*****************************************************************
02/15/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.40
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 UK: Nuclear power may still have a future ;Size of its role will 
2 UK: Nuclear power still has part to play in new energy policy 
3 UK: Nuclear industry must overcome the fear factor 
4 UK govt does not rule out new nuclear power stations being built 
5 Russia relaxes terms for nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine 
6 Lack of funds delays scrapping of 98 Russian nuclear submarines 
7 US: Bush moves to tighten security at N-reactors
8 UK: Energy plan puts onus on 'low carbon' economy                  
9 US: Bush Pushes Nuke Plant Study Money
10 US: Bush administration wants to study feasibility of building new n
11 Scotland fired up to become Europe’s leader in green energy 
12 US: Board faults Green Mountain Power for late power market study 
13 UK backs renewable energy over nuclear 
14 US: Plymouth Town meeting asked to send nuclear message
15 Britain's energy policy is a welcome contrast to Mr Bush's dismal ef
16 US: Energy Secretary Abraham Unveils Nuclear Power 2010; 
17 US: Nuclear power plant on DOE land proposed
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
18 Azeris raise issue of Armenian nuclear plant in Council of Europe 
19 Armenian nuclear plant workers receive October salaries 
20 Millions in need of aid 16 years after Chernobyl: report
21 US: U.S. tightens nuclear security
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
22 Monitoring stations on the Saudi border to check nuclear leakage
23 US:  New York nuclear power plant is leaking small amount of radioac
24 US: Georgia not stockpiling iodide 
25 US: Westchester County Asks State for Pills to Block Radioactivity E
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
26 Le Monde Dipl.: Russia's nuclear sewer 
27 US: Bush 's recommendation on Yucca Mountain is not based on sound s
28 US: Yucca: AV meeting focuses on tainted groundwater
29 Russian nuclear plant set to open training centre for waste 
30 Russia to take back spent fuel from nuclear stations abroad 
31 US: D.C. Protest over n-waster transport plans
32 US: Nuclear waste site choice criticized
33 US: Bush Approves Recommendation of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for 
34 US: Reid: Time for Bush to show he is 'man of his word'
35 US: Bush to approve recommendation to use of Nevada's Yucca Mountain
36 US: Nevada officials call on Bush to ignore nuclear recommendation
37 US: Yucca Mountain, Capitol events spotlight nuclear waste battle
38 US: Bush to OK Nevada Nuclear Dump Site
39 US: EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain: the next phase
40 US: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Decision on waste goes to Bush
41 US: Pro-dump lobbyists tour Yucca Mountain
42 US: Impact report favors rail routes
43 US: Presidential Letter to Congress endorsing Yucca Mt.
44 US: Yucca Mountain Presidential Press Statement
45 US: Yucca Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
46 Russia soon to be flooded with nuclear waste!
47 US: Bush OKs Yucca Mountain waste site
48 US: Nuclear fuel plant waste linked to tainted Jefferson County well
49 Eleven Irish arrested at Sellafield protest
50 US: Bush will OK Nevada location to store tons of nuclear waste now 
51 US:   Environmental officials to clean up hazardous clock-making sit
52 US: Secretary Abraham Recommends Yucca Mountain Site To President 
53 US: Nevada Nuclear Waste Site Recommended to Bush
54 US: Yucca: Statutory Materials Supporting the Recommendation
55 US: Bush will OK Yucca Mountain for storage of tons of stored nuclea
56 Protesters held after blockade outside Sellafield 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
57 Why I was proud to join the protest against Faslane’s nuclear arsena
58 Right to have A-bomb: Those who fear the Islamic A-bomb, 
59 US: Nuclear warhead proposal denounced
60 UK joins nuclear test in Nevada 
61 US: Subcritical nuclear experiment achieves aims
62 India to maintain nuclear testing moratorium - foreign minister 
63 US: Fallout Shelters Fall Short in U.S.
64 US: Senate Democrats Fault Bush Nuclear (Weapons) Plan 
65 U.S., Britain Conduct Joint Nuclear Test 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
66 DOE firms up promise on Flats
67 Bush's Hanford budget inadequate, insulting
68 Cantwell questions nuclear cleanup funds
69 Energy official: Aging test site workers a concern
70 City seeks $12K monthly to lobby 
71 Screening approved for OR Reservation site
72 Opinion: A shared desire for environmental cleanup results 
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
73 A potentially Nobel-prize winning discovery. Or maybe not
74 Soviet Nuclear Weapons Designer Dies
75 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 2001 DC Days

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 UK: Nuclear power may still have a future ;Size of its role will 
depend on the success of renewable sources 

The Herald (United Kingdom); Feb 15, 2002

Nuclear power still may have a future role in fulfilling the UK's 
energy needs, although only if renewables and energy efficiency 
drives fail to live up to their promise, or imported gas supplies 
become politically insecure.

