***************************************************************** 05/14/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.124 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: WHISTLEBLOWING 'It's a Living Hell' 2 US: DOE head Abraham touts energy plan progress 3 Kazakh nuclear chief denies Israel's accusation of nuclear 4 Experts optimistic about Bulgarian Kozloduy nuclear plant 5 US: Nuclear lobby likes Murkowski 6 US: PUBLIC CITIZEN: Nuclear PACs give millions, watchdog says 7 US: Nevada Test Site may have key role in dismantling nukes 8 US: Opinions:N-power a good bet 9 US: Nuclear firm buys dirty town for $20m NUCLEAR REACTORS 10 US: Demolition of Nuclear Plant Illustrates Problems Involved 11 US: Limerick nuclear plant remains on high alert after new report 12 US: Reactor at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant disconnected for 13 Malfunction reduces output of nuclear reactor in Ukraine 14 Lithuania's Nuclear Workers Fear the Future News Home 15 US: A threat to nuclear plants 16 Lithuania's Nuclear Workers Fear the Future 17 AU: Lucas Heights Reactor 'not protected' NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 US: Nuclear attack threat real, U.S. senator says 19 AU: Terror plan: 'We must be prepared' 20 UK: Brits claim Gulf illness is stress related 21 US: Strike on Nuclear Plants Threatened 22 Nuclear test health risk probed 23 US: Nuclear Plant Threat Called Unreliable 24 US: Nuclear attack threat real, U.S. senator says NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 25 US: State mulling bill to halt dumping of radioactive waste 26 US: Yucca Mountain hearing reset 27 US: Physicians Group Opposes Yucca Mountain Shipments 28 US: Waste from weapons leaves U.S. with Herculean cleanup task 29 US: Report: Nuke industry buying Yucca votes 30 US: Dangerous Initiative: LLW tax 31 US: Default Nuclear Dumping Ground NUCLEAR WEAPONS 32 US: FCNL Action Alert on Nuclear Weapons Funding 33 Japanese team in Fiji to examine nuclear test veterans 34 Ireland: Ed: US. Russian Nuclear Agreement 35 Nuclear warheads still a threat - Italian daily 36 Russia Gets Deal on Plutonium 37 Braced for the hooligans, and nuclear attack 38 US: Device at test site might be used to dismantle weapons 39 U.S., Russia to Slash Nuclear Arsenals 40 Bush US-FSU non-proliferation budget is in, but will it be 41 Fiji's nuclear soldiers suing British government 42 AU: Fijians sue over N-tests: report US DEPT. OF ENERGY 43 Oak Ridge nuke waste landfill to be dug up, relocated 44 Oak Ridge could help with nuclear weapons cut OTHER NUCLEAR 45 'Nuclear generation is the only credible carbon-free option' 46 Russia does not cooperate with USA in developing spacecraft with ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 WHISTLEBLOWING 'It's a Living Hell' FORTUNE - 'It's a Living Hell' Randy Robarge, in front of Con Ed's Zion power plant. Whistleblowing makes for great TV. But the aftereffects can be brutal. FORTUNE , 15, By Cora Daniels Before You Blow the Whistle Randy Robarge, a nuclear power plant supervisor, never intended to be a whistleblower. To Robarge, raising concerns about the improper storage of radioactive material at ComEd's Zion power plant on Lake Michigan was just part of doing a good job. The 20-year veteran was so respected when it came to safety issues that ComEd used him to narrate the company's training video on safety, which is still used throughout the industry. So he never expected that speaking up would end his career. At first the harassment was subtle. He says he was routinely denied days off and asked to cover for employees who were out. Co-workers kept their distance, and supervisors began criticizing his work. Three months later Robarge was out of a job. Over the next two years a federal investigation would prove that Zion's radiation containment procedures--the ones Robarge had complained about--were lax, and the plant was eventually shut down. The Department of Labor also ordered the company to pay Robarge a small settlement for his improper treatment. In the eyes of the court, Robarge was vindicated. But six years after speaking up and hundreds of job applications later, Robarge still can't get a job in his industry. "It's a living hell," says Robarge, 49, who supports himself with savings and odd jobs. "This is my livelihood, what I love to do. But I'm off limits. No one wants to touch me. I was labeled as a whistleblower." Unfortunately Robarge is not alone. About half of all whistleblowers get fired, half of those fired will lose their homes, and most of those will then lose their families too, says C. Fred Alford, author of Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. "For every Sherron Watkins, there are 200 to 300 whistleblowers you never hear about who don't fare so well." Overall, 90% of whistleblowers can expect some kind of reprisal--public humiliation, isolation, career freezing, firing, blacklisting--from their company. "The forms of organizational harassment are limited only by the imagination," says Tom Devine, head of the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy group. Its Whistleblower's Survival Guide is a mainstay in legal circles. Since co-workers and even friends rarely rally behind whistleblowers, feelings of isolation and betrayal run high. "It is lonely," says Michael Lissack, the former Smith Barney banker who became a whistleblower celebrity after exposing a municipal finance scam on Wall Street in 1995. "My wife said, 'Thank you for ruining both our lives,' and walked out the door." There is even an annual retreat for whistleblowers to help them deal with the stress and repercussions of speaking up, headed by psychologist and whistleblower expert Donald Soeken. Even for those who don't lose their jobs, the debilitating effects on their careers can be just as damaging. Mick Andersen was a former manager in the Justice Department who complained in 1997 about various forms of misconduct, including sexual favoritism in hiring, breaches of security, and visa fraud in the overseas criminal training program. His complaints led to a shakeup of the department and a settlement for him, as well as recognition last summer from the Office of Special Counsel. But after voicing his concerns, he says, he immediately was banished to "corporate Siberia" and was forced to use a storage closet for an office. Ignored by co-workers and superiors, he went for months without any assignments and spent his days reading Civil War books before finally resigning. "I was a true believer in the system, and it failed," he says. "Professionally I felt slimed." ©Copyright 2002 Time Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 DOE head Abraham touts energy plan progress Zawya.com By Chris Baltimore WASHINGTON, May 13 (Reuters) - A year after the Bush administration unveiled a comprehensive yet controversial energy plan, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Monday touted progress made to wean Americans from their dependence on oil from places like Iraq. "We have made very significant progress toward every one of our goals," Abraham said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, pointing at efforts to boost U.S. energy supplies and encourage conservation. However, the Senate last month voted down a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a crucial part of the administration's energy policy. Critics of the administration's energy plan, including environmentalists and public interest groups, have attacked it as kow-towing to Big Oil while leaving consumer and green advocates in the cold. An energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney released a pro-oil drilling, pro-nuclear list of 105 policy recommendations last May. Abraham called on the U.S. Congress to pass an energy bill that allows drilling in ANWR to offset imports from Iraq -- the nation's sixth-largest crude oil supplier. The energy bill passed by the Senate would keep the refuge in northern Alaska closed for drilling, while a bill passed by the House of Representatives allows drilling there. Abraham said he is hopeful that ANWR drilling will be included in a final bill which will be approved by the House and Senate at the end of negotiations slated to start this month. "At a time when (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein threatens an oil embargo against America it makes sense to tap a source that could offset 35 years of Iraqi imports," Abraham said with regard to ANWR. Hussein on April 8 suspended Iraq's oil exports for a month in protest of Israel's incursion into Palestine areas of the West Bank. Iraq also wanted other Arab oil producers to cut their production by half and ban all oil sales to the United States and Israel. Arab nations have yet to act on Hussein's demand. Despite inaction on ANWR, Abraham pointed to advances in encouraging development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, as well as cleaner automobiles. He also reiterated the Bush administration's support of a plan to bury radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Such a site is needed to allow U.S. nuclear generators to expand their generation, another plank of the energy plan. Nuclear generation provides about one fifth of the nation's electricity supply. Abraham applauded a House vote to override a veto from Nevada and build the nation's first permanent nuclear waste storage site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He also called on the Senate to make a similar approval. Over the next 20 years, electricity demand will rise by 45 percent, with natural gas and crude oil demand expected to be up 50 percent and 33 percent respectively, Abraham said. ((Chris Baltimore, 202 898 8316 washington.commodsenergy.newsroom@reuters.com)) © Reuters Limited. Click for Restrictions. © 2002 Zawya.com Ltd. All rights reserved. Please read our User ***************************************************************** 3 Kazakh nuclear chief denies Israel's accusation of nuclear supplies to Iraq BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 14, 2002 [Presenter] Israel's Defence Ministry has identified Kazakhstan as a country supplying nuclear material and technology to Iraq. This may deprive the country of the opportunity to work on the world nuclear market. [Correspondent, over archive footage showing vehicles in foreign city streets, people at work at a nuclear centre, equipment] The Israeli government has put Kazakhstan on a list of eight countries which, in the Israelis' opinion, illegally supply Iraq with material and technology for the production of nuclear weapons. The Kazatomprom [Kazakh nuclear industry] national company has categorically denied the possibility that any shady deals that circumvent international conventions had been concluded. The company's management understands that any violation of these rules will entail serious sanctions. [Mukhtar Dzhakishev, president of the Kazatomprom National Atomic Company, captioned, shown speaking to camera in an office] Uranium materials in the Republic of Kazakhstan are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and we annually undergo IAEA verification. Throughout the period of Kazakhstan's work [on the world nuclear market, presumably] and the period that we have been under IAEA supervision, we have never had any problems with verification. That means, we had everything, down to a single kilogram, adding up. [Correspondent] What is more, Kazatomprom specially noted that, unlike Kazakhstan, Israel had not signed the international agreement on the nonproliferation of nuclear material, and it was covertly a nuclear power at that. The material that is exported from Kazakhstan is not suitable for the production of nuclear weapons, Kazatomprom declares. Kazakhstan's income from the sale of uranium and beryllium amounts annually to about 170m dollars. If the Israeli Defence Ministry's information is confirmed, the republic may lose this budget-replenishment source for a long time. Source: Kazakh Commercial Television, Almaty, in Russian 1330 gmt 13 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 4 Experts optimistic about Bulgarian Kozloduy nuclear plant service life BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 14, 2002 Sofia, 14 May: Units five and six of the Kozloduy nuclear plant will be operational for more than 25 years after their upgrade at the end of 2006, Siemens-Bulgaria chief executive officer Petur Mishev told BTA. Mishev said that apart from Russia, Bulgaria is the first country in the world to start upgrading its 1,000 MW nuclear reactors and the first to be granted the right to use Euroatom funds. The 212.5m euro loan was extended under favourable terms and with a long grace period, Mishev added. Siemens is one of the contractors under a six-year programme for upgrading units five and six of the Kozloduy N-plant. In 2000 the company merged with the French Framatome concern and is now operating under the name of Framatome ANP. The programme also involves Atomenergostroy and Westinghouse. Mishev described the involvement of these companies in upgrading the Bulgarian N-plant as one of Siemens' achievements. The upgrade covers more than 100 projects involving different systems of the N-plant: control, safety, reliability and new safety systems introduction, Mishev explained. In the meantime the Information Centre of Kozloduy N-plant said that experts of the Committee for the Use of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes (CUAEPP) started pre-start checks at unit one. The unit was stopped for scheduled repairs and refuelling on 9 March. The CUAEPP is expected to issue a licence for the unit to enter its 23rd refuelling cycle. The unit's nuclear and operational safety were upgraded during the repairs, the press release says. Unit one is expected to be switched to the grid after 20 May. Unit two was stopped for scheduled annual repairs and refuelling on 20 April. It is expected to enter its 24th refuelling cycle, the Information Centre of the Kozloduy N-plant said. Source: BTA web site, Sofia, in English 14 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear lobby likes Murkowski Anchorage Daily News | [http://www.adn.com] CONTRIBUTIONS: Consumer advocacy group names Senator Nuclear PAC Man.' By Liz Ruskin Anchorage Daily News (Published: May 14, 2002) Washington -- Sen. Frank Murkowski has received $144,000 in campaign contributions from the nuclear power lobby since 1997, making him "the indisputable Nuclear PAC Man," according to Public Citizen. The consumer advocacy group analyzed the contributions of the nuclear power industry's political action committees and concluded that Murkowski received more of their money than did any other senator or Senate candidate. "He's the No. 1 friend of the nuclear power industry," said Lisa Gue, a policy analyst for Public Citizen. Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has long argued for the creation of a national nuclear waste dump -- or, as the industry prefers to call it, a "used-fuel repository" -- at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The project, unpopular in Nevada, is a top priority for the industry. The House voted last week to override Nevada's veto of the repository. The measure is pending in the Senate. The contributions that Public Citizen tracked are to Murkowski's Senate re-election campaign, which can't be transferred to his current campaign for governor. Alaska's campaign finance law prohibits contributions from PACs based outside the state. Public Citizen looked at the PACs of all corporations that are members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which the group says gave more than $5 million in senate races since 1997. The NEI members include General Electric, Enron, Florida Power and Light -- companies whose political interests extend beyond nuclear power. "Since he is or was the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, it would not be surprising that he received donations from energy companies," said Murkowski spokesman Chuck Kleeschulte. It's impossible to know, Kleeschulte said, whether the company PACs gave to Murkowski because of his support of nuclear power or because of his position on electricity deregulation, production incentives or any of the other issues they care about. Not that Murkowski is hiding his support for nuclear power. "It produces 20 percent of our electricity without causing greenhouse gases," Kleeschulte said. But there is the problem of what to do with radioactive waste. Murkowski believes it is better to store it in one safe, central location rather than have it scattered at sites around the country, as it is now, Kleeschulte said. The senator's policy decisions aren't based on campaign contributions, he said. A spokesman for the nuclear lobby described Murkowski as "a longtime supporter of nuclear issues." "We will continue to show our support for members of Congress who support our issues," said Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He said the contributions and fund-raisers make lawmakers more familiar with the industry's concerns. "You have to bring attention to your issues, and this is one way to do so, and it's totally within the parameters of the law," Singer said. Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at 1-202-383-0007 or [lruskin@adn.com] . Copyright © 2002 [http://www.adn.com] ***************************************************************** 6 PUBLIC CITIZEN: Nuclear PACs give millions, watchdog says Tuesday, May 14, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Critics question group's claim that $5.2 million went to senators' campaigns in past five years By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Political committees with ties to nuclear power have contributed $5.2 million to senators over the past five years, an indication of the industry's Capitol Hill clout on issues such as the Yucca Mountain project, a watchdog group said Monday. Public Citizen reported 75 companies that are members of the Nuclear Energy Institute have donated to the campaigns of all but seven senators since 1997, including $1.3 million to incumbents and challengers running this year. "This report is the tip of the nuclear iceberg," Public Citizen policy analyst Lisa Gue said, noting it does not include tens of millions of dollars in "soft money" donations, bundled contributions from individuals and personal lobbying by industry executives on nuclear matters. The Nuclear Energy Institute is the lobbying arm of the nuclear power industry and a chief proponent of plans to establish a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said the report was exaggerated and that some NEI members, such as General Electric, have far-ranging interests beyond nuclear energy. GE has an industrial arm that designs and services nuclear plants. "They have obviously lumped every kind of PAC contribution," Singer said. "That is just not correct." Even at that, Singer said, "the American system allows for all groups to have a role in the process of legislating. We're going to continue to support people who show us support." Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, received $143,582, the most PAC money from NEI members, Public Citizen said. Murkowski is the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and an advocate of nuclear waste burial in Nevada. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., received $26,500 from NEI member companies over the past five years, according to the Public Citizen accounting. