's museum and now the site, Superfund eligible, is an incredible radioactive mess. Well, it's time to put the corks back in the bottles as LBNL's nuclear wizards are not done using Berkeley for a radioactive trash can. Defunded, the tritium work for the large corporations they have been doing may actually cease, but LBNL has restarted their incinerator for mixed waste -- dioxins, heavy metals and other cancer-killers that have become radioactive. The lab is calling the device an "oxidation chamber," which is as honest as calling the process a "treatability study," a sham that allows them to operate the incinerator without the normal permits that they would have trouble obtaining. The so-called oxidation chamber, cleaner than a crude incinerator, involves the igniting of oxidizers, volatiles and rad-waste in a contained chamber which introduces the real possibility of an explosion. Previously, it operated its mixed-waste treatability study in secret for three years on a slightly different kiln-type incinerator until a horrible accident in July 1998 dumped at least 50 curies of tritium and who knows what else onto the museum. LBNL waited 10 days before admitting the accident happened, which did nothing for the kids, parents and workers at the museum that day. Do we really need to be doing this kind of dangerous experimental work next to the area's largest children facility? Why doesn't LBNL ship its rad-waste (and its oxidizing incinerator) to Idaho like all the other Department of Energy operations? Unfortunately, LBNL won't be dismantling the highly contaminated exhaust stack, building or other equipment until it studies/incinerates all the remaining waste from the tritium fiasco. As to whether LBNL will just continue processing mixed waste from its other operations or even other DOE facilities, it is staying tight-lipped, although one of its lawyers let it slip that the schedule for the treatability study is "open-ended." Every day I hear of a new cancer, leukemia or other genetic malady that has been directly linked to exposure to these poisons. LBNL cannot be trusted with the well-being of our children or our community, and we should send Dr. Strangelove, his rad-waste and his oxidizing incinerator packing. Incidentally, the new chairman of Berkeley's Environmental commission, Elmer Grossman, has been leading a one-man campaign to re-fund the Tritium Facility, including an investigation of NIH and why it pulled the money plug. To my knowledge, this is the first time any city's environmental commission chair has openly shilled for a Superfund polluter. Only in Berkeley. Mark McDonald Acting co-chair, Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste ContraCostaTimes.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: *****************************************************************