The long-awaited energy review commissioned by Tony Blair from 
the cabinet's performance and innovation unit, yesterday refused 
to close the nuclear door while, at the same time, offered the 
nuclear industry little comfort in terms of future public 
support. It also called for a wide-ranging public debate on the 
acceptability of nuclear power and, in particular, the deadly 
waste it produces.

However, nuclear's future will depend on the success of the 
current drive for wind, wave and tidal power which could make 
Scotland the ''renewable energy capital of Europe'', according to 
Brian Wilson, the energy minister.

Mr Wilson said Scotland in particular was ''well-placed to win 
thousands of jobs from these industries.''

The minister, who chaired the advisory group on the review, 
pointed to how Britain, once at the forefront of wind power, had 
slipped back and missed out on being at the cutting edge of the 
industry.

He explained that 20 years ago the UK had the lead in wind power, 
but ''the whole thing was thrown away'' by the lack of a domestic 
market and a lack of policy direction from government.

The Danes ''picked it up'' and as a result now had an industry 
worth (pounds) 4bn that employed 15,000 people, he said.

Mr Wilson flatly rejected claims by Greenpeace that he encouraged 
the energy review team to back nuclear at the expense of 
renewables, describing the suggestion as a ''calumny and 
offensive to the PIU''.

The Scottish Executive welcomed the review's positive tone, 
pointing to the extraordinary goldrush now taking place as 
companies push into the wind energy market. Scotland is already 
on course to generate 18% of electricity from renewable sources 
by 2010, officials said, and could even reach 28% by 2020 on 
present trends.

About 12% of Scotland's electricity at present comes from 
renewable sources, mostly hydro.

To meet the executive target of 18% by 2010 requires an extra 6%, 
or 1000 megawatts - about 700 to 800 new wind turbines. But new 
developments for wind power plants in Scotland amount to three 
times that total, said executive sources, with 26 new projects in 
the process of being submitted for consent to Scottish ministers.

Mr Wilson contended that on renewables, Britain started from ''a 
pathetically low level'' and that the industry had only been 
taken seriously in the UK very recently.

''We still have a situation where two-thirds of projects approved 
under the non-fossil fuel system have never happened because of 
planning objections, or the finance cannot be raised, or 
whatever. We need to facilitate the translation of projects into 
reality in a way that has never happened before,'' he said.

Friends of the Earth Scotland said that although the nuclear door 
had been left open for the future, there was not enough incentive 
for more nuclear power in Scotland.

''The energy review is not providing for the huge subsidies and 
favourable conditions that the nuclear industry wants,'' said FoE 
Scotland's Kevin Dunion. ''Renewables are coming down in price, 
making nuclear too expensive. In any case, it is up to the 
Scottish ministers to approve any planning application, and the 
executive has made it clear that it sees no prospect of new 
nuclear until the radioactive waste disposal issues are resolved, 
which will take many years to achieve.''

The review squandered the enormous opportunity to deve-lop 
Scotland's renewable energy resources, while pandering to the 
nuclear industry, claimed the Scottish Greens.

They said the target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 proposed by 
the review was far too conservative, given that the existing 
target in Scotland is 18% by 2010. ''This lack of vision means 
that the development of emerging renewable technologies - such as 
wave and tidal power - that could substantially benefit Scotland, 
will be severely hindered,'' Robin Harper, MSP, said.

In the interim, Mr Blair underlined that ''both security of 
supply and climate change issues are truly international'' as 
George W Bush, the US president, who abandoned the Kyoto Protocol 
last spring, unveiled his alternative to the global warming pact.

Mr Bush wants American businesses to voluntarily track and reduce 
their output of greenhouse gases, and is prepared to offer an 
array of tax incentives for corporations, farms and individuals 
to do so. Dr Ute Collie, of the WWF, said: 

''President Bush must have his head in a bucket if he thinks this 
is going to reduce climate change.''

The PIU report makes clear that the UK cannot act alone, and says 
that although the UK will have to make large cuts in greenhouse 
gases over the next century, there ''is little sense in doing so 
and incurring large costs that harm our competitiveness if other 
countries do not take the same action''.
*****************************************************************
 2 UK: Nuclear power still has part to play in new energy policy 

The Birmingham Post - United Kingdom; Feb 15, 2002

Nuclear power may still have a future in meeting the UK's energy 
needs, although renewables and energy saving should have a bigger 
role, a Whitehall think-tank said yesterday.