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was given $25,500 between 1997 and 2000. Ensign said Public Citizen "is really stretching on this one." He said the report appeared to include companies with a peripheral connection to nuclear power. In managing his campaigns, "we really tried to scour everything to show we did not have (donations from) nuclear power companies," Ensign said. "We did everything we could to stay away from even those appearances." Contributions to Ensign reported by Public Citizen included $8,500 from General Electric; $6,500 from Deloitte &Touche, an accounting firm that has utility clients; $7,000 from Enron Corp., whose holdings include an Oregon utility; and $2,000 from Pacific Gas and Electric, a California utility whose holdings include the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Contributions to Reid included $8,500 from defense and nuclear fuel contractor General Atomics; $8,500 from General Electric; $1,000 from Pacific Gas and Electric; $4,000 from Deloitte &Touche; and $1,000 from Public Service Electric &Gas, a New Jersey utility that operates three reactors. "Nobody in the Senate, the state of Nevada and the country would say that Senator Reid is moveable on this (Yucca Mountain) issue," spokesman Nathan Naylor said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 7 Nevada Test Site may have key role in dismantling nukes Las Vegas SUN May 14, 2002 By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- The Nevada Test Site could play a key role in dismantling nuclear weapons under a new agreement announced Monday by U.S. and Russian leaders. The $100 million Device Assembly Facility was designed in the 1980s to put nuclear bombs together and support weapons tests, just a few years before the United States banned full-scale weapons testing in 1992. The expensive operation has been woefully underused since then, officials say. The 100,000-square-foot facility can also be used to take bombs apart, officials say. A defense spending authorization bill approved by the Senate Armed Service Committee directed the National Nuclear Security Administration to explore how the facility could be used to dismantle bombs. It was a timely directive; President Bush announced Monday the United States and Russia have agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. A report on the facility would be due March 1, according to the Senate bill, but it is too early to tell to what extent the high-tech, earth-covered building would be used, Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. In related news a Pennsylvania lawmaker has proposed a new nuclear weapons information exchange program that could involve Nevada Test Site officials and their counterparts in Russia. Republican Rep. Curt Weldon last week attached a "precedent-setting" amendment to a House defense spending bill that would lead to greater transparency in U.S.-Russian weapons programs, Weldon said. The legislation also could pave the way for exchange visits between Test Site officials and Russian nuclear weapons test experts. Such visits have not been conducted in 14 years. On Aug 17, 1988, a delegation of roughly 30 Soviet scientists and weapons experts visited the Nevada Test Site for an underground test dubbed Kearsarge; a Test Site delegation witnessed a similar test at the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan the following month, Test Site spokesman Darwin Morgan said. Since then, the former Soviet republic and the United States have banned full-scale nuclear weapons tests. The underground Divider test on Sept. 23, 1992, marked the 828th and final underground test at the Test Site. The United States and Russia continue smaller-scale experiments called subcritical tests. Weldon thinks now is the perfect time for more U.S.-Russian cooperation, in part to better ensure weapons material does not fall into the hands of terrorists, Weldon spokesman Bud DeFlaviis said. "Working with our Russian counterparts will not only increase our capabilities, it will eliminate the global threat posed by the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons, material and technology," Weldon said last week. Department of Energy spokeswoman Lisa Cutler said it was too early to tell how Weldon's amendment could affect the Test Site. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., supports the amendment, but he also is not sure yet what kinds of information Test Site workers and their Russian counterparts could share, spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said. Observers stress that the Weldon amendment is not final; it is attached to a defense bill that still must be debated and approved by House-Senate negotiators. Weldon, a longtime advocate for stronger U.S-Russia relations, plans to pursue his proposal later this month when he visits Russia with a congressional delegation. Weldon co-authored "A New Time, A New Beginning," a 44-page blueprint for better relations and new projects with Russia. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Opinions:N-power a good bet Augusta Georgia: Web posted Tuesday, May 14, 2002 Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff The U.S. Senate's recently passed energy bill excludes oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it very much includes provisions supporting the Bush administration's Nuclear Energy 2010 initiative to achieve new nuclear power plant construction by the end of the decade. If environmental pressure groups aren't going to let the nation drill for more oil to meet its growing energy needs and shake some dependence on foreign oil, that leaves nuclear-power as the best viable energy alternative. Although no new nuclear power plants have been approved since the anti-nuclear crowd stirred up public hysteria over the Three Mile Island mishap in 1979, nuclear energy still provides electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. The nation's 103 reactors set an electricity production record for the third straight year in 2001, according to government data compiled by the Nuclear Energy Institute. With Congress poised to OK the nuclear energy initiative, site applications for new reactors are already being filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That process will accelerate if the Senate follows the House's lead in support of using Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the centralized storage repository for the high-level nuclear waste that's now stored in temporary facilities scattered across 39 states. (A positive Yucca Mountain vote could also ease Gov. Jim Hodges' fears that plutonium being shipped to the Savannah River Site from other nuclear weapons plants won't ever leave SRS.) The truth is nuclear power does not pollute air or water and, in this country, has never caused a single death. Coal-generated electricity, on the other hand, pollutes heavily and has been responsible for thousands of deaths. The problem with the environmental lobbyists are they don't like any of the nation's energy sources, except for those that haven't been developed. When and if new energy sources are developed, such as windmills or fusion, they'll find a reason to oppose them too. Nuclear power is relatively cheap to produce once plants have been built, but getting them built has been very expensive. Plant Vogtle ran millions over its original estimate. But nuclear engineers now say construction expenses can be substantially reduced if all new plants are built very much the same in accordance with a standard approved by the NRC. The primary obstacle to new nuclear power plants is the hysteria still being stirred by anti-nuclear fear-mongers. Hopefully, the American public - like its European and Asian counterparts - will grow up and get past that. We must get energy from somewhere. [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 9 Nuclear firm buys dirty town for $20m The Independent - United Kingdom; May 14, 2002 BY DAVID USBORNE IN NEW YORK CHESHIRE IS a small town in south-eastern Ohio with some of the usual landmarks: a pizza parlour, a petrol station and a corner shop. Right next door, however, stands a very large power station, which is why its residents are preparing to move out. Not just a few of them - everyone is going. The exodus has a lot to do with the vapours that rise in high columns from the stacks of the generating plant and in particular the stinging blue clouds that last summer started periodically to descend on the town. But for the 221 residents it has even more to do with money. In an unprecedented manoeuvre, the owner of the plant, American Electric Power (AEP), has found an all-American solution to the looming threat of lawsuits from the people of Cheshire who have been bothered by the blue clouds. The company is paying $20m (pounds 14m) to buy the town. Under the deal, Cheshire's 90 homeowners will receive a cheque from the power company equal to roughly three times what their houses would be worth on the open market. In return, they must pack and leave and promise never to sue the company for any kind of damage inflicted on their properties or health. The prospect of Cheshire becoming a ghost town does not sit well with everyone. "Relocation will not be easy," conceded its mayor, Tome Reese. "It will be sad indeed to see our village disappear. Many residents had realised, however, that selling their homes normally might have been impossible because of the proximity of plant." Helen Preston, who is 87 and was born in the house she lives in, is among those starting to wonder out loud if she and her neighbours gave in too quickly. "The village just accepted the first offer, grabbed it up. Now people are saying we sold out too cheap." American Electric is the biggest power company in the US and the coal- burning plant at Cheshire is the largest of its kind in Ohio. Under pressure from federal regulators to reduce pollution there, the company has invested heavily to cut emissions from the plant. It was the latest technology, designed to cut levels of nitrogen oxide, that gave rise to the blue haze problem. The sulphuric clouds left stains on house fronts and caused residents to complain of burning eyes, headaches, coughing and sores on the lips and inside their mouths. A federal report last year said the fogs could harm residents with asthma but were not in themselves life-threatening. Pat Hemlepp, a spokesman for AEP, said: "We've become an increasing annoyance, no doubt about it." He said that while the need to pre-empt legal action from the residents "did factor into" the decision to buy the entire town of Cheshire, the company had also been motivated by a need for the plant to expand. Only a few details remain to be settled. When exactly should the exodus be completed and the town of Cheshire declared defunct? And what is to happen to the local school, which in fact lies just beyond the limits of what the company has agreed to buy? ***************************************************************** 10 Demolition of Nuclear Plant Illustrates Problems Involved May 14, 2002 By MATTHEW L. WALD ISCASSET, Me., May 10 — Power company executives, environmentalists and state government officials fought for most of the 80's and 90's about whether the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant was safe and economical. But once the owners agreed that the plant should close, the debate turned really complicated. Suddenly, said Ray Shadis, who had fought for years to shut down Maine's only reactor, "there were a lot more things to argue about." How much radioactive building material could safely be left at the site? Should nonradioactive concrete and concrete structures below the ground be removed? What should happen to the highly radioactive spent fuel, which the federal government is supposed to take, but, for the next few years at least, has no place to put? Now, more than five years after Maine Yankee split its last atom, the cumbersome process of decontamination and demolition gives a hint of what lies ahead for the 103 power reactors still operating around the country — whether economic problems close them, as happened here, or fear of terrorism shuts them, a threat faced by Indian Point in New York, or whether they run for years to come and retire at a ripe old age. First comes the argument over how much radioactive material can be left. Some experts have described as excruciatingly tough the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's standard, which says the annual extra dose of radiation of the person most heavily exposed should be no more than 25 millirem. People who do not work with radiation are exposed to about 350 millirem a year, counting cosmic rays, radon gas and radiation from medical procedures and naturally radioactive rocks and minerals. In the regulatory commission's calculation, the individual is assumed to live 24 hours a day at the site. That is unlikely at many reactor sites that will remain industrial — as will probably be the case here — where workers typically spend eight hours a day. Maine Yankee, one of the first big reactors to be shut, has rail service, town water and sewerage, access to the electric grid, and a river full of water for barge traffic or cooling, all of which contribute to its industrial appeal. The commission's calculation also assumes the individual is a subsistence farmer who drills a well in the most contaminated spot and uses its water for drinking and irrigation. Coastal Maine has no such farmers, and the water under the site is brackish, company officials say, making it unsuitable for drinking or irrigation. But after protracted debate, the state decided that the commission's standard was too loose; it imposed a standard of 10 millirem a year. That standard is so low that technicians have difficulty determining whether dirt or concrete has enough radioactivity above natural background that it will contribute to extra exposure. So hundreds of tons of material are being shipped out to other states on the presumption of being slightly radioactive, because shipping is cheaper than testing. Not all environmentalists are convinced that this is sound. "Parts of this can be depicted by others, outside the state of Maine, to be pretty selfish," said W. Donald Hudson, who is the president of the Chewonski Foundation, an environmental educational institution a mile from the plant. Moving the material does not make it any less radioactive, although it may end up somewhere with a lower population density and less rainfall, reducing the likelihood that contaminants will be washed into drinking water. Mr. Hudson said plants decommissioned in the future might not be able to ship out so much material, because states designated to receive the waste might "put their foot down." Nationally, only three low-level waste dumps are operating, and one, at Hanford, Wash., accepts material only from the Pacific Northwest. The other dumps are in Barnwell, S.C., and at a desert site about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, which is expected to receive most of Maine Yankee's contaminated concrete. Thus one certainty of decommissioning is a long trip. About 65,000 tons of radioactive waste from the plant will require shipment off site. More highly radioactive materials will go to Barnwell. About 50,000 tons of material that is not radioactive will go to an ordinary industrial landfill in Niagara County, N.Y. About 75 trainloads of radiaoactive and nonradioactive waste have already been shipped. If all goes as scheduled, it will take eight years to demolish the plant, which took four years to build. The construction was easier, because at that point all the material was clean, said Wayne A. Norton, president of the company. Demolishing the plant and shipping the waste will cost $500 million, more than twice the $231 million the plant cost to build (although that was in 1972, when a dollar bought more concrete than it does today.) The job is 61 percent done and on budget, managers say. Maine Yankee is a single-unit plant, about two-thirds the size of Indian Point 2 or 3 in New York, which suggests the cost of decommissioning a plant the size of Indian Point could well exceed $1 billion, Another factor in deciding how thoroughly to clean up the site is radiation exposure to workers performing the decommissioning. The more exhaustive the operation, the more that level will rise. Maine Yankee has a "budget" of no more than 1,150 rem of exposure to all of its workers collectively during the entire cleanup, although the actual exposure will probably be somewhat lower. In contrast, 200 rem to 400 rem was typical for a year in which the plant was operating. But neither Maine Yankee nor any other power reactor can really be fully decommissioned now because there is no place to put spent fuel. So a major policy issue that remains is how to store the fuel, which is now kept mostly in spent fuel pools around the country. At Maine Yankee, workers are preparing to put the fuel into 60 giant stainless steel canisters, which will be dried out and filled with an inert gas to prevent rust. Each will be loaded into its own giant concrete cylinder, with holes to allow air circulation. Those will go on concrete pads, surrounded by razor wire, motion detectors and armed guards. The casks are licensed for 20 years by the regulatory commission and guaranteed by the builder for 50 years, but their stay at the site could be a lot longer. An application by the manufacture to license the casks for shipping is pending. The fuel must be loaded into the canisters under water, because in open air, the radiation it gives off would be lethal. But the plan is that after loading, workers will dismantle the pool, so the site will lose the ability to repackage the wastes if something goes wrong with a canister in a few years. State officials say the casks may be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | ***************************************************************** 11 Limerick nuclear plant remains on high alert after new report The Mercury John Gentzel, Mercury Staff WriterMay 14, 2002 LIMERICK -- Reports that terrorists are planning to attack a nuclear power plant July 4 have not yet resulted in the placement of any additional security measures at the Limerick plant. Published reports in Monday's edition of The Washington Times state that U.S. intelligence officials received threats of a possible terrorist strike against a U.S. nuclear power plant on the Fourth of July. The officials, who spoke to the newspaper on the condition of anonymity, said the alleged plot to attack on America's celebration of independence is one of scores of threats filtering through U.S. intelligence and is not considered serious enough to formally warn the American public or change the nuclear industry's already high level of alert. The threat received last week suggested that an unidentified Islamic terrorist group is planning to attack a nuclear power plant somewhere in the Northeast, the source said. Exelon Nuclear operates Limerick's nuclear power plant, and on Monday, plant spokeswoman Lisa Washak said the facility off Sanatoga Road remains at the same "heightened level" of security that was implemented following the Sept. 11 attacks. "We're getting a lot of questions about it, obviously," Washak said. "It raises a lot of questions, but for now, we have not changed the threat level assessment. We're still at a heightened level of security." Some of the initiatives incorporated into the heightened security measures include additional personnel access controls; enhanced requirements for guard forces increased stand-off distances for searches of vehicles approaching nuclear facilities; and heightened coordination with appropriate local, state and federal authorities. Since Sept. 11, visitors to Exelon's Limerick Generating Station have undoubtedly noticed the increased security personnel, in the form of National Guard troops, patrolling the area. Although Three Mile Island was mentioned, officials have so far given no indication that Limerick is at risk from an attack. "We take all this information seriously," Washak said, "and right now, the appropriate agencies are reviewing it." The Associated Press contributed to this report. ©The Mercury 2002 ***************************************************************** 12 Reactor at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant disconnected for scheduled work BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 14, 2002 Kiev, 14 May: A reactor at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was disconnected for a scheduled overhaul this morning. Repairs at the VVER-1000 reactor will continue until 19 July, the public relations department of Ukraine's Enerhoatom national nuclear power company told Interfax. Moreover, a turbine generator at the second VVER-440 unit of the Rivne nuclear power plant automatically disconnected from the power grid yesterday evening. The oil temperature rose due to a breakdown in the generator oiling system. The unit was run at half capacity last night. Output was increased to nominal this morning. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 0722 gmt 14 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 13 Malfunction reduces output of nuclear reactor in Ukraine KPnews.com -- News about Ukraine 14 May 2002 The Associated Press KYIV, May 14 - Operators at a nuclear reactor at Ukraine's Rivne power plant reduced the reactor's output by half after a malfunction in its lubricating system, officials said Tuesday. The malfunction occurred late Monday in the bearings of the plant's No. 2 nuclear reactor, prompting an increase in its fuel temperature and a shutdown of one of the reactor's turbo-generators, the state nuclear company Energoatom said. The defect was repaired early Tuesday and no radiation leaks were reported. Also Tuesday, reactor No. 1 of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was shut down for planned repairs until July 19, Energoatom said. Reactors at Ukraine's four nuclear power stations are frequently shut down for both planned and unscheduled repairs. Ukraine was site of world's worst nuclear catastrophe in April 1986, when a fire at the Chornobyl atomic plant spewed radiation over Europe. © 2000 SputnikMedia.net. ***************************************************************** 14 Lithuania's Nuclear Workers Fear the Future News Home Tue May 14,10:51 AM ET By Burton Frierson VISAGINAS, Lithuania (Reuters) - Sergei Monakhov worries a lot these days. The energy plant where he works in northeast Lithuania is facing cutbacks and eventual closure. Like many of the 4,600 people who make a living at the facility, he's concerned about how his small family will get by if he loses his job or he has to move in search of work. Sometimes, he says, fretting about the future can be an on-the-job distraction. "You have to think about the work, not about the problems, but it's difficult now." Monakhov had better keep his concentration. He's a nuclear safety engineer responsible for keeping track of atomic fuel at Lithuania's Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear power plant, which may be shut down completely by the end of this decade if the European Union (news - web sites) gets its way. Brussels considers Ignalina a potential nuclear hazard because its two reactors are similar in design to those that powered Ukraine's disastrous Chernobyl plant -- only bigger. It has got Lithuania to commit to switch off the first unit by 2005, but the two sides are deadlocked over the EU's demand that the second unit be shut down by 2009 and the $2.2 billion that Vilnius says decommissioning the plant will cost. Ignalina, which provides most of Lithuania's electricity, is now the biggest obstacle to this tiny Baltic nation's bid to conclude entry talks this year to be in a bigger EU by 2004. Lithuanian officials say it might take until December to resolve the Ignalina talks, but they are aiming for a deal by the end of June. CONTROVERSIAL CLOSURE Closure has been surprisingly controversial for this state of just 3.5 million people. Lithuanians launched daring protests against Soviet plans to build a third and fourth reactor in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. But these days, Lithuanians are more concerned about having an independent energy supply, though experts say they have more than enough capacity even without Ignalina, and the dispute has damaged sentiment on EU membership in opinion polls. The Lithuanian authorities' stubbornness over the second reactor baffles some, as it was built to run only to 2017 and the EU has offered $64 million a year in funding from 2004-2006. In the early 1990s, concerns hit home amid a series of minor mishaps at Ignalina, a bomb threat and the theft of a nuclear fuel container, but with international help, tens of thousands of dollars were poured into improving safety and security. Now, at the back of everyone's minds is the thought that a worried workforce, preoccupied with looming unemployment, might not be the safest. "People in positions of responsibility at a nuclear power plant have to have guarantees about their future," said Kazys Zilys, deputy head of Lithuania's nuclear regulatory body. "Otherwise, we don't think a nuclear power plant can be operated safely." The government is working on draft legislation to cover compensation for Ignalina's employees. If the closure of the first unit goes ahead by 2005, up to 900 people stand to lose their jobs. More job cuts would follow and, upon final closure of the second unit, only about 1,500 staff would stay on for post-shutdown work. Most families in Visaginas -- a town of 30,000 built in the Lithuanian wilderness to house Ignalina staff -- have at least one person working at the plant. Monakhov says his chances of working after shutdown are good, but he's not sure what life will be like in the town after the plant closes. "After the closure, nobody knows what will happen with the town, and I don't want to live in a dead town," he said. The EU is sponsoring a host of projects to help the town's well-educated community of nuclear scientists and engineers get a headstart in the post-shutdown job search. Michael Graham, head of the EU delegation in Vilnius, says he's upbeat, given that the EU has dealt with industrial dislocations involving tens of thousands of people in the past. TIME SLIPPING AWAY Work in progress at the plant is being funded by international donors who pledged more than $182 million to decommission unit one. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which manages that fund, says decommissioning preparations are ahead of schedule. "We are confident we will be well on time for the decommissioning," said EBRD nuclear safety director Vince Novak. But Lithuanian negotiators are digging in their heels over the second reactor. The country's president, Valdas Adamkus, an ex-U.S. citizen who spent decades working at the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites), favors building a new, Western-standard nuclear reactor to replace Ignalina. He says Lithuania cannot afford the decommissioning costs -- officially estimated at $2.2 billion, almost one fifth of last year's gross domestic product. "If we say we are committing ourselves by 2009 to closing the second reactor ... we are signing and committing to the total bankruptcy of the country," Adamkus told Reuters. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. ***************************************************************** 15 A threat to nuclear plants [The Boston Globe Online] [Boston.com] Warning fueling debate on safety, federal regulation By Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff, 5/14/2002 [W] ASHINGTON - A foreign intelligence service recently warned that a nuclear power plant in the Northeast could be the target of a July 4 terrorist attack, a government official confirmed yesterday. The official cautioned that the ''intelligence service told us their source was untested, unproven, of unknown reliability.'' Published reports suggested that the target could be Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island, but a second US official with knowledge of the information said that no specific facility had been named. The news only stoked a furious behind-the-scenes debate over the safety of nuclear power plants, with the industry's representatives lobbying to ease government regulation and block a proposed federalization of their security forces. The nuclear industry and some officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission contend that the nation's 66 nuclear plants are among the most daunting targets in the world. They rely on a ''defense-in-depth'' philosophy of redundant security and safety systems and feature double-fenced perimeters, concertina wire, various sensors inside the fences, and thick concrete and reinforced steel walls inside the the buildings. But critics, including lawmakers, security specialists, and whistle-blowers, point to the industry's mixed track record in mock terrorist attacks - 37 of 81 federally run exercises between 1991 and August of 2001 turned up ''significant'' weaknesses in plant security - and question whether plant security has even been training for a realistically tough attack. In at least three recent cases, security workers at New Hampshire's Seabrook plant quit on the grounds of inadequate training and poor safety. Many industry critics advocate a federal takeover of security forces at the plants. ''I don't know whether this threat is credible or not, but it does reinforce the reality that Al Qaeda is seriously targeting'' nuclear facilities, said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat and longtime critic of the industry and the NRC. ''It's one thing to have private guards at McDonald's or a shopping center, it's quite another to have rent-a-cops working at airports or a nuclear power plant.'' Some industry officials acknowledge that sustained post-Sept. 11 readiness has taken its toll on security preparedness. But while they agree that there needs to be greater clarity in the federal and private security duties in defending plants, they strongly oppose federalization. Instead, they have pushed for a new self-testing strategy they argue would be much more efficient and accurate than the current system. When it comes to security, ''we have nothing other than max; we have no stand down,'' said Ralph E. Beedle, the blunt-spoken security chief for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. Beedle said the industry's security squads ''are better than most SWAT teams.'' At the forefront of the debate are two questions: How safe are the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors from terrorism? Are the results of the mock attacks a reasonable way to measure that safety? Since Sept. 11, the NRC has issued many new orders to nuclear plant operators, requiring increases in staffing and checkpoints and putting huge swaths of shoreline and coastal waters off-limits to recreational boating. The NRC has also ordered a ''top to bottom'' review, which industry officials predict is likely to take a long time. At the core of the debate are the ''force-on-force'' NRC-run tests where mock terrorists assault the facilities. In ''37 [of the 81 mock attacks], the expert NRC team identified a significant weakness: significant being defined as the adversary team simulating sabotaging a target set, which would lead to core damage and in many cases, to a probable radioactive release,'' David Orrik, a retired Navy SEAL who runs the exercises for the NRC, told legislators on the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Energy Committee. Though the session was classified, Orrik's comments were also made in a statement he submitted for the public record. According to the NRC, seven of 15 exercises conducted between April of 2000 and August of last year turned up weaknesses at plants. The ''force-on-force'' exercises, which have been suspended since Sept. 11, take place under highly choreographed circumstances that, industry critics argue, slant things in favor of the plant operators and make their failures more difficult to forgive. The plant security teams are given at least six months' notice and a selection of possible scenarios for which to train. The plant owners select the attack teams. Though the ''terrorists'' are given detailed knowledge of the plant's defensive strategy, their actions are proscribed by bureaucratic rules known as the ''Design Basis Threat,'' or DBT. The exact details are classified, but the groups are reportedly limited to three terrorists and are not allowed to use diversionary tactics. Air- and water-based attacks are not contemplated and neither is an attack on the highly toxic but less-well secured store of spent nuclear fuel. And, according to current and former nuclear plant security guards, realism is undercut by the advance arrival of NRC judges, alerting guards that a specific area of the plant was about to come under ''attack.'' ''The only thing we drill and we test is for the DBT,'' said a security guard with several years' experience at an East Coast nuclear facility. ''If something else was to happen in any nuclear plant in the country other than what the DBT says, we're screwed.'' Beedle, of the nuclear institute, dismissed the mock attacks as meaningless ''Mickey Mouse'' exercises, arguing that none of the exercises would have led to a nuclear release and meltdown because the targets were not critical. But Markey, who has seen the classified list of the 37 exercises, dismisses any notion that they were minor. ''The NRC sends in mock terrorists in order to determine if they could trigger a meltdown,'' Markey said. ''They don't test whether or not they go into the cafeteria.'' William Beecher, director of public affairs for the NRC, said of the violations: ''Some of them would have been serious. Some of them were less so. All of them were deficiencies and have been corrected promptly.'' The nuclear industry and some commission officials, including the NRC chairman, Richard A. Meserve, argue that the tests are a diagnostic tool. ''Identification of a weakness during an exercise leads to immediate corrective or compensatory measures to ensure that the security programs remain robust,'' Meserve told Congress. Current and former guards say that even after Sept. 11, mistakes and weaknesses have not always been addressed. ''Certain posts are known throughout as suicide posts,'' said John Middlemiss, who joined New Hampshire's Seabrook plant as a guard after Sept. 11 but, along with at least two others, quit months later fearing for his safety. In the event of an attack, Middlemiss said, whoever was manning those posts would probably not survive due to faulty security measures such as broken doors or faulty locks. Conversely, the industry has pushed for a program of self-testing, which they say they can do more efficiently and more frequently. Last July, the NRC approved a one-year pilot program called ''Safeguards Performance Assessment,'' which would have allowed eight plants around the country to conduct their own security tests in lieu of the current NRC-run tests. The program was put on hold after Sept. 11. Markey attached a provision that would mandate the current system of tests, but against a beefed-up foe, to the House-passed reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which relieves the industry from liability in case of a nuclear accident. House and Senate negotiators are currently negotiating a reconciled energy bill that in the Senate version includes Price-Anderson, so Markey's nuclear security provisions could survive into a final legislation. But even if it does not, a Senate bill would federalize the security forces, establish a special office dedicated to running the mock terrorist exercises, and clarify what qualifies as a failure. Both the industry and the NRC oppose the proposal on the grounds that security is already sufficient and that a federal system could create confusion during a crisis ''because the security would be under the command of the NRC while the actual operation of the plant would be under the tutelage of the company that owns it,'' said the nuclear institute's spokesman Mitch Singer. Instead, the industry said,the NRC must complete its review so that the plants can know what exactly their responsibility is in defending the plants and what is the responsibility of the federal government. Robert Schlesinger can be reached at [ schlesinger@globe.com] . This story ran on page A4 of the Boston Globe on 5/14/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. [ © Copyright 2002 Boston Globe Electronic Publishing Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Lithuania's Nuclear Workers Fear the Future Yahoo! News - Tue May 14,10:51 AM ET By Burton Frierson VISAGINAS, Lithuania (Reuters) - Sergei Monakhov worries a lot these days. The energy plant where he works in northeast Lithuania is facing cutbacks and eventual closure. Like many of the 4,600 people who make a living at the facility, he's concerned about how his small family will get by if he loses his job or he has to move in search of work. Sometimes, he says, fretting about the future can be an on-the-job distraction. "You have to think about the work, not about the problems, but it's difficult now." Monakhov had better keep his concentration. He's a nuclear safety engineer responsible for keeping track of atomic fuel at Lithuania's Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear power plant, which may be shut down completely by the end of this decade if the European Union gets its way. Brussels considers Ignalina a potential nuclear hazard because its two reactors are similar in design to those that powered Ukraine's disastrous Chernobyl plant -- only bigger. It has got Lithuania to commit to switch off the first unit by 2005, but the two sides are deadlocked over the EU's demand that the second unit be shut down by 2009 and the $2.2 billion that Vilnius says decommissioning the plant will cost. Ignalina, which provides most of Lithuania's electricity, is now the biggest obstacle to this tiny Baltic nation's bid to conclude entry talks this year to be in a bigger EU by 2004. Lithuanian officials say it might take until December to resolve the Ignalina talks, but they are aiming for a deal by the end of June. CONTROVERSIAL CLOSURE Closure has been surprisingly controversial for this state of just 3.5 million people. Lithuanians launched daring protests against Soviet plans to build a third and fourth reactor in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. But these days, Lithuanians are more concerned about having an independent energy supply, though experts say they have more than enough capacity even without Ignalina, and the dispute has damaged sentiment on EU membership in opinion polls. The Lithuanian authorities' stubbornness over the second reactor baffles some, as it was built to run only to 2017 and the EU has offered $64 million a year in funding from 2004-2006. In the early 1990s, concerns hit home amid a series of minor mishaps at Ignalina, a bomb threat and the theft of a nuclear fuel container, but with international help, tens of thousands of dollars were poured into improving safety and security. Now, at the back of everyone's minds is the thought that a worried workforce, preoccupied with looming unemployment, might not be the safest. "People in positions of responsibility at a nuclear power plant have to have guarantees about their future," said Kazys Zilys, deputy head of Lithuania's nuclear regulatory body. "Otherwise, we don't think a nuclear power plant can be operated safely." The government is working on draft legislation to cover compensation for Ignalina's employees. If the closure of the first unit goes ahead by 2005, up to 900 people stand to lose their jobs. More job cuts would follow and, upon final closure of the second unit, only about 1,500 staff would stay on for post-shutdown work. Most families in Visaginas -- a town of 30,000 built in the Lithuanian wilderness to house Ignalina staff -- have at least one person working at the plant. Monakhov says his chances of working after shutdown are good, but he's not sure what life will be like in the town after the plant closes. "After the closure, nobody knows what will happen with the town, and I don't want to live in a dead town," he said. The EU is sponsoring a host of projects to help the town's well-educated community of nuclear scientists and engineers get a headstart in the post-shutdown job search. Michael Graham, head of the EU delegation in Vilnius, says he's upbeat, given that the EU has dealt with industrial dislocations involving tens of thousands of people in the past. TIME SLIPPING AWAY Work in progress at the plant is being funded by international donors who pledged more than $182 million to decommission unit one. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which manages that fund, says decommissioning preparations are ahead of schedule. "We are confident we will be well on time for the decommissioning," said EBRD nuclear safety director Vince Novak. But Lithuanian negotiators are digging in their heels over the second reactor. The country's president, Valdas Adamkus, an ex-U.S. citizen who spent decades working at the Environmental Protection Agency, favors building a new, Western-standard nuclear reactor to replace Ignalina. He says Lithuania cannot afford the decommissioning costs -- officially estimated at $2.2 billion, almost one fifth of last year's gross domestic product. "If we say we are committing ourselves by 2009 to closing the second reactor ... we are signing and committing to the total bankruptcy of the country," Adamkus told Reuters. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 AU: Lucas Heights Reactor 'not protected' [14may02] news.com.au - A CHAIN-link fence and a "vulnerable" officer at the gate of Australia's sole nuclear facility meant its physical protection barely complied with international standards, an expert said. Christopher Payne, a former federal police and National Crime Authority officer, today called for public visits to the Lucas Heights site in Sydney's south to be stopped due to a lack of physical protection. In his 15-page report, The Physical Protection of Nuclear Reactors at Lucas Heights, commissioned by the Sutherland Shire, Mr Payne also criticised authorities for not redesigning the replacement reactor in the wake of September 11 to account for potential air strikes. In the report released today, he said the facility's operator, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, was not complying with the International Atomic Energy Agency's guidelines. "The physical protection of Lucas Heights barely complies with some of the Category 1 provisions of INFOCIRC225 (international guidelines)," he wrote. "The perimeter barrier is weak and vulnerable. The gatehouse is vulnerable to attack and should be rebuilt. Any alarm systems that relate to the physical protection of the site should be placed in a hardened building, well away from the perimeter." Mr Payne said the perimeter fence was "below the standard of fencing one sees around minimum-security prisons in NSW". He also questioned the ability of the on-site security officers to stop an attack, after their failure to stop a mock attack carried out by Greenpeace activists in December last year. Mr Payne, of Beaufort Services, was commissioned by the council in March this year to report on several protection issues associated with the nuclear reactor. AAP ***************************************************************** 18 Nuclear attack threat real, U.S. senator says Democrat urges building of system that could check ships, trucks for hidden bombs By MIRO CERNETIG Tuesday, May 14, 2002 – Page A14 NEW YORK -- The destruction of the World Trade Center has been called the unthinkable. Now, New Yorkers are being urged to consider the cataclysmic: the possibility of a nuclear bomb being smuggled into their midst. Although there has been no indication such a threat is imminent, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who represents New York state, is warning that a nuclear attack could occur. He wants the federal government to build a system to screen the millions of shipping containers and trucks that enter the United States every year for nuclear bombs. "A large nuclear device can be smuggled into a large container, put on a ship overseas and brought here with no detection," Mr. Schumer told reporters on the weekend. "I've been to the intelligence briefings; I've talked to the experts; I've seen the data. And the only thing I can tell you is that when you learn about it, it chills you to the bone. New York is probably the most vulnerable spot, he said. "The good news is we probably have a year or two before any terrorist gets hold of such a device and smuggles it in," said Mr. Schumer, who is one of the Senate's senior members and an influential voice on border security issues. "The bad news is we're virtually totally unprotected against such a device." Mr. Schumer was speaking on Sunday as he began lobbying for his Anti-Nuclear Prevention Act, in which he says the U.S. government must spend $250-million to develop better radiation detectors. At present, about one in 100 containers entering New York is inspected, often with hand-held Geiger counters that need to be within a few metres of an object to work. The senator said a new generation of radiation sensors on the verge of development could sense nuclear materials at greater distances. He envisions them mounted atop the cranes that lift containers off ships and installed at Canadian and Mexican border checkpoints, giving the United States the ability to inspect everything entering the country. Discussion about the possibility of a nuclear attack on New York or another U.S. city, which could kill tens of thousands and make a metropolis uninhabitable, has become more commonplace since Sept. 11. New Yorkers were shocked two months ago when word leaked out that the U.S. government quietly investigated reports the previous fall that terrorists might have placed a portable nuclear bomb somewhere in their city. There is no doubt that the nuclear threat continues to occupy the minds of U.S. leaders. After Sept. 11, President George W. Bush was reportedly telling religious leaders at the White House that he worried about terrorists having radioactive weapons. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden later said his group has been attempting to build a nuclear bomb. That was given further credence when Pakistan, a nuclear power, arrested some key nuclear scientists it believed were working with Afghanistan's Talian regime. Vigilance is high not only at ports but at nuclear plants. Yesterday, U.S. officials said they were investigating a threat, reported last week, that Islamic terrorists might attempt to attack a nuclear power plant on July 4. Officials said they are taking the threat seriously but do not see it as credible enough to increase the plants' already high level of security. © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 AU: Terror plan: 'We must be prepared' [15may02] news.com.au - By Chris Janz and Kate Meikle A STRIKE force will be created to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism threats as part of last night's Budget, which asks Australians to trade higher prescription costs and tougher welfare rules for tighter homeland security. A national stockpile of antidotes will also be developed to help authorities respond to bio-terrorism scares. Fears of an attack have driven heavy spending in the Budget, with the Government committing $1.308 billion over five years to upgrade security within the country. "I think everybody sort of looks back and says: 'oh well, that was another age ago, that can never happen’," Treasurer Peter Costello said last night. "I just hope they're right. But a Government must prepare against the event that could happen. He asked Australians to remember how they felt on September 12 when they woke to learn the World Trade Centre towers had been “reduced to rubble”. "Put yourself back in that situation, remember what it was like, and ask yourself would a government be doing the right thing by its public if it didn't take additional measures for security." The Defence department will spend $121 million over four years to create the permanent bio-terrorism force. However, Defence Minister Robert Hill said the risk of an attack remained low. The Government will also create an anti-terrorism squad on the east coast to complement an existing group in Western Australia. The Tactical Assault Group, to be based at Holsworthy in NSW, will be trained to "conduct offensive and recovery operations" beyond the scope of other Defence Force units. Meantime, Australians will be forced to pay more for prescription medication after the Government reigned in its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Australians will now pay $28.60 for PBS prescriptions, up $6.20 on the present fee, while pensioners and concession card holders will pay $4.60 - an increase of $1. Drugs listed on the PBS are subsidised by the Federal Government at a cost of $4.2 billion per year. The Government says the cost of the scheme has quadrupled since 1991 and may blow out to around $60 billion in the next 40 years. The changes are expected to save $1.1 billion over the next four years but Treasurer Peter Costello denied they would force families to go without. "If you buy 52 scripts in the year, you buy 52 scripts at $4.60 and after that they're free," Mr Costello said. "Somebody who has a chronic condition will pay an additional $52 over the year but they can't pay any more." Doctors will also be forced to show the Government why they are prescribing certain medicines under new prescription guidelines. Mr Costello said this measure would ensure PBS medicines were "used appropriately". A crackdown on pharmacy and PBS fraud was expected to save $349 million over four years. Mr Costello also restricted access to the Disability Support Pension in an attempt to save $336 million a year. People who are able to work more than 15 hours a week will no longer have access to payments. Previously, the limit was 30 hours. The Government is predicting a $2.1 billion surplus for this year's Budget, despite its failure to deliver on last year's pledge. In a major surprise, last year’s predicted $1.5 billion cash surplus was revised to become a $1.2 billion deficit. "We've had additional expenditure in relation to the War Against Terrorism and tax receipts in the early part of 2002 were weaker than expected," Mr Costello said. "I wish we hadn't have had an international economic slowdown and I wish we had avoided the defence commitments, but I think under those circumstances it was a policy which gave us added strength, kept our economy growing and probably set Australia up for the kind of opportunities that I think we'll have in the next year or two." The Government believes the economy will grow at 3.75 per cent in the coming year, with improved business confidence and lower interest rates fuelling the increase. It expects unemployment will fall to 6 per cent by June next year. Other measures announced in tonight's Budget include: + additional surveillance flights to detect illegal immigrants + improved access to medical specialists in regional areas + delivery of the "baby bonus": up to $2500 in tax relief for new parents + a plan to encourage personal superannuation contributions; and + support for carers and subsidies for residential aged care. [http://news.com.au ***************************************************************** 20 UK: Brits claim Gulf illness is stress related THE most likely cause of Gulf war syndrome is psychological stress so severe that it has produced physical symptoms in 100,000 American and 3000 British veterans of the 1991conflict, according to a US presidential advisory committee. A decade of research and more than £140m in Pentagon funding have failed to come up with any explanation implicating pesticides, nerve gas exposure, burning oil well pollution, depleted uranium, or the cocktail of chemical warfare antidotes injected into allied troops. Researchers confirm that those who served in the Gulf are more likely to suffer from memory loss, lack of concentration, joint pains, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep deprivation, headaches, and skin complaints than their civilian counterparts. Yet data also shows that the veterans are no more likely to be hospitalised or to die than their peers who never served in the region. Rates of cancer and other life-threatening diseases are no higher than for other people of their age and background. The MoD has published a comparative table of deaths of British Gulf veterans and a similar number of non-veterans of the same age since 1991. A total of 524 of those deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and 520 of the peer group have since died from all causes. Dr Philip J Landrigan, an epidemiologist on the presidential committee, said yesterday: "People need to get beyond the notion that stress-related illnesses are somehow unmanly or shameful. The mind and body are inextricably linked. "Stress causes real physical problems. Hormones released into the bloodstream when a person is under severe stress can produce physiological changes that linger long after life returns to normal. Both nervous and immune systems can be damaged. Even the toughest soldier is not invulnerable, particularly in actual combat or under the threat of attack." What has baffled even independent experts looking at the problem is that there is nothing to connect the victims apart from the fact that they all served in the same region. Those affected range from Delta Force commandos operating far behind Iraqi lines to fighter pilots flying missions at 20,000ft above the battlefield. Many complaining of symptoms were stationed thousands of miles apart. Researchers say it would be impossible for such a wide cross-section of service personnel over such a wide area to have been exposed to a single cause. The variety of symptoms also points away from a single toxin or microbe as the culprit. On the other hand, the committee report says stress is "known to produce nearly the symptoms reported by Gulf war veterans". Stephen Robinson, who served with US special forces in the war and is now executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Centre, a lobby group on behalf of sick veterans, said: "I know a lot of people who are ill and stress is not what is killing them. It's the last thing we should be looking at." - May 14th ***************************************************************** 21 Strike on Nuclear Plants Threatened heraldsun.com: By JOHN J. LUMPKIN : Associated Press Writer May 13, 2002 : 5:33 pm ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence officials have received threats that terrorists will strike a U.S. nuclear power plant July 4, and are reviewing the information to determine whether it is reliable. The government is taking the threats seriously, though officials have preliminarily determined that the information is not credible enough to act upon, said officials familiar with the investigation. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the alleged plot to attack on America's celebration of independence is one of scores of threats filtering through U.S. intelligence and is not considered serious enough to formally warn the public or change the nuclear industry's already high level of alert. The threat received last week suggested that an unidentified Islamic terrorist group was planning to attack a nuclear power facility in the Northeast, officials said. It did not specify a target. Unlike some other recent threat information, the power plant threat did not come from Abu Zubaydah, the senior al-Qaida operational leader in U.S. custody. Abu Zubaydah's interviews with U.S. interrogators led a recent warning to banks, and heightened concerns al-Qaida was developing a radiation-spreading dirty bomb. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy Committee, said that while he didn't know if the threat was credible, it indicated that "al-Qaida is seriously targeting U.S. nuclear facilities for future attacks." He said he is urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take such steps as restoring a no-fly zone within a 10-mile radius of nuclear plants, federalizing the security force and conducting more extensive background checks of all plant employees. The Washington Times first reported the threat. Copyright 2002 Associated Press. ***************************************************************** 22 Nuclear test health risk probed BBC News | HEALTH | Tuesday, 14 May, 2002, [Nuclear explosion] Several surface tests were carried out Thousands of secret health records from a former Soviet republic have been sent to UK experts checking a link between nuclear testing and cancer. The previously secret archives are to be unravelled by researchers at the Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey. They are investigating whether hundreds of nuclear tests in a particular region of Kazakhstan may have affected the health of people living there. I hope this will provide local people with some answers to their worries Professor Anthony Swerdlow, Institute of Cancer Research There is already evidence that people exposed to radioactive fallout from surface nuclear testing are far more likely to pass on mutated genes to their children. From 1949 to 1989, 470 nuclear tests were carried out there, including 26 surface, 90 air and 354 underground explosions. Their combined power adds up to 17m tons of TNT. The UK investigators will be checking whether the area has a higher than expected level of infant mortality and deaths from cancer. [Map of nuclear test area] The affected town is in eastern Kazakhstan The researchers will examine 50,000 health records from people either in the town of Semipalatinsk, the closest community to the nuclear test site, 150km away, or a "control" community located elsewhere. These were gathered secretly by a Soviet medical institution referred to as "Dispensary No.4". Professor Anthony Swerdlow, who is leading the research project, said: "People there are understandably concerned to know whether their health has been adversely affected by the nuclear weapons testing in the area. "We now have the opportunity to investigate the legacy of the weapons testing on the Semipalatinsk population. "I hope this will provide local people with some answers to their worries." UN-funded The work is sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund - the UN General Assembly has declared the Semipalatinsk region a zone of special concern. Dr Kazbek Negmatovitch Apsalikov, of the Scientific Research Institute for Radiation Medicine and Ecology in Semipalatinsk, said: "We will be comparing health records for people living very close to the weapons testing site and records for people working further away to try to determine whether there are any differences related to the radiation from the nuclear explosions." The results from the study are expected to be published in three years time. ***************************************************************** 23 Nuclear Plant Threat Called Unreliable (washingtonpost.com) U.S. Does Not Issue New Alert for July 4 By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 14, 2002; Page A02 U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have received information suggesting terrorists are planning an attack July 4 on a nuclear power plant, but they do not consider the threat credible enough to warrant a new alert, authorities said yesterday. The information, developed within the past week, warned of plans to strike a nuclear facility in a region of the country that includes the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, a government source said. But authorities have deemed it to be of "questionable reliability" and described it as uncorroborated "third-hand information." The FBI, which has issued occasional security advisories to the operators of the nation's 103 commercial nuclear power reactors since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, did not put out notice of the latest threat, reflecting official doubts about its veracity. In recent weeks, the FBI has notified its 56 field offices about vague threats against shopping malls, supermarkets, restaurants and other places, but not nuclear plants. "We have not had, to date, a credible threat against a single, specific nuclear power plant in the United States," said William Beecher, director of public affairs for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC earlier ordered plants to step up security. The Washington Times first reported details of the threat yesterday. Many of the recent warnings have resulted from the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, a top al Qaeda lieutenant captured in Pakistan. Among other things, Abu Zubaida recently told U.S. interrogators that Osama bin Laden's network was working on a bomb that could disperse radiation. He also was the catalyst for a warning issued by the FBI last month that terrorists might target banks in northeastern and mid-Atlantic states. Sources said Zubaida did not provide the information about nuclear plants but declined to describe where it originated. Under a five-tiered alert system used by the Office of Homeland Security, officials have the flexibility to put specific regions or industries on higher alert levels, but that step has not been taken. The nation remains on a yellow, or elevated, state of alert, they said. "There's nothing particularly new here," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for Ridge. "We have known for some time that al Qaeda is interested in our nuclear facilities as well as other parts of our critical infrastructure." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 24 Nuclear attack threat real, U.S. senator says [The Globe and Mail] [/globeandmail.com] Democrat urges building of system that could check ships, trucks for hidden bombs By MIRO CERNETIG Tuesday, May 14, 2002 – Page A14 NEW YORK -- The destruction of the World Trade Center has been called the unthinkable. Now, New Yorkers are being urged to consider the cataclysmic: the possibility of a nuclear bomb being smuggled into their midst. Although there has been no indication such a threat is imminent, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who represents New York state, is warning that a nuclear attack could occur. He wants the federal government to build a system to screen the millions of shipping containers and trucks that enter the United States every year for nuclear bombs. "A large nuclear device can be smuggled into a large container, put on a ship overseas and brought here with no detection," Mr. Schumer told reporters on the weekend. "I've been to the intelligence briefings; I've talked to the experts; I've seen the data. And the only thing I can tell you is that when you learn about it, it chills you to the bone. New York is probably the most vulnerable spot, he said. "The good news is we probably have a year or two before any terrorist gets hold of such a device and smuggles it in," said Mr. Schumer, who is one of the Senate's senior members and an influential voice on border security issues. "The bad news is we're virtually totally unprotected against such a device." Mr. Schumer was speaking on Sunday as he began lobbying for his Anti-Nuclear Prevention Act, in which he says the U.S. government must spend $250-million to develop better radiation detectors. At present, about one in 100 containers entering New York is inspected, often with hand-held Geiger counters that need to be within a few metres of an object to work. The senator said a new generation of radiation sensors on the verge of development could sense nuclear materials at greater distances. He envisions them mounted atop the cranes that lift containers off ships and installed at Canadian and Mexican border checkpoints, giving the United States the ability to inspect everything entering the country. Discussion about the possibility of a nuclear attack on New York or another U.S. city, which could kill tens of thousands and make a metropolis uninhabitable, has become more commonplace since Sept. 11. New Yorkers were shocked two months ago when word leaked out that the U.S. government quietly investigated reports the previous fall that terrorists might have placed a portable nuclear bomb somewhere in their city. There is no doubt that the nuclear threat continues to occupy the minds of U.S. leaders. After Sept. 11, President George W. Bush was reportedly telling religious leaders at the White House that he worried about terrorists having radioactive weapons. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden later said his group has been attempting to build a nuclear bomb. That was given further credence when Pakistan, a nuclear power, arrested some key nuclear scientists it believed were working with Afghanistan's Talian regime. Vigilance is high not only at ports but at nuclear plants. Yesterday, U.S. officials said they were investigating a threat, reported last week, that Islamic terrorists might attempt to attack a nuclear power plant on July 4. Officials said they are taking the threat seriously but do not see it as credible enough to increase the plants' already high level of security. ***************************************************************** 25 State mulling bill to halt dumping of radioactive waste bakersfield.com - Local News By KERRY CAVANAUGH, Californian staff writer e-mail: kcavanaugh@bakersfield.com Sunday May 12, 2002, 11:17:35 PM Three years ago, when 2,164 tons of cement chunks and debris from a New York building used in developing the atomic bomb ended up in Buttonwillow, people were outraged. The material appeared to be radioactive waste. Yet the federal government sent it to a landfill built to handle hazardous waste, not radioactive waste, which takes millions of years to decay. A flurry of memos, letters, investigations and legislative hearings followed, but no action. Today the waste remains buried in Buttonwillow and state and federal regulators are still at odds over whether the debris belongs there. Now California legislators are reviewing a bill that would effectively ban future disposal of such radioactive waste in California. Buttonwillow hazardous waste landfill operator Safety-Kleen supports the bill -- in part to clear up the confusion that tangled the company in controversy for the past three years. "There's a gray area in the law and we learned the hard way how gray that area is," Safety-Kleen spokesman John Kyte said. He said the company followed the law in accepting the New York shipments. The company already decided it will no longer take waste from former nuclear sites. The Radiation Safety Act of 2002 makes that policy law. The measure, AB1623, was introduced by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, in February. Specifically, the bill would require all radioactive materials from former nuclear sites -- no matter how "hot," or radioactive, they are -- go to a licensed radioactive waste disposal site. South Carolina and Utah are the only states that have radioactive waste landfills. The bill also tackles a more mundane type of radioactive waste, called naturally occurring radioactive materials. This type of waste often covers rocks, soil and minerals, which contain some level of radioactivity. Excavation, mining or petroleum extraction can concentrate the material so the level of radioactivity is above background, or what is normally found in the area. The bill would send this type of waste generated by oil producers or miners to a hazardous waste disposal landfill, such as the one in Buttonwillow, rather than the county dump. For at least one oil company, the proposed law poses no problem. ChevronTexaco spokesman Greg Hardy said the company already pays to send its naturally occurring radioactive waste to hazardous waste disposal landfills. [http://discussion.bakersfield.com] Bakersfield Californian ***************************************************************** 26 Yucca Mountain hearing reset [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, May 14, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A Senate hearing on the Yucca Mountain Project originally scheduled for today has been rescheduled for May 22. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has invited Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn to explain his reasons for vetoing President Bush's designation of Yucca Mountain, northwest of Las Vegas, for a nuclear waste repository. The Senate is preparing to vote on whether to override Guinn's veto and approve the Nevada site. Two other Yucca Mountain hearings remain set. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is scheduled to speak Thursday, while a panel of scientists has been invited to testify May 23. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-14-Tue-2002/news/18742352. html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-14-Tue-2002/news/18742352 .html] ***************************************************************** 27 Physicians Group Opposes Yucca Mountain Shipments Environment News Service: AmeriScan: May 13, 2002 AmeriScan: May 13, 2002 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, May 13, 2002 (ENS) - A Nobel Peace Prize winning organization has created a series of television ads highlighting the dangers of transporting radioactive waste through Utah. Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) has joined a coalition of public health, environmental and civic organizations to oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump and its transportation scheme. The plan to store 77,000 tons of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, would bring the waste through 44 states and the District of Columbia. More than 90 percent of that waste would pass through Utah. The U.S. Senate will vote in July on whether to uphold Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn's veto of the proposed waste dump. Many view this vote as the final referendum on the Yucca Mountain project. PSR will be broadcasting television spots throughout the month of May, urging Utah Senators Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch, both Republicans, to support Guinn's veto. "Senators Hatch and Bennett have the power to stop hauling this dangerous waste through Utah, protecting the health and welfare of all Utahns," said PSR executive director and CEO Dr. Robert Musil. "Utah's citizens deserve better than to host thousands of tons of nuclear waste headed to Yucca Mountain on their highways and through their communities." Trucks transporting nuclear waste could become frequent sights on I-70 and I-15 and in cities like Salt Lake, Provo and Orem. Emergency response teams and the public health infrastructure in Utah and all across the nuclear waste route are ill prepared to handle a radioactive release, which could result from a terrorist attack or an accident, critics warn. "A conservative Department of Energy estimate claims that only 66 truck accidents or 10 rail accidents will occur over the span of Yucca Mountain's dangerous transportation scheme," said PSR board member and Salt Lake City pediatrician Dr. Louis Borgenicht. "Even one severe accident would cause up to 18,000 latent cancer deaths and cost over $17 billion to clean up. This is unacceptable to the people of Utah." "The people of Utah must urge their Senators to action," added PSR board member and Salt Lake City physician Dr. Clara Michaels. "By pursuing this reckless course of action, President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham are putting the interests of the nuclear industry above the health of millions of Utahns and tens of millions of Americans." Email the Environment Editor [news@ens-news.com] ***************************************************************** 28 Waste from weapons leaves U.S. with Herculean cleanup task KRT Wire | 05/13/2002 | [http://www.aberdeennews.com] BY SCOTT CANON Knight Ridder Newspapers HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION, Wash. - KRT NEWSFEATURES (KRT) - Ah, the burping underground waste tank, with its potential for catastrophic belches and never-ending cleanup bills. It reminds one of how making the most deadly of weapons makes the most deadly of garbage. The muck burping inside tank SY 101 - highly radioactive byproduct from the world's first atomic bombs - in eastern Washington shows how such weapons carry consequences to last 1,000 lifetimes. In a sense, our most fearsome munitions have backfired. A chemical weapons incinerator in Utah has accidentally hiccupped small doses of nerve agent from its smokestack. In one neighborhood of the nation's capital, World War I chemical munitions turn up regularly. South Carolina is dueling with the federal government about shipping in plutonium from the shuttered Rocky Flats weapons plant in Colorado. St. Louis is still tainted by nuclear weapons work from a half-century ago. The so-called Kansas City Plant, now run by Honeywell, harbors beryllium contamination even though it manufactured the non-nuclear parts of doomsday bombs. Although the United States is not the toxic cesspool of its Cold War rival, the former Soviet Union, no region in the country escapes the lingering dangers of the last century's advances in weaponry. Those hazards pose a herculean task put mostly to the same institutions that spoiled the environment in the first place. Critics say the Department of Energy - successor to the Atomic Energy Commission - is culturally capable only of weapons production and has proved inept at cleanup. They say the Army has been inflexible and lumbering in moves to destroy chemical munitions. "It's our hangover from the Cold War," said John V. Parachini, a weapons analyst for the Rand think tank. "The problem now," he said, "is that money for cleanup is not endless, and sometimes you just can't bend science." Even as American foreign policy focuses ever more intently on stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction abroad, U.S. agencies and their critics generally agree that this country has yet to figure out how to overcome the legacy of crafting its own weapons. A full accounting of the pollution continues to unfold at places such as Hanford where the urgency of World War II and the Cold War blotted out environmental worries - and record-keeping - through decades of breakneck production. Now any turn of a shovel can unearth surprise poisons. The consensus now is that cleaning up the killer filth of modern weapons will cost at least as much as it did to build the various warheads, and will take far longer. Legacy of a home front To explain how bomb-building created such a threat to the environment, experts inside and outside the government point to the military and political atmosphere of past generations. Consider a meeting 60 years ago last month in St. Louis. Albert Einstein had written to President Franklin Roosevelt about Germans and atom-splitting. That led Roosevelt to appoint Nobel-winning experimental physicist Arthur Compton as administrator of America's atomic bomb project. Over lunch, Compton pleaded with Edward Mallinckrodt of the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. to process uranium. Other chemical firms believed the work was too dangerous. Mallinckrodt signed on, and uranium refined in downtown St. Louis wound up in Enrico Fermi's reactor in Chicago. That gave America the know-how for the first atomic blasts in the New Mexico desert and the city-leveling bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. The St. Louis uranium refinery eventually moved to nearby Weldon Spring, Mo. Contamination there still lingers, gobbling up millions in cleanup costs. By current standards, nearly everyone concedes, materials were handled recklessly at Hanford; at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; at Los Alamos, N.M.; and at dozens of other often secret outposts involved in making nuclear bombs. The price of that carelessness has been varied. For example, in spring 2000 the federal government agreed to pay $520 million to 3,000 workers poisoned in nuclear weapons manufacturing and testing. In the 1940s and '50s about 440 billion gallons of contaminated liquid - enough to fill a pool the size of Kansas City nearly 7 feet deep - was poured into the ground of the remote and sprawling Hanford site in Washington. The worst liquid waste at Hanford - so radioactive that it could conjure up its own nuclear reaction and that it could soil the earth for thousands of years - went into double- and single-wall steel tanks not much different from those now seeping gasoline under service stations. Dozens of the tanks leaked. "People have told me they felt that as long they kept the materials on the reservation, as it were, that they were not presenting any risk to American citizens," said Richard Rhodes, author of "Dark Sun and The Making of the Atomic Bomb." "During wartime there's a different standard, and that applied to the Cold War," Rhodes said. "As long as this was all secret, and as long as the only responsibility was within the government, this was a non-problem because no one knew about it. ... "Of course they cut corners. ... It was a matter of juggling resources and the pressure to keep pace with the Russians." Hanford, among the biggest sites in the nuclear weapons assembly line, serves as a microcosm of the system's problems. Water that passed through nuclear reactors - the engines that played the first key role in transforming mined uranium into the plutonium triggers - cooled briefly in the open air before passing back into the Columbia River still mildly radioactive. For years, unnaturally high levels of radiation ran the length of the river and 150 miles into the Pacific Ocean, although by 1975 those abnormalities had retreated mainly to sloughs behind dams. Now the site is home to 2,100 tons of spent nuclear fuel and 4 tons of weapons-grade plutonium - the nastiest stuff ever made by man. Hanford has identified 1,500 waste sites, many surrounding its nine retired nuclear reactors. More than 100 square miles of groundwater at Hanford is contaminated, and officials are struggling with ways to contain it before it trickles into the Columbia and spoils a prime source of drinking water for the region. Attempts to corral the nuclear pollution show a spotty track record at Hanford. Take the burping tank, for instance. Officials hoped to make more room for highly radioactive waste in the tank - 500,000 gallons of mostly water - by using evaporation. But that prompted a buildup of hydrogen that could bubble up, or burp, in a way that threatened to set off a sustained nuclear chain reaction. So engineers installed a mixing pump to stir the contents of the tank and prevent those lethal belches. That formed a super=radioactive meringue. So engineers finally added water back in to dilute the mixture. The tanks have been Hanford's biggest problem. Of 177 on the site, leaks have been detected in 67 and blamed for the release of 1 million gallons of waste. Reluctance to clean The end of the Cold War and the subsequent years of the Clinton administration yanked the Department of Energy off its nuclear weapons assembly line and shoved a once-secret production complex into the glare of public view. People within the department point especially to a report published in 1997 called "Linking Legacies." For thousands of Department of Energy workers and their contractors, that report was their first explanation of where their jobs fit into the larger job of making nuclear warheads. And for the first time, the full extent of how America had built nuclear weapons and the full scale of the needed cleanup lay bare for the world to see. "Many people felt like it was a betrayal," said Mike Talbot, a department spokesman at Hanford. Work they'd been under orders for decades to keep secret now was public. And, because of the widespread pollution problems, it was embarrassing. "It took a while to adjust." In fact, the report's author, Clinton administration appointee James Werner, contends that the department and its contractors still have not warmed to the new job of cleaning up. "People just came to work with this hangdog attitude. They wanted to build nuclear weapons. They hated this cleaning stuff," Werner said. "They thought cleaning up," he said, "was for communists and sissies." In his book "Atomic Audit," Stephen Schwartz estimated the cost of building America's nuclear arsenal - absent the expense of so-called delivery systems such as silo-based missiles or bombers or submarines - at $409 billion in 1996 dollars. "The cost of cleaning up is going to be at least that much," he said. One reason the cost is so high, he said, is that the Department of Energy is ill-suited to the task. He criticized the pattern of hiring defense contractors to manage the cleanup who had built weapons. Werner likened the practice to hiring a man who pumps gas for the job of decontaminating soil ruined by leaking gasoline storage tanks. Schwartz noted the case of so-called Pit 9, an ad hoc dumping ground for radioactive material at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Energy Department hired longtime defense contractor Lockheed Martin to clean up an acre of soil. Only after erecting a building to cleanse the soil did the contractor realize the structure was too small for the necessary processing equipment. So the contamination remains, and the government is locked in a contract dispute. "It's typical of how the department does things," said Schwartz, editor and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "The culture of the institution just isn't geared to dealing with environmental problems." At Hanford's plutonium finishing plant, which made the radioactive metal buttons at the heart of bomb triggers, director Robert McQuinn concedes that the dismantling job evokes a different mood than the work of making something. "It is a little harder. All of us will be grieving when this place shuts down," he said. "But the plant is 50 years old. It's time for it to finish its mission." His staff today is as dedicated to shutting down and cleaning up safely, he said, as it was to arming the country for decades of nuclear standoff with the Soviets. "It's all, now and then, important work," he said. Solution is elusive Today Hanford has stopped making weapons. Instead it ranks as the largest environmental project in the country. It is not alone, however, and a solution of what to do with the myriad wastes remains far from