The long-awaited blueprint for action, ordered by the Prime 
Minister from the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit, 
sets out how the country can meet its international commitments 
for cutting polluting greenhouse gases without burning more coal, 
gas and oil.

It makes plain the door must be kept open for nuclear power but 
says there should be a new 20 per cent target for power saving in 
the domestic sector by 2010, with a further 20 per cent in the 
following decade.

Electricity generated from wind, wave, solar and other renewable 
sources should also be increased by 20 per cent by 2020.

The 216-page document was given a guarded welcome by green 
pressure groups, which voiced concerns over the threat of an 
expansion of nuclear power stations.

Industry chiefs and the CBI welcomed the Government's commitment 
to security of supply and a low carbon economy. Energy Minister 
Brian Wilson flatly rejected claims by 

Greenpeace that he encouraged the energy review team to back 
nuclear at the expense of renewables.

He said their suggestion was a 'calumny and offensive to the 
PIU'.

Home Secretary David Blun-kett yesterday confirmed he wants to 
take Britain into the controversial European arrest warrant 
scheme a year early.

Civil rights groups immediately attacked the decision as a 
'totally reckless' act which was 'abandoning British citizens to 
the worst standards of justice in Europe'. The arrest warrant 
will replace the laborious extradition system and give 
authorities the power to send British citizens abroad for trial 
on the say-so of foreign courts.

At an informal meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council 
in Santiago di Compostela, Spain, Mr Blunkett added his name to a 
declaration pledging to introduce the warrant in spring 2003, a 
year before the EU deadline. Other countries which will join the 
first tranche were Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium and 
Luxembourg.

Mr Blunkett said: 'The arrest warrant will ensure suspects will 
no longer be able to hide behind outdated and inefficient 
extradition proceedings to avoid prosecution. It depends on 
member states having trust in one another's systems.

'We are still committed to that vision and will not lose sight of 
its purpose: to ensure criminals cannot escape justice anywhere 
in the EU.'

Stephen Jakobi, of justice pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, 
said: 'These are the countries where you are least likely to get 
good judges, adequate interpretation or proper legal 
representation.

'Instead of talking to countries where you can expect proper 
standards of justice, like Germany, Austria and Denmark, we are 
trying to get into a pact where you can expect not to have such 
standards. The Government is totally reckless of the consequences 
to unfortunate British citizens who might face trial in these 
countries.'
*****************************************************************
 3 Nuclear industry must overcome the fear factor 

The Herald (United Kingdom); Feb 15, 2002

I DROVE back from Dundee the other day through the kind of 
torrential rain that has been all too depressingly familiar in 
Scotland since the turn of the year. South of Perth, between 
Auchterarder and Dunning, the River Earn had burst its banks and 
left a large number of fields under water. Elsewhere in the UK, 
in Wales, Yorkshire, and the Midlands, the floods have also come 
early this year. Government at Westminster is even contemplating 
a special tax on householders who live on flood plains to help 
pay for even stronger defences against rising river levels.

The spectacular floods of 2000 were the worst these islands have 
experienced in 400 years. The damage they inflicted is said to 
have cost some (pounds) 15bn. But that won't be the end of a very 
costly story.

No- one now seriously disputes the reality of at-times dramatic 
climate change. And no-one now seriously disputes the role of 
carbon emissions into the earth's atmosphere in fostering that 
climate change. We either mend our ways or pay an increasingly 
heavy price for decades to come for the environmental 
consequences of our profligacy.

Yesterday the government confronted itself with some of the hard 
choices ahead. The long-awaited energy review from the 
performance and innovation unit within 10 Downing Street was 
published. The PIU review is described as a report to government, 
not a statement of government pol-icy. Tony Blair says he wants a 
great national debate about how to put the UK on the path to 
becoming a low carbon economy, before government turns the PIU 
review into an energy white paper later this year.

To cut the UK's carbon emissions by as much as 60% by the middle 
of this cen-tury, the review wants step changes in energy and 
vehicle efficiency now. In the domestic sector, the targets it 
proposes are a 20% improvement by 2010 and a further 20% by 2020. 
It sees electricity generated from renewable sources, like wind 
and wave power, accounting for one-fifth of all UK generation by 
2020. And, although the review has not lived up to some of the 
advance publicity by flashing lots of green lights at new nuclear 
capacity, it has concluded that nuclear still offers a larger 
zero-carbon source of electricity than any other option. So that 
door has been left ajar, provided the privatised nuclear 
generation industry can come up with proposals for new capacity 
that make commercial sense.

By ruling out new subsidy, but refusing to rule out any ongoing 
role for nuclear power, the report runs the risk of reigniting 
the nuclear versus renewables debate its chairman, energy 
minister Brian Wilson, is so keen to avoid. Like the debate on 
long-term transport policy, this one is in danger of polarising 
into arid factionalism. Indeed, the review had barely hit the PIU 
website before the SNP's leader at Westminster Alex Salmond was 
claiming Scotland is in the perfect position to develop a 
balanced and sustainable non-nuclear energy strategy.

''In the twentieth century Scotland had dangerous nuclear power 
foisted on us because of a London-based energy policy,'' he 
argues. ''In the 21st century the Scottish parliament should have 
the power to dev-elop an energy strategy based upon Scottish 
circumstances and our abundant non-nuclear energy resources.''

I'm afraid the first of these two sentences simply rewrites 
history on an extravagant scale. If anyone drove the decisions 
that ensured Scotland ended the last century with fully half its 
electricity generated from the nuclear plants at Hunterston and 
Torness (compared with 28% in the UK as a whole) the culprits 
were the power engineers who ran the old state-owned South of 
Scotland Electricity Board, the civil servants in the Scottish 
Office who swallowed their hopelessly-optimistic forecasts of 
ever-increasing demand for electricity north of the border, and 
the large Scottish construction and engineering groups who 
captured lucrative chunks of the resulting work.

Yes, the same Magnox and AGR designs of nuclear stations were 
built both north and south of the border. That was how the 
emerging technology tried to reduce its costs, by replicating 
each new power station design in more than one location. But if 
SSEB hadn't been run by engineers who were gung-ho in embracing 
the professional challenge of building each new station, some of 
that nuclear capacity would never have made its way north of the 
border.

Alex Salmond also claims the nuclear power foisted on us was 
''dangerous''. He said that on the day the Treasury confirmed the 
bill it will have to pay ex-coal miners suffering from emphysema, 
bronchitis, and vibration white finger under industrial damages 
awards made in 1998 has tripled to an astonishing (pounds) 6200m.

No- one should resent men, whose health has suffered from all 
those years they spent underground. being properly compensated 
now. But the sheer scale of the money required to do it casts new 
light on what is and isn't dangerous in field of electricity 
generation. It also raises fresh questions about the historic, 
comparative costs of coal-fired and nuclear power.

Scottish Executive sources were quick to point out yesterday that 
Scotland is well on its way, thanks to the burgeoning number of 
wind turbines that generators want to plant all the way up the 
western seaboard of Scotland, to meeting and surpassing the 
renewables target laid out in the PIU's review. 

Hydro schemes already account for some 12% of generation. Wind 
farms already being installed and planned could take that share 
to 18% by 2010 and as much as 28% by 2020.

Nuclear-generated electricity cur-renty accounts for around half 
Scotland's base load. Roughly half of that will have gone by 
2015, when Hunterston's operational life is over, and the other 
half will have gone by 2025, when Torness, too, will be facing 
decommissioning. If the drive for greater energy efficiency fails 
to deliver the PIU's targets and other forms of renewable energy, 
like tidal and wave power, fail to get their costs down to more 
competitive levels, new nuclear capacity will be a real contender 
to fill the gap.

Renewables are after all, by their very nature, not always 
available when you need them. And as Bert Whittington, professor 
of electrical power engineering at Edinburgh University and an 
advocate of renewable energy, told seminars in London and 
Edinburgh late last year: ''Scotland has the tremendous problem 
that its renewable energy resources are nowhere near the 
infrastructure.'' More wind turbines, like more power lines to 
bring it and wave and tidal power to the main centres of 
population, is bound to face a different kind of environmen-tal 
backlash. ''I'm not saying we can't solve these problems but we 
have to recognise that it's not going to be simple. There are 
great expectations of renewables which can't altogether be 
realised,'' says Whittington.

Whether the nuclear industry can come up with a credible 
cost-effective answer in terms of a third-generation nuclear 
station at Hunterston is now down to it and it alone. It does not 
look as if the government is going to promote its cause for it. 
It certainly doesn't intend offering new financial subsidies to 
make nuclear price competitive with fossil fuels and the cheapest 
of renewables. The PIU review has made that much crystal clear.