certain. Some plans are settled. Already 103 nuclear reactors extracted from Navy submarines and surface ships in Puget Sound have traveled by barge up the Columbia to Hanford. There, emptied of their highly radioactive fuel, the 1,000-ton devices are lined up in a trench the size of several football fields, where they eventually will be buried. Other waste is far hotter to handle - in terms of placement on the periodic table and of politics. At the Rocky Flats plant near Boulder, Colo., workers for decades took plutonium delivered from Hanford and the Savannah River, S.C., sites to craft the pits at the core of warheads. It has been closed and is being taken apart. But for the contractor to meet its 2003 deadline to unload the plutonium pits there so that a fuller decontamination can begin, shipments must begin this month to South Carolina for conversion into fuel for reactors, federal officials say. That has put the Department of Energy at odd with South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges. The governor wants a promise in writing that if the weapons-to-fuel program fails, his state won't be stuck with the radioactive material. Last month state troopers practiced blocking deliveries to the Savannah River site. That ultimate disposal haunts everything about the nuclear weapons legacy. Construction has just begun at Hanford on a vitrification plant, an elaborate collection of buildings and equipment intended to convert volatile liquid wastes, pumped out of the leaking tanks, to relatively stable glass logs. Those logs, however, will remain highly radioactive for scores of centuries. They will probably go to Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas. The federal government has been studying a plan for years to store there the worst waste created by commercial nuclear power and military weapons. Nevadans have generally opposed the plan - teaming with environmentalists who fear small cracks in the mountain's granite could eventually carry radiation to water supplies. Sixty years ago everything about making nuclear weapons passed in a clandestine world. The work matched scientists against the laws of physics to unleash the power of the sun. In today's nuclear hangover, government is left to clean up the physicists' battlefield with a far more environmentally sensitive world watching. Said Rhodes, the author who has spent so much of his career studying the atom bomb: "Nothing about nuclear weapons or their disposal is easy." --- © 2002, The Kansas City Star. ***************************************************************** 29 Report: Nuke industry buying Yucca votes Las Vegas SUN May 14, 2002 By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- Another report by anti-Yucca Mountain activist group Public Citizen charges that campaign contributions from the nuclear energy industry are buying votes on the controversial nuclear waste project. Companies with nuclear energy interests gave senators and Senate candidates -- including Nevada's two senators -- about $5 million since 1997, according to a Public Citizen report released Monday. "Politicians bristle at the suggestion that their votes can be purchased by campaign contributions, but the money has an effect, or the industry wouldn't be handing out so much," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said. Nuclear industry officials say such accusations are unfair, in part because the group's report lumped together companies that have a wide range of interests, and some with little interest in the nuclear industry. For instance, Deloitte &Touche audits utility companies with nuclear interests, but it is a stretch to argue that the accounting firm gave money to buy votes in favor of Yucca Mountain, nuclear industry officials said. The firm gave senators and candidates about $500,000 since 1997. "For a lot of these companies, Yucca Mountain is a very minor issue," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top lobbying group. Only seven current senators have not received money from a nuclear-related company, according to Public Citizen. Nevada's senators, long adamantly opposed to Yucca Mountain and careful not to take nuclear money, appear on the Public Citizen list. Since 1997 companies with some sort of nuclear tie gave Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., $26,500; and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., $25,500, according to Public Citizen's analysis. According to the report, Reid's nuclear-related money came from Deloitte &Touche; Enron; General Atomics; General Electric, which designs and services nuclear plants; Public Service Electric &Gas, owner or co-owner of three nuclear plants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania; Edison International; AFL-CIO Building &Construction; Troutman Sanders; and PG, which owns a nuclear plant in California. Ensign got money from Deloitte &Touche; General Electric; Keyspan Energy; PG Enron, which has a subsidiary with nuclear waste stored in Oregon; and Winston &Strawn, a law firm that has lobbied for the industry. Ensign took $7,000 from Enron during the 1998 and 2000 campaigns, before the company was enmeshed in scandal, Ensign spokeswoman Traci Scott said. The money was spent and could not be given back, she said. He also took $1,000 from Winston &Strawn in 1998, three years before the firm quit its contract to complete legal work on the Yucca Mountain project amid allegations it had ties to the nuclear industry. Nevada officials alleged that was a conflict of interest. Ensign's campaign managers had tried diligently to filter out and reject any contributions that were tied to the nuclear industry, Scott said. "There is no way to know every tentacle and relationship that these companies have," Scott said. "(The contributions) in no way impact his fight to kill Yucca Mountain." Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen sounded a similar message, saying Reid was "above reproach" in his long-standing record of battling Yucca. At issue is the federal proposal to permanently bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nevada officials and environmental groups oppose the plan; the nuclear industry supports it. The House approved Yucca last week and the Senate is expected to vote by the end of July. A fierce lobbying campaign is being waged on both sides, but Nevada officials have lamented that the nuclear industry is outspending them by millions of dollars for powerful lobbyists and advertising. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 Dangerous Initiative: LLW tax The Salt Lake Tribune -- Tuesday, May 14, 2002 There is an initiative petition currently being circulated proposing a tax hike on low-level radioactive waste. Proponents insist the new taxes will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for public education and the homeless. Those affected by the proposed initiative say the new tax burden would be more money than they make each year. They claim they would be forced out of business, leaving hundreds jobless and taking millions of dollars of current tax revenue out of state coffers. Each side is accusing the other of doctoring numbers and lying about the facts. Although I'm sure the truth is out there, how are the voting citizens of Utah (roughly only a third of eligible voters in a non-presidential election year) supposed to detangle the knot of conflicting information and convoluted federal and state radioactive waste regulations that need to be understood to make an informed decision? Initiatives like these empower special interest groups to sidestep the legislative process. No debates will take place on this initiative. There will be no compromises and no accountability to the public afterward. Nothing as complicated as the tax code should be carried into law on the backs of misinformation and confusion. RYAN HAMILTON Salt Lake City © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 31 Default Nuclear Dumping Ground (washingtonpost.com) Tuesday, May 14, 2002; Page A20 An April 30 editorial noted that building a nuclear waste dump in the Nevada desert will not solve our waste problem. But its conclusion, that the dump should be built anyway, wrongly suggests that halting the Yucca Mountain project would end the search for viable long-term solutions. The editorial appears to be driven by a question popular among dump supporters: If we don't ship waste to Yucca Mountain, what will we do with it? The short-term answer is that it is safest being secured on existing nuclear plant sites or nearby. For the future, we must search for a solution based on science rather than nuclear industry clout. Incredibly, there has never been a rigorous scientific search for the best long-term options. Instead, the government has focused on just one site near one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation. Further, the site is too small for the projected waste, has been questioned by independent scientists and would require moving 77,000 tons of high-level waste over 25 years via truck, train or barge. Yucca Mountain has not been studied -- it has been targeted. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review a license application for the project, but it does not have the authority to address site suitability, the effect of nationwide waste transport or whether the government's rollback of environmental standards for Yucca Mountain approval undermines public safety. Congress should send this white elephant back to the drawing board. JOAN CLAYBROOK President, Public Citizen Washington © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 32 FCNL Action Alert on Nuclear Weapons Funding Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:15:39 -0500 (CDT) FCNL ACTION ALERT: OPPOSE FUNDING FOR NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MISSILE DEFENSE The U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider the FY 2003 military authorization bill during the week of May 20 (although the debate could be deferred to early June). At that time, senators may offer two amendments that should be OPPOSED. * A new nuclear weapons amendment would restore the $15.5 million the Senate Armed Services Committee cut for research into a new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon designed to target deeply buried underground bunkers (also known as a "bunker buster"). * A missile shield amendment would restore some or all of the $812 million the committee cut from the missile shield budget. ACTION: Contact your senators at their Washington office by phone, email, or fax. (For instructions on using FCNL's web site to send a message, see below.) Urge them to OPPOSE amendments to fund new nuclear weapons and so-called missile defense. Senate offices can be reached through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, from 9 am-6 pm EDT. During evenings and on weekends, most Senate offices leave their answering machine on for voice messages. USE FCNL'S WEB SITE TO MAKE LETTER-WRITING EASIER: Start with the sample letter posted in our Legislative Action Center, personalize the language, then send your message as an email or fax directly from our site. You can also print it out and mail it. To view a sample letter to your senators, click on the link below, then enter your zip code and click in the box. Here is the link: . BACKGROUND: The Senate Armed Services Committee completed its drafting of the military authorization bill during the week of May 9. Under the leadership of committee Chairman Levin (MI) and Strategic Subcommittee Chairman Reed (RI), the committee made several positive changes to the Administration's request of $393.4 billion for military spending. FCNL has posted extensive background material on its web site about nuclear weapons and so-called missile defense. For a list of documents, go to . The committee cut the Administration's request for $15.5 million to begin work on a new nuclear, earth-penetrating weapon (the so-called "bunker buster"). Sens. Bingaman (NM) and Reed took the lead eliminating this money. The committee blocked the funds because of growing uncertainty about the Administration's policy for the use of nuclear weapons. Members of Congress are, with increasing frequency, questioning the idea of developing "useable" nuclear weapons. The committee also cut the Administration's request for missile defense from $7.6 billion to $6.8 billion, a net reduction of $812 million. Most of the savings have been shifted to Navy shipbuilding programs. Some funding also went to improve security at U.S. nuclear facilities and other uses. Sen. Levin explained that the cuts were made because some missile defense programs were not adequately justified, others were duplicates, and some money could not be spent in FY 2003. Thanks for your help! David Culp Legislative Representative Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) P.S. I would appreciate it if you would forward this e-mail to your friends and contacts in your state. ***************************************************************** 33 Japanese team in Fiji to examine nuclear test veterans BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 13, 2002 A five-member delegation led by the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs is in Suva to conduct preliminary medical examinations on former Fijian sailors and soldiers who served in the British nuclear testing programme in the central Pacific in the late 1950s. Included in the delegation is a medical doctor with expertise in radiation illnesses, a survivor of the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and three anti-nuclear peace activists. Between 1957 and 1958, Britain conducted nine atmospheric nuclear tests on Christmas [Kirisimasi] and Malden islands in the central Pacific. Together with British and New Zealand troops, nearly 300 Fijian soldiers and sailors served in "Operation Grapple". Pacific News Bulletin editor Stanley Simpson said many of Fiji's nuclear tests veterans were suffering from a range of medical complaints they attributed to radiation exposure at the test sites... He said PCRC [Pacific Concerns Resource Centre] had gathered evidence that showed many of veterans were affected by serious illnesses, including aplastic anaemia, leucopoenia, lipomatous growths and psoriatic dermatitis - all could be related to radiation exposure. "This has been documented in the book `Kirisimasi', published by PCRC in 1999. The FNTVA [Fiji Nuclear Test Veterans' Association] has now extended this research to descendants and has been conducting a family medical study. The Japanese delegation will examine both the veterans and their descendants for illnesses attributed to radiation exposure," Mr Simpson said. He said the British government had so far refused any moral, legal and financial responsibility for the health impacts of the tests. "It is hoped that results from the examinations can be used as evidence in the veterans' fight for justice and recognition," he said. The delegation was officially welcomed by the FNTVA at Epworth Hall in Suva yesterday morning. They will be visiting Suva and Kadavu to conduct the examinations. Source: Fijilive web site, Suva, in English 13 May 02 /© BBC ***************************************************************** 34 Ireland: Ed: US. Russian Nuclear Agreement Irish Times; May 14, 2002 The agreement reached between the United States and Russia yesterday on reducing their nuclear arsenals reflects the balance of power between them. It must be seen in the context of the forthcoming agreement between NATO and Russia on new consultative mechanisms, the summit later this month between Presidents Bush and Putin in Moscow, and the NATO summit in Prague next autumn which will decide whether the alliance will enlarge to take in up to seven former Warsaw Pact states. According to yesterday's agreement nuclear warheads will be reduced to about one third of their current numbers, totalling up to 2,000 on each side. That is a significant contribution to bilateral and therefore to world security. Some of the conditions attached make this less credible, however. Thus the US is not to destroy all the redundant weapons, as sought by the Russians, but will store a large proportion of them, as the Pentagon lobby demanded. There is no agreement on the question of missile defence, to which Mr Bush is fully committed following US withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty. Nor does this pact clarify how the US intends to develop its nuclear policy against non-nuclear states or the use of battlefield nuclear weapons signalled in the Pentagon's new Nuclear Posture Review adopted last January. Such issues will be discussed further at forthcoming meetings and as an ongoing agenda. Next week in Reykjavik NATO foreign ministers will complete preparations for setting up a new NATO-Russia Council, intended to bring relations to a new level. It will deal with such questions as international terrorism and their mutual arms profile. The Pentagon successfully lobbied against giving Russia a veto in this new forum on NATO enlargement, which will be decided by the alliance in the autumn. The Russians still oppose NATO membership for the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It is important that they should have a forum to explain their objections. These new agreements signify a potential new relationship between Russia and its erstwhile antagonists. As President Bush said yesterday, they put an end to the legacy of the Cold War. All the more reason, therefore, that the new relationship should be based on equality and respect, rather than the unequal resources which currently characterise them. ***************************************************************** 35 Nuclear warheads still a threat - Italian daily BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 14, 2002 An Italian commentator has welcomed a joint USA-Russia decision to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, but warned about the threat coming from several other confirmed or suspect nuclear powers. The following is the text of a report by Ugo Tramballi headlined "Forgotten Arsenals" by Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore on 14 May: It is going to be very fashionable to start talking about the Cold War again this May, after a silence lasting almost 10 years. The major opportunities for doing so are going to consist of a summit meeting between NATO and Russia in Rome and of a meeting between the United States and the Russians in Moscow and in St Petersburg, in view of the issues that will be addressed and of the decisions that will be made in the course of those two meetings. We saw the prologue to all of this yesterday with an accord to cut the two former big-time global enemies' strategic arsenals by a further two-thirds. We are beginning to hear people talk again about nuclear warheads, about old enemies who have become friends, and about stability in Europe. In actual fact, people had almost forgotten that Armageddon nightmare which used to spread terror but on whose insane balance (namely the impossibility of anyone winning if all Hell broke loose) a stable continent-wide peace had been built up. Over the past decade people have been paying far more attention to the spread of small but real "local" wars: in the Balkans, with the slaughter in Africa, with Chechnya, the Israelis and Palestinians, [Iraqi President] Saddam Husayn, the 11 September that delivered terrorism right to the New Yorkers' front door, then Afghanistan, and then the Israelis and Palestinians all over again. A new generation of young Americans, Russians, and Europeans has grown up with, at best, no more than a fuzzy memory of the Cold War. The issues that have impacted their youth and growth are not ideological so much as the market, the quality of life, fairness, the quality of the environment, and the spirit of peace. But even though the legacy of that conflict may have gradually misted over in the minds of the peoples who were its victims, its instruments of war are still around and they can still be used: the Cold War may no longer be present in people's minds but it is still very much a presence in the arsenals. That is why, in making a decision to cut their nuclear warheads to 1,700/2,200 yesterday, Russia and the United States have taken another crucial step forward towards a saner world. The treaty "on strategic disarmament" is due to be signed by Bush and by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin in Moscow at the end of this month. Yet, however much the US President may be convinced that a decisive step was made yesterday to "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War," that legacy is still formidable. It would take far fewer than 1,000 nuclear warheads on each side to destroy the human race three or four times over. And ever since the United States and Russia ceased being enemies, the Western superpower and what is left of the Eastern one have proved incapable of preventing proliferation from continuing elsewhere. Since the end of the political Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has acquired: two guaranteed small nuclear powers, namely India and Pakistan; one probable one, namely North Korea; one on the way to becoming one, namely Iran; and one that could already be one, namely Iraq. None of these countries has an arsenal capable of destroying the world, but even just one of their bombs could set it alight, killing thousands. That is why it is no longer sufficient for the United States and Russia to achieve a full peace with each other, or for Europe to become stabilized once and for all from the Atlantic to Vladivostok by bringing Moscow into the democratic game. While the three leading players in yesterday's world (namely the United States, Russia, and Europe) may have closed a chapter in their history by bringing the Cold War to an end, they are still not offering a guarantee of peace for tomorrow's world. In the eyes of the remaining two-thirds of the human race, the world looks like a more unstable place today than it ever did in the past; and while it may not look decidedly poorer overall, it certainly looks very much unbalanced in terms of the distribution of wealth. What is needed at this juncture is far more than a treaty on strategic disarmament: once the important objectives of this May have been achieved, History with a capital H is going to continue from June on. Source: Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan, in Italian 14 May 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 36 Russia Gets Deal on Plutonium themoscowtimes.com Tuesday, May. 14, 2002. Page 5 Vedomosti U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced that NASA will renew purchases of plutonium-238 from Russia as part of Washington's efforts to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks, Prime-Tass reported Monday. The plutonium will be used to power NASA's spacecraft, Abraham said in Washington. The purchases will reduce Russia's stockpiles of enriched uranium, which the U.S. government fears terrorists may use to build a "dirty bomb," a device that scatters radioactive materials after exploding. Abraham said NASA will begin placing orders at once, while Nuclear Power Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said during talks on nuclear power cooperation in Washington that the first shipments were already on their way. The officials, however, declined to give the value of the deal or the amount of uranium that is to be purchased. Russian experts said 30 kilograms of plutonium-238 would cost a minimum of $10 million. The deal revives the Voinoi agreement, which is potentially worth $12 billion for Russia and aims to reduce the country's enriched uranium stockpile. Russian has earned some $2.5 billion from Voinoi since 1995, but plutonium deliveries were put on hold after U.S. President George W. Bush's administration came to power in January 2001. The U.S. government insisted that the plutonium is too expensive, and Russia agreed in February to reduce the price by about 15 percent. Abraham, meanwhile, announced U.S support for Russian isotope manufacturers that previously fulfilled orders under the Voinoi contract. Ivan Safronchuk, an expert with the Center for Military Information, said Russia will earn little more than a few tens of millions of dollars from the deal. He said that the United States also will try to dissuade Russia from working with Iran in the sphere of nuclear energy cooperation, which Safronchuk said has earned the country some $300 million. Plutonium has 15 isotopes with masses ranging from 232 to 246. Only two plutonium isotopes -- plutonium-238 and plutonium-239 -- have military and commercial applications. [http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 37 Braced for the hooligans, and nuclear attack by Murray Sayle. Fifty-seven years ago, Japan was preparing for a last-ditch stand against the "Devil English-Americans" poised to invade their islands. Ragged and hungry, Japanese made ready to fight us on the beaches with rusty swords and bamboo spears, farm tools and bottles of petrol. This time around the Americans won't be there - they play a different kind of football - but once again Japan, now high-tech and well-fed, is preparing to resist the old enemy in a new and baffling form - what Japanese police, radio and newspapers fearfully call "Engerish sokka hoorigans." Anyone who thinks that Japan, as co-host with South Korea of the World Cup finals due to kick off on 31 May, is taking the threat lightly hasn't watched Japanese TV lately. Night after night viewers have seen exciting sequences of the Japan riot police taking on other policemen pretending to be football hooligans who, for extra realism, wear white shirts with three red lions, wave Union Jacks and shout things like "WE VELLY TOUGH CHAPS" (after a gentlemanly protest by the British Embassy, the pretend hooligans now wear more varied outfits). The police, who script these shows, always win, of course. Last Saturday 1,600 riot police tested new tactics and equipment, including rocket propelled nets, plastic shields marked "Police" (in English) said to be capable of deflecting bullets and knife thrusts and clubs doubling as fire extinguishers in a dress rehearsal in Osaka, where England plays Nigeria on 12 June. On the day, Osaka stadium will deploy 11,000 riot policemen from all over Japan, the biggest concentration ever for a single event. (Some 8,500 tickets have been sold to England supporters). On Sunday police and firemen in Sapporo where England plays Argentina on 7 June practised combating nuclear fallout and anthrax attack, although critics point out that football hooligans have not so far used these weapons. "There's always a first time," the local police chief was quoted as saying, grimly. On Monday the Japanese coastguard held its first-ever drill against seagoing hooligans supposed to have hijacked a car ferry, after drinking too much while watching football on TV and smashing up the saloon. Coastguards with riot shields and clubs boarded the ferry from patrol boats while - showing the new thinking behind the drill - a helicopter hovered overhead, subduing the pseudo-hooligans with its fierce rotor downdraught. Are the Japanese over-reacting? And why have England fans been singled out as the specific danger? Simon Collier, a young trade and industry official and keen amateur footballer posted to the British Embassy in Tokyo as World Cup attachÈ (itself a world first for diplomacy) has issued a soothing "Advice to Traders" in Japanese explaining that the behaviour of British fans, "apart from a very few troublemakers", is more of a good-natured tradition than a menace to world peace. "Some supporters may be noisy and because of their size and number seem intimidating. But they should not be regarded as a threat," says the embassy document, widely distributed in Japan. "English supporters tend to move around in groups. Before a match they like to stake out a bar or area of a park or square, sometimes draping it with England flags. "They like to drink beer and sing songs to build up their sense of anticipation. Many will wear the England team shirt - they are proud of their country and want others to know it." Despite Rupert Brooke (a poet unknown in Japan) - "there is some corner of a foreign field that is forever England" - the embassy's handout reassures Japanese that the occupation will be only temporary. "After a match supporters tend to be tired after all the excitement of the match. They might go for one last drink to celebrate or commiserate and to analyse the game in great detail. But after that they will go back to their hotel to sleep. This is true whether England wins or loses." To help the day's play end happily, the embassy adds some wise advice: in Japan drinkers refill each other's glasses without being asked and get the bill as they leave, whereas the British prefer to pay round for round as they go along, a ploy Japanese bartenders might will adopt for the cup. Japan Air Lines, famous for free drinks on long flights, has decided that all its internal flights will be dry for the duration of the tournament. Why all this uneasiness, verging on sporting overkill? Quite simply, football hooliganism, even the fun kind, is unknown in Japan. True, there have been many street demonstrations - but over politics, not over games. These are rituals more than confrontations, and in 40 years there has been only one death, that of a policeman killed by a stone dropped from the bell-tower of Tokyo University in the anti-Vietnam era. Why anyone would save £600 and fly half-way round the world to risk, much less to enjoy a punch-up baffles Japanese academics and law officers. A study from the University of Aberdeen (where else?) widely read in Japan, suggests that hooliganism came before football, when the young men of the village gathered on the green to burn off excess adrenalin decided that it would be better to kick a ball rather than each other around. It may, therefore, be here to stay. But young Japanese much prefer calm, order and discipline, even in having a good time. Will Japan get its money's worth on TV? Pitted against Russia, Tunisia and Belgium, their footballers have little hope for the Cup. Their riot police, however, should make it 3-0 against world-class hooligans. Even ours. © Associated Newspapers Ltd., 14 May 2002 ***************************************************************** 38 Device at test site might be used to dismantle weapons [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, May 14, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Facility was used for pre-testing assembly By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- If the new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty leads the U.S. government to dismantle weapons, an apparatus at the Nevada Test Site could be used to accomplish that task, according to Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Hafen said a defense authorization bill approved last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee directs the Energy Department to study the possibility of using the Device Assembly Facility at the test site for the dismantlement of some or all nuclear weapons. The facility is a giant, earth-covered bunker built to assemble nuclear devices for testing. Located in the east-central area of the test site, about 85 miles from Las Vegas, it has been underused since the United States declared its moratorium on nuclear tests in 1992, according to the Project on Government Oversight. Test site spokesman Kevin Rohrer declined to comment. Lisa Cutler, spokeswoman for the National Nuclear Security Agency, which runs the test site, referred questions to the State Department. State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz referred questions to the Defense Department. The Defense Department declined to comment. Michael Levi, directors of strategic security at the Federation of American Scientists, said he does not think the treaty will have a direct effect on the test site. But Levi noted a defense bill approved last week by the House would establish reciprocal visits by scientists from Russia and the United States to the nuclear testing facilities in both countries. Levi said such reciprocal visits have not happened before, and could go a long way in building trust between the two countries. "The defense bill was crafted in an environment which anticipated this treaty," Levi said. "There are still at least parts of the Nevada Test Site that are very secretive, and these visits could provide great opportunities for more visits." But the United States is willing to go only so far, Levi said. If underground nuclear tests resume at the test site, it is doubtful scientists from Russia would be allowed to watch, he said. And Russia is more resistant to reciprocal visits than the United States is, Levi said. "Reciprocal visits are important because the United States and Russia need to cooperate so it will be easier for both countries to secure nuclear weapons materials from terrorists," Levi said. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-14-Tue-2002/news/18741822. html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-14-Tue-2002/news/18741822 .html] ***************************************************************** 39 U.S., Russia to Slash Nuclear Arsenals Environment News Service: By Cat Lazaroff WASHINGTON, DC, May 13, 2002 (ENS) - President George W. Bush announced this morning that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to cut their nuclear arsenals by more than 50 percent. The planned cuts were revealed within days of closed door Congressional briefings over Russia's alleged plans to resume nuclear testing, and less than two weeks before Bush's planned trip to Russia. President Bush made the surprise announcement this morning before boarding a plane for a planned trip to Chicago. [Putin & Bush] Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) and U.S. President George W. Bush at a meeting in the U.S. in November 2001. (White House photo by Eric Draper) "I'm pleased to announce that the United States and Russia has agreed to a treaty which will substantially reduce our nuclear arsenals to the agreed upon range of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads," Bush told reporters. "This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War." The United States now has about 7,000 strategic nuclear weapons, and Russia has about 6,000. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on targets for nuclear arsenal cuts in principle last year. Diplomats from both nations have been working out the details of the agreements for the past year. President Bush had initially proposed an informal agreement, rather than a formal treaty that must be approved by the Democratically controlled Senate, but the U.S. ultimately agreed to the more binding formal treaty. Bush and Putin plan to sign the agreement on May 24, during a trip by Bush to Russia. "When I sign the treaty with President Putin in Russia, it will begin the new era of U.S.-Russian relationships," Bush said today. "The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security, and improved relations." [Mushroom cloud] Mushroom cloud from weapons test at the U.S. Nevada Test Site, 1953 (Photo courtesy The High Energy Weapons Archive) When Putin learned of the agreement today, he said Russia is "satisfied with the joint work" that culminated in the treaty. "Without the interested, active position of the American administration and the attention of President Bush, it would have been difficult to reach such agreements." Putin added. The treaty will help President Bush fulfill one of his campaign pledges, to cut the nation's nuclear arsenal and modernize U.S. defensive strategies and systems. After taking office, Bush directed the Pentagon to review areas where nuclear weapons stockpiles could be reduced. Since the end of the Cold War, both nations have been looking at ways to save money by cutting stockpiles, reducing arms storage and security needs. In 1997, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union signed a treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, known as the START treaty, that began a round of cuts in each country's nuclear arsenals. The START II treaty, signed in 1997, required that each nation cut their stockpiles to between 3,000 and 3,500 strategic weapons by 2004. That same year, then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed in principle on a third round of formal arms reductions that would have reduced those numbers to between 2,000 and 2,500. The treaty announced today, which has not yet been named, will make even deeper cuts, leaving each country with between 1,700 and 2,200 nuclear weapons. Details of the treaty, such as which missile types will be reduced the most, have not yet been announced. "This is good news for the American people today," Bush concluded. "It'll make the world more peaceful, and put behind us the Cold War once and for all." [missile] The Bush administration's planned nuclear missile shield would use weapons like this LGM-30 Minuteman to seek out and destroy nuclear weapons launched at the U.S. by hostile nations or by terrorists. (U.S. Air Force photo) However, the pact will not end all areas of disagreement between the two countries on nuclear issues. Last year, Bush announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow the U.S. to develop a missile defense system, a proposal that Russia opposes. And last week, some members of Congress were briefed on intelligence reports that suggest that Russia may be planning to resume nuclear testing. The "New York Times" reported that selected House and Senate members met in closed door sessions with administration officials regarding an analysis by the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee. The analysis suggests that activities on the island of Novaya Zemlya, a Russian test range and research area above the Arctic Circle, may be preparations for nuclear tests. Such tests would be a violation of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. has signed but not yet ratified. President Bush has said the pact would not protect the national security. Russian scientists and political officials have said the work done at Novaya Zemlya aims to confirm the readiness and reliability of existing weapons, not to create new weapons. The U.S. performs similar research regularly at the Nevada Test Site. [Novaya Zemlya] A ship off the coast of Novaya Zemlya, one of Russia's nuclear research and testing sites. (Photo by Thomas Nilsen, courtesy Bellona [http://www.bellona.no/] ) An amendment to the Defense Department 2003 budget bill, passed by the House last week, would authorize the U.S. to develop a new class of nuclear warheads, and establish an exchange program in which Russian scientists could visit the Nevada Test Site, and U.S. scientists could visit Novaya Zemlya. On Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov again denied that Russia plans to resume nuclear testing on Novaya Zemlya. In an interview aired Sunday on state controlled ORT television, Ivanov responded to concerns raised by the "New York Times" article and U.S. Congress members, stating, "Unfortunately such statements often emerge from Congress for no reason at all." "Russia is demanding that the U.S. administration clarify the reason for such declarations, if we are to have new strategic relations based on mutual trust and respect," Ivanov added. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 40 Bush US-FSU non-proliferation budget is in, but will it be enough? MOSCOW - In a world more keenly aware of the threats of easily attainable radioactive materials than ever before, the Bush administration's 2003 budget request for non-proliferation and security projects in the Former Soviet Union is seen by many as modest when measured against the US President's apparently stalwart commitment to world security. This is the first article in a periodic series examining proposed US funding for non-proliferation programs in the Former Soviet Union for 2003. Charles Digges, 2002-05-13 22:51 The administration's overall 2003 funding request for these programs — which are led by the US Departments of Energy (DoE), Defence (DoD) and State — is $957 million, according to the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council (RANSAC), who late last month released its analysis of the Bush non-proliferation budget request. When compared to the regular congressional appropriation for these activates, the Bush request represents a modest increase of $149 million. This request, however, is approximately $57 million less than the total funding approved by congress in 2002 where post-Sept. 11 supplemental funding is included in the totals, the RANSAC report said. The administration budget request is already passing through the hands of the House of Representative's Armed Services Committee (HASC), which has proposed a number of corrections to accommodate administration requests for Homeland defence. The bashful increases in the Bush non-proliferation request and the competing requests for Homeland defence would seem to reflect the US president's ambivalence to funding many of these non-proliferation programs — particularly the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (CTR), or Nunn-Lugar. In April, the administration, informed Moscow in a state department cable that it would not certify CTR and State Department non-proliferation programs in Russia — effectively grinding many of them to a halt. At issue, said American officials, was Russia's reluctance to admit to Soviet-era stocks of extremely lethal nerve gasses that, under CTR, are subject to destruction. Russia responded angrily that it had not breached the agreement. The non-certification, as spelled out by the State Department cable, did not affect the millions of dollars of non-proliferation aid offered through the US Department of Energy (DoE). But CTR, which is run by the US Department of Defence (DoD), and the State Department, are thus far required by US law to receive yearly re-certification verifying the Russian "commitment" to fulfilling its treaty obligations. As of last week, however, the US House of Representatives began discussing two bills that would give the US president power to waive the certification requirements for CTR and similar programs, if the funding is deemed important to US security, the Associated Press reported. It is doubtful, however, say State Department officials, that the waiver will be ready in time for the May 23-26 summit between Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Funding request for DoE On the whole, the DoE is requesting $1.13 billion for non-proliferation projects. But "Analysis" author Willaim Hoehn cautioned in an email interview that this figure corresponds to a number of non-proliferation activities, including many things that are not directly related to non-proliferation programs on the ground in Russia. For example, this budget item would fund activities related to US fissile material disposition, ensuring operational safety of Soviet reactors, and non-proliferation research and development in DoE labs. The administration requested for DoE non-proliferation programs in Russia and FSU states, therefore, is approximately $420 million. This represents a slight increase over 2002 congressional appropriations — including supplemental requests — and about a 48 percent increase when those supplemental requests are excluded, the report said. However, this larger increase is somewhat deceiving because it includes $49 million in new funding for a project that has been transferred to the DoD's CTR program, the report said. Nonetheless, the report said that major budget increases are proposed for DoE efforts to dispose of excess plutonium in Russia, improve FSU export controls and dismantle nuclear warheads. The report also noted that programs designed to improve security over nuclear materials and naval warheads and to create peaceful employment for weapons scientists "were adequately funded compared to prior budgets, but not at a level equal to last year's final appropriation. Funding request for the DoD/CTR Funding for DoD non-proliferation efforts also grew by about 4 percent to approximately $428 million, according to the RANSAC report. Nearly all of this funding — $417 million — is requested for CTR activities. CTR's request for 2003, the report said, is up by approximately $16.5 million over last year's request. This request, however, would have been much higher were it not for the transfer of a $46 million project to end Russian weapons-grade plutonium production to the DoE, said the report. Most of the major increases in CTR programs, the report said, are in Russian nuclear weapons transportation security, chemical weapons destruction, and biological weapons proliferation prevention. Funding request for the state department Requests for the State Department's activities remained relatively stable when compared to 2002 appropriations before supplemental funding is considered: approximately $109 million proposed in 2003 versus $113 million provided in regular appropriations in 2002, the report said. The State Department's Science and Technology Centre, biological weapons redirect, and export control and border security programs all received boosts in the supplemental appropriation, however, so the overall State Department funding for weapons of mass destruction funding activities in the FSU is down by $76 million, or 41 percent, from total funding provided in 2002. It is not enough Despite Bush's eventual agreement to boost funding — as evidenced by the slight overall increase in non-proliferation funding requests — and the nearly assured passage of a certification waiver it requested of congress for programs like CTR, many non-proliferation advocates in Washington are dismayed by what they see as virtually no increase in spending at all. Most vocal among these critics has been former US Senator Sam Nunn, who in 1991, with Senator Richard Lugar, crafted the Nunn-Lugar, or CTR, program. Currently, Nunn co-chairs with American media mogul Ted Turner the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a Washington-based NGO devoted to the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Last week, Nunn sharply criticized Bush for not requesting an increase in funding for non-proliferation project in Russia. "Even as the administration seeks increases of tens of billions for fighting terrorism, for homeland security and for developing a missile defence system, it seeks no increase for efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists," he was quoted last week as saying by the Global Security Newswire (GSN), which publishes on NTI's website. Nunn told GSN that the Bush administration has requested $65 billion for the war on terrorism and for so-called homeland security measures in the United States — a figure Nunn said is more than three times what was requested for the Gulf War. In his statements to GSN, Nunn argued that the greatest threat to US security is posed by terrorists armed with crude radiological or nuclear weapons. As Bellona Web reported last week, the creators of a comprehensive new database at Stanford University that tracks the smuggling of radioactive materials deemed FSU a "supermarket" for would be nuclear terrorists. Indeed, securing funding for Russian non-proliferation programs has been an uphill battle under this administration. The amount requested for 2003 is roughly equal to the $1 billion approved for 2002. But according to Nunn, in his statements to GSN, even reaching last years figure required congressional intervention. Last year, the administration only requested $745 million for threat reduction programs — a decrease of about $100 million, Nunn said, according to GSN. Congress had to add $257 million to reach last year's financial appropriation of $1 billion, Nunn told GSN. Cuts proposed But even as former Senator Nunn levelled his critique at the generous sums Bush requested for Homeland security, the US House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee (HASC) was on its way to fashioning a bill that would grant those sums — partly at the expense of the DoE 2003 non-proliferation projects. According to a RANSAC congressional Update issued May 8, the Homeland Security the legislation would cut, though, $39 million from the administration's $1.13 billion request for Energy Department nuclear non-proliferation programs, citing in part nearly $60 million in "unobligated balances" from the current fiscal year intended for eliminating weapon-grade plutonium in Russia. A $10 million reduction would be made in the DoE's Russian plutonium disposition program from $98 million to $88 million, and $4 million would be added for US fissile materials disposition. The program to eliminate Russian plutonium production would be reduced by $30 million, from $49 million to $19.3 million. In those DoE programs that do not take place in Russia, other cuts were suggested by HASC, specifically in the DoE's international safety programs, which would lose $3 million from the requested $146 million. CTR remains untouched Funding for CTR programs was fully authorized, at $416.7 million, RANSAC reported. However, only $50 million of the $133.6 million requested for the CW destruction facility was approved, with the $83.6 million balance being redirected to Russian strategic offensive arms elimination, strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine, and Russian warhead storage and transportation security. The committee's report cited concerns Russia is not living up to its Chemical Weapons Convention commitments, GSN reported. It approved, however, a provision to allow the president to allow Cooperative Threat reduction funding to continue by waiving a requirement to certify Russia is complying with all relevant arms control agreements. The committee recommended a provision to express as the sense of Congress that Russian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, items and know-how to Iran and other countries of concern "represents a clear threat to U.S. national security and vital interests," GSN reported. With the completion of the HASC mark-up, both the Administration's budget-requests for US-Russian non-proliferation programs and the Homeland Defence requests will be voted on by the House of Representatives. Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President: [frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 41 Fiji's nuclear soldiers suing British government Go Asia Pacific Breaking News Pacific - A number of former Fiji soldiers who attended nuclear tests on Christmas Island are reportedly suing the British Government for misleading them. From 1956 to 1958 Britian conducted atmospheric nuclear tests on the island, now part of Kiribati. At the time, Fiji was a British colony and soldiers from Fiji, as well as Australia and New Zealand, took part in the tests. The Fiji Times newspaper says the Fiji soldiers filed their case before the British High Court. A Japanese atomic illness specialist, Tomoharu Saito, is in Suva to carry out preliminary tests on the Fijians who went to Christmas Island. Doctor Saito wants to determine the intensity of radiation in relation to the sicknesses the veterans contracted. 14/05/2002 19:26:10 | ABC Radio Australia News ***************************************************************** 42 AU: Fijians sue over N-tests: report news.com.au - [14may02] FORMER Fiji soldiers who were at nuclear tests on Christmas Island are suing the British government for misleading them, the Fiji Times reports. In 1956 to 1958 Britian conducted atmospheric nuclear tests on the island, now known as Kiritimati and part of Kiribati. Fiji was a British colony at the time and soldiers from Fiji, as well as from Australia and New Zealand, took part in the tests. The newspaper said the Fiji soldiers had filed their case before the British High Court. A Japanese atomic and hydrogen bomb illness specialist, Doctor Tomoharu Saito, is in Fiji conducting preliminary tests on the Fijians who went to Christmas Island. He wants to determine the intensity of radiation in relation to the sicknesses the veterans contracted. The Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, which bought Saito to Suva, said it was fortunate to be assisted by the Japanese. Centre spokesman Stanley Simpson said the Fijians involved had endured much suffering and wanted to be compensated. He said the veterans' case was also being heard in the European Court of Human Rights. Agence France-Presse ***************************************************************** 43 Oak Ridge nuke waste landfill to be dug up, relocated KnoxNews: Sci/tech By FRANK MUNGER May 13, 2002 Workers will begin digging up an old nuclear waste landfill on the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge reservation next month. The intent is to remove a pollution source that's contaminating the groundwater about a mile west of the East Tennessee Technology Park, a former uranium-enrichment plant. Although there apparently is no immediate health threat, officials are concerned that migrating pollutants could enter local creeks and ultimately reach the Clinch River and downstream intakes for drinking-water supplies. "The potential is there. If left unremediated, it could cause some human health problems," said John Lea, project manager for Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Energy Department's environmental contractor in Oak Ridge. The biggest concern is trichlorethylene, an industrial solvent that is toxic and possibly carcinogenic. Radioactive materials - such as uranium and technetium - are present as well. An extensive sampling effort has shown that beryllium, a toxic metal linked to respiratory illnesses, was buried in some waste pits, and cleanup workers will have to wear protective respiratory equipment during certain operations. For many years - stretching from the late 1940s to the mid-1970s - hazardous wastes from the plant's uranium-processing operations were dumped into a series of 62 pits and 26 trenches. "We have disposal records that we estimate are about 75 percent complete," Lea said. "We took 210 samples (last year) to further delineate what's in there, and we feel fairly confident we know what's in each pit and trench." The Energy Department plans to spend about $14.5 million over the next 18 months to dig up the one-acre landfill and transport 20,000 cubic yards of waste to a modern disposal facility several miles away near the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. The protective liners currently used in landfills were not used at K-1070-A, so the nuclear and chemical wastes were spread by rainwater that regularly infiltrated the burial yard. (Contact Frank Munger of The Knoxville News-Sentinel in Tennessee at http://www.knoxnews.com.) The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Oak Ridge could help with nuclear weapons cut The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 10:18 a.m. on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Oak Ridge is expected to play an important role in a new U.S.-Russian treaty to slash both sides' nuclear arsenals. U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District, said he has already discussed the issue with Gen. John Gordon, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration -- the quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons complex. "There's no question that nonproliferation activities are going to keep us busy in the United States for some time," Wamp said Monday afternoon. "I'm very optimistic that there will be an Oak Ridge role." The treaty is expected to be signed May 24 when President Bush visits Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. It would limit each country to 1,700 to 2,200 long-range nuclear warheads apiece by 2012. That's two-thirds less than now allowed by the START I treaty. Once the agreement is OK'd, Wamp said the dismantlement efforts and the nonproliferation activities will begin. The United States now has about 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons, while Russia has around 5,500. "A lot of that work could and should come to Oak Ridge," the congressman said. "I'm excited. Gen. Gordon said he felt like it would clearly enhance our mission strength in Oak Ridge in the years to come." The Y-12 National Security Complex plays a dual role when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Oak Ridge plant produces new parts for existing weapons and dismantles parts from retired warheads. Officials with BWXT Y-12, which manages the weapons plant, and with DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office declined to comment on any local involvement under the new treaty. However, Ralph Hutchison, coordinator with the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, described the new treaty as a step in a good direction. "It's a mixture of hope and concern," said Hutchison, whose group has been vocal for many years about the dangers of nuclear weapons. While it's positive that the nuclear arsenals would be cut by the treaty, Hutchison said the threat still exists as long as the weapons are being built. He said his group will continue to promote its "stop the bombs" message. For awhile now, Oak Ridge has been actively involved in several programs to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons through the Center for International Threat Reduction. The local institution, which is affiliated with Y-12, develops and coordinates domestic and international programs aimed at reducing threats -- internal and external -- to the United States from weapons of mass destruction. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 45 'Nuclear generation is the only credible carbon-free option' says BNFL's Chief Executive Norman Askew PR Newswire - USA; May 14, 2002 Commenting on today's Government announcement launching a consultation into the UK's future energy policy, BNFL's Chief Executive Norman Askew said: "Nuclear generation is safe, secure, environmentally friendly and cost effective. We will use the consultation as an opportunity to re-state this overwhelming case." "Nuclear generation is the only credible secure solution to the challenge of achieving real and lasting reductions in CO2 emissions. We need to have the debate but we also need to act. The right policy framework must be created to bring nuclear to the marketplace. If we are to begin to replace the UK's nuclear generating capacity in 10 years action is needed today, not tomorrow." BNFL believes that in order to meet our environmental commitments we need nuclear and renewable generation together as part of a balanced energy mix. Delivering 20% of the UK's generation needs with renewables is a challenging target. Even if it is achieved, the environmental impact in terms of CO2 emissions will be, at best, neutral unless there is replacement nuclear capacity. Since publication of the PIU report in February 2002, another nuclear reactor has reached the end of its operating life. By 2010 all of BNFL's Magnox Stations will have ceased to operate (currently supplying 5% of the UK's electricity) and by 2020 almost all of the UK's nuclear generating capacity will be gone (around 25% of the UK's electricity). Then the UK may be reliant on importing up to 80% of the gas it needs to meet the growing demand for electricity if action is not taken. Contact: For further information contact Paul Vallance or Janine Claber, BNFL Media Affairs on 01925 834075/2146 ***************************************************************** 46 Russia does not cooperate with USA in developing spacecraft with nuclear power units Pravda.RU May, 14 2002 The Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia has refuted the reports by some mass media on cooperation between Russia and the USA in the development of spacecraft with nuclear power units for the purposes of anti-missile defence. As the information of the Atomic Energy Ministry's department for interaction with the bodies of state authority and information policy, received by RIA Novosti, says, some mass media reported that "during the visit of Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev to the USA an accord was allegedly reached on cooperation between Russia and the USA in developing spacecraft with nuclear power units for the anti-missile defence purposes and on deliveries of 'highly-enriched uranium-238' from Russia to the USA for these purposes." "This information contradicts reality," the document stresses. As the Atomic Energy Ministry officials noted, "an accord on deliveries by Russian enterprises of a plutonium 238 isotope which is used for making on-board sources of energy of civil space vehicles was reached" during Rumyantsev's visit. Implementation of the accord is of commercial and scientific interest for both sides, the Ministry officials emphasized. Such deliveries of a plutonium 238 isotope were carried out earlier, too, but were discontinued, and for this reason the matter concerns only resumption of cooperation between Russia and the USA in this field, the press service of the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry noted. © RIAN Pravda.RU: ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************