The review also makes clear that the most significant obstacle in 
the way of that happening is public resistance on what happens to 
the waste by-products of nuclear generation. If the nuclear 
industry is to gain fresh wind in the UK it will have to lay 
these fears to rest and sell, as never before, the carbon-free 
nature of the electricity it produces.
*****************************************************************
 4 UK govt does not rule out new nuclear power stations being built 

- UPDATE 

AFX (UK); Feb 14, 2002

(Updates with new lead on renewable energy proposals)

LONDON (AFX) - Renewable electricity produced through wind, wave, 
tidal and solar power will play a major part in power generation 
supply by 2050, according to the government's Energy Review.

It recommended the government should aim to produce 20 pct of the 
country's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. However, a 
supplementary review by the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) and a 
panel of 12 experts warned UK companies could lose the chance to 
cash in on commercial opportunities unless renewable energy is 
given a higher research and development profile.

The Energy Review added that despite uncertainties over the costs 
of implementing the infrastructure continued support and 
development could lead to renewables being the most cost 
effective options for cutting carbon emissions.

"In this case, they could, by 2050, produce very large quantities 
of electricity," the report said.

"In order to encourage a range of renewable options and maximise 
the chances of rapid and long-term learning and cost reductions, 
the Department of Trade and Industry should immediately set a 
firm target of 20 pct of electricity to be supplied from 
renewables for 2020."

This view was echoed by the CSA's review but he warned the UK 
must spend more on research and development to bring it more in 
line with its nearest EU competitors.

The CSA and his panel said energy is "still an insufficiently 
high priority for academic research and that the leading edge 
science is going on elsewhere in the world".

"Consequently, UK companies could lose out on the opportunity to 
capitalise on publicly funded research and take advantage of the 
growing export market for energy and low carbon technologies."

He said whatever the decision on nuclear power "the priority for 
publicly funded research into the handling and storage of nuclear 
waste".

The government has not ruled out the possibility of new nuclear 
power stations being built, said Energy Minister Brian Wilson.

The report said nuclear power could supply a "substantial 
proportion of UK electricity and so could play a major role in a 
low carbon economy".

It currently produces about 25 pct of UK electricity, but over 
the coming 20 years all but one of the UK's nuclear power 
stations will have reached, or be close to, the end of their 
working lives.

Wilson said liberalised and competitive energy markets should 
provide a cornerstone of future policy in the UK and 
internationally.

He said the report argues that tackling climate change must 
become a "central aspect" of energy policy alongside low prices 
and secure supplies.

"Security of supply and climate change are truly international 
issues that must be addressed by means of international policies 
and agreement as well as by our domestic actions," Wilson said.

"The report is not about renewable versus nuclear, it is about 
balance and promoting innovation in new technologies."

"It stresses the potential for renewables and energy efficiency, 
but also argues that the options of new investment in nuclear 
power and cleaner coal should be kept open."

The government is opening the issue to a period of public 
consultation that will lead to an energy White Paper in the 
autumn.

fp/shw For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com 
and www.afxpress.com
*****************************************************************
 5 Russia relaxes terms for nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 14, 2002

Text of report by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS

Kiev, 14 February, ITAR-TASS correspondent Vitaliy Matarykin: 

Russia has improved the terms of payments for fresh nuclear fuel 
for Ukraine, Olga Kravets, the vice-president of the [Ukrainian] 
national atomic energy generating company Energoatom, announced 
today. According to Kravets, plans have been made for the 
conclusion of a final agreement on issues relating to supplies of 
fuel to Ukrainian atomic power stations, to be signed at 
ministerial level in Kiev in February.

According to Kravets, the price of Russian fuel will rise 
somewhat in 2002. However, Russia has agreed to receive direct 
payment for supplies without the issue of a bank guarantee, which 
simplifies the procedure for Ukraine. Meanwhile, preferential 
terms for supplies will remain in place for three further years.

In 2002, Energoatom intends to supply all 13 blocks of its atomic 
power stations with nuclear fuel. According to specialists, the 
supplies will not cost more than 250m dollars.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1211 gmt 14 

Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 6 Lack of funds delays scrapping of 98 Russian nuclear submarines 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 14, 2002

Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS

Krasnoyarsk, 14 February: 

Ninety-eight nuclear-powered submarines are yet to be scrapped to 
Russia. Their nuclear reactor fuel still remains intact, Valeriy 
Lebedev, deputy minister of atomic energy, told ITAR-TASS on 
Thursday [14 February].

All the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines remain at their 
naval stations so far and each of them is served by special crews 
who ensure the fireproofing and buoyancy of the submarines. The 
servicing of each such submarine costs Russia R5-6m a year, 
Lebedev pointed out.

The work to scrap submarines and their reactors must be 
expedited, but it is hindered by the lack of the necessary means, 
the deputy minister emphasized.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 0843 gmt 14 Feb 
02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 7 Bush moves to tighten security at N-reactors

CBS News | Homeland Security Update | Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:15:09 
EST 

 AP       

(CBS) On the home front in the war on terror, the Bush 
administration moved this week to tighten security at the 
nation's 103 nuclear power plants. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered more rigorous 
employee screening and guard training, as well as the stopping of 
any vehicles on approach roads to nuclear power plants. 

"The commission has decided to issue orders to require prudent 
interim compensatory measures, because the generalized high-level 
threat environment has persisted longer than expected," said the 
NRC, in a statement. 

Separately, the Bush administration is out with an update on the 
terror alert it issued on Monday, at that time warning that an 
attack on the U.S. or a U.S.-related target abroad could be 
planned as early as Feb. 12. 

Federal officials now say six of the men named in the FBI 
terrorism alert are in custody in Yemen and elsewhere and have 
been removed from the list of those who are still being sought. 

	 ©MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc, All Rights Reserved. 	
*****************************************************************
 8 UK: Energy plan puts onus on 'low carbon' economy                  

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search
 

Report calls for 20% increase in efficiency by 2010 and greater 
use of renewable power sources

Paul Brown, environment Correspondent

Guardian

Friday February 15, 2002

A fundamental change to energy policy, increasing use of 
renewables and energy efficiency to prevent climate change, was 
recommended by a government review yesterday. Brian Wilson, the 
energy minister, who chaired the review, said a white paper would 
appear in the autumn. 

The much-leaked review looked at policy over the next 50 years 
and recommended changing to a low carbon economy whereby economic 
growth did not mean higher emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The most ambitious target was an increase in energy efficiency of 
20% by 2010, which would mean modernising large chunks of older 
housing with insulation and other measures to reduce domestic 
heating and lighting bills by an average of £20 a year. The 
report said another 20% in savings could be made by 2020, 
reducing the need to generate so much power. 

The increase in the renewables target from 10% in 2010 to 20% by 
2020 was widely predicted. But Mr Wilson conceded that reaching 
even the 10% target was a tall order from "our current miserably 
low base". The government support for renewables will increase 
domestic bills by £12 by 2010 and another £3 over the following 
10 years, but this will be more than offset by efficiency savings 
in the housing stock. 

Mr Wilson said: "There is a huge opportunity in renewables. 
Twenty years ago we had a lead in wind power technology and the 
whole thing was thrown away and taken up by the Danes. As a 
result Denmark has a £4bn a year wind industry employing 15,000. 

"We are determined to get some of that back. We have the lead in 
wave power technology and in bio-mass, like burning straw and 
wood. We hope to turn that into jobs." 

Mr Wilson was critical of some environmental groups which 
endorsed renewable energy in principle but objected to every 
individual scheme. "There is an illogicality in this we have to 
tackle." 

He was scathing about people who had selectively leaked the 
report, particularly those who had seen a "pro-nuclear 
conspiracy". He said: "We do not need to build nuclear plants at 
present. The report says we should not shut the door on nuclear." 

Mr Wilson made it clear that the report by the policy and 
innovation unit at the Cabinet Office could be modified by the 
time it reached the white paper. Much depends on whether Gordon 
Brown is prepared to change the tax system in favour of energy 
efficiency and renewables rather than large scale energy 
producers. 

Environmental groups largely welcomed the report, although 
Greenpeace remained suspicious of it "leaving the door open for 
nuclear power". Matthew Spencer, the group's energy campaigner, 
also thought the renewables target was too low. 

The Council for the Protection of Rural England praised the 
energy efficiency measures. They are one of the organisations 
that Mr Wilson criticised for objecting to wind farms, and the 
council again asked for recognition that "beautiful landscapes" 
needed protecting. 

The greatest potential for reaching the 10% renewables target is 
wind power, particularly large scale developments off-shore. 
Cheryl Millington, chief operating officer of npower, the UK's 
largest electricity supplier, said:

"There is still a huge job to be done educating customers that 
energy efficiency is relevant. There are health benefits to be 
had by improving efficiency in the homes of vulnerable people."

Main points

· Large cuts in carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate 
change 

· Diverse supply of electricity to avoid black-outs, 
over-reliance on gas imports, or terrorist attack 

· Raise energy efficiency 20% by 2010, and 40% by 2020, through 
insulation 

· Raise renewables target from to 20% by 2020 

· Nuclear option left open, for possible new stations in 20 
years' time 

· Research on clean coal technology 

· Improve car fuel efficiency 

· Consider aviation fuel tax 

· White paper in autumn                 
 		      		      		   
[UP]    	 	 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 
*****************************************************************
 9 Bush Pushes Nuke Plant Study Money
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 14, 2002 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - 

The Bush administration is proposing to spend $38 million on a 
joint government-industry project to study whether a new 
commercial nuclear power plant can be built on federal land. 

The Energy Department plan envisions completing a new commercial 
power reactor by 2010, although the site has yet to be 
determined, said members of Congress who have been briefed on the 
proposal Thursday. 

The three sites to be studied are at the Savannah River weapons 
complex near Aiken, S.C.; the site of the now closed uranium 
processing plant, known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant, near Piketon, Ohio; and the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls. 

The plan, if Congress provides the money, would give a major 
boost to companies that have been showing increased interest in 
building a new nuclear power plant. 

The last time an American utility sought a license from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a new reactor was 1973. 
Several plants were scrapped after construction began, some even 
after construction was virtually completed. 

But in recent years, there has been a nuclear revival, with 
several companies indicating to the NRC that they may submit a 
license for a new reactor in the next year or so. Industry 
officials have said that in most cases a new plant will have to 
be built on the site of an existing reactor or on federal land to 
avoid reduce community opposition. 

The Energy Department said it will work with two nuclear 
utilities companies - Exelon and Dominion Resources - on the 
proposed project. Both utilities are major operators of existing 
power reactors. Exelon, which is working on a new reactor design 
called a "pebble bed", already has informed the NRC that it 
probably will apply for a license for a new reactor in the next 
year or so. 

The Energy Department proposal, called "Nuclear Power 2010," 
would help the companies study the three government sites, 
determine how much it would cost to build a plant and how the 
process to get an NRC license might be streamlined. Rep. Saxby 
Chambliss, R-Ga., among the lawmakers briefed on the project, 
said the public-private partnership would involve the government 
in both building and operating the new reactor. 

"I applaud (the) initiative to explore new sites for future power 
plants," said Chambliss, whose district is not far from the 
Savannah River complex. With the announcement "to move ahead with 
exploration of increased nuclear energy, we move one step closer 
to increasing our energy independence," said Chambliss. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 10 Bush administration wants to study feasibility of building new nuclear plant
 
The Nando Times: 

  Updated: February 14, 2002 11:37 p.m. EST     				Text | No Ads | User

Copyright © 2002 AP Online  

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (February 14, 2002 11:36 p.m. EST) - The White House 
wants to spend $38 million on a joint government-industry project 
to study whether a new commercial nuclear power plant can be 
built on federal land.

 The Energy Department plan envisions completing a new commercial 
power reactor by 2010, although the site has yet to be 
determined, said members of Congress who have been briefed on the 
proposal Thursday.

 The three sites to be studied are at the Savannah River weapons 
complex near Aiken, S.C.; the site of the now closed uranium 
processing plant, known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant, near Piketon, Ohio; and the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls.

 The plan, if Congress provides the money, would give a major 
boost to companies that have been showing increased interest in 
building a new nuclear power plant.

 The last time an American utility sought a license from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a new reactor was 1973. 
Several plants were scrapped after construction began, some even 
after construction was virtually completed.

 But in recent years, there has been a nuclear revival, with 
several companies indicating to the NRC that they may submit a 
license for a new reactor in the next year or so. Industry 
officials have said that in most cases a new plant will have to 
be built on the site of an existing reactor or on federal land to 
reduce community opposition.

 The Energy Department said it will work with two nuclear 
utilities companies - Exelon and Dominion Resources - on the 
proposed project. Both utilities are major operators of existing 
power reactors. Exelon, which is working on a new reactor design 
called a "pebble bed," already has informed the NRC that it 
probably will apply for a license for a new reactor in the next 
year or so.

 The Energy Department proposal, called "Nuclear Power 2010," 
would help the companies study the three government sites, 
determine how much it would cost to build a plant and how the 
process to get an NRC license might be streamlined.

 Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., among the lawmakers briefed on the 
project, said the public-private partnership would involve the 
government in both building and operating the new reactor.

 "I applaud (the) initiative to explore new sites for future 
power plants," said Chambliss, whose district is not far from the 
Savannah River complex.

 With the announcement "to move ahead with exploration of 
increased nuclear energy, we move one step closer to increasing 
our energy independence," said Chambliss. 


Copyright © 2002 Nando Media
*****************************************************************
 11 Scotland fired up to become Europe’s leader in green energy 

The Scotsman - 

Friday, 15th February 2002 

Alison Hardie and Fordyce Maxwell 

ENVIRONMENTAL pressure groups were warned yesterday that their 
opposition to radical "green" energy schemes will jeopardise 
thousands of new jobs in Scotland. 

Brian Wilson, the energy minister, said at the launch of the 
government-commissioned energy review that under the report’s 
proposals, Scotland could become the "renewables capital of 
Europe". 

But he urged groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace 
to drop their "illogical" objections to wind and wave technology 
or put at risk hundreds of jobs. 

Mr Wilson said: "Twenty years ago, this country had a lead in 
wind power but the whole thing was thrown away because there was 
no domestic market or backing from government. 

"The Danes picked it up and today, that industry is worth £4 
billion and employs 15,000 people. That was an opportunity lost 
to the UK and I am determined we are going to get back some of 
that wind industry and we are going to turn it into jobs for the 
UK." 

Mr Wilson said the proposals contained in the performance and 
innovation unit’s energy review would go out to consultation and 
then form the bulk of a white paper. The review estimated Britain 
should aim to be producing 20 per cent of its domestic 
electricity from renewable sources by 2020 - a target that would 
reduce bills by up to £20 million a year. 

Mr Wilson added: "This is a real challenge to people who call 
themselves environmentalists who so often are in favour of 
renewables in principle, but are opposed to every single example 
of them when they approach becoming reality. 

"There is hardly a project which has not run into this kind of 
opposition." 

The energy review report stated that Scotland is on target to 
produce one third of its energy supplies from wind and water 
within the next 20 years. 

That is well ahead of the UK target of 20 per cent of energy from 
renewable sources. 

However, while the review gave its strongest backing to an 
increase in production of renewable energy, it did not rule out 
continuing with the nuclear option. 

The 216-page document was given a guarded welcome by green 
pressure groups, although they voiced concerns over the threat of 
an expansion of nuclear power. 

Mr Wilson flatly rejected claims by Greenpeace that he encouraged 
the energy review team to back nuclear at the expense of 
renewables. He said the suggestion was a "calumny" and 
"offensive". 

Charles Secrett, executive director at Friends of the Earth, 
said: "The review is a welcome step in the right direction, but 
not the great leap forward required to combat climate change and 
create the low carbon economy promised by the Prime Minister. 

"It is good the review recognises the critical role that 
renewable energy and energy efficiency must play in meeting 
future energy needs. But the targets are too modest. Britain will 
continue to lag behind the renewables revolution led by Sweden, 
Denmark and Spain." 

Matthew Spencer, energy campaigner for Greenpeace, clashed with 
Mr Wilson, accusing him of using the review to rekindle Labour’s 
"love affair" with nuclear energy. 

He said: "This report has the fingerprints of the pro-nuclear 
energy minister Brian Wilson all over it. The nuclear industry 
would close down in the UK without new support from the 
government; this report leaves the door open for new tax breaks 
and rubber-stamping of planning applications for new power 
stations." 

There has also been strong local resistance to the establishment 
of extensive wind farms, such as the plan for a 250-turbine farm 
on Eaglesham Moor, which would be the biggest in Europe. 

Fears that wind turbines could cover huge areas of Scotland were 
ruled out by an executive spokesman, who said: " We’re talking 
about only 0.2 per cent of Scotland’s land area at most." 

He added: "We shouldn’t forget the massive part that more 
efficient energy use could play. The UK wastes 20 per cent of its 
energy supply each year - equivalent to the total North Sea oil 
and gas production." 

Robin Harper, the Green MSP for the Lothians, said the review had 
squandered an opportunity to develop Scotland’s renewable energy 
resources, and had instead pandered to the nuclear industry. 

He said: "The review recommends the development of only a 
fraction of this clean and green energy resource and this is 
simply a scandalous waste of a golden opportunity." 

However, Kevin Dunion, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, 
cautiously welcomed the review which he said made a compelling 
case against nuclear in favour of renewable energy.

©2002 scotsman.com | contact
*****************************************************************
 12 Board faults Green Mountain Power for late power market study 

By Associated Press, 2/15/2002 06:36 

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) Green Mountain Power Corp. has come in for a 
scolding by the Public Service Board for not earlier disclosing 
information key to the proposed sale of the Vermont Yankee 
nuclear plant. 

The study, by GMP consultant La Capra Associates of Boston, shows 
that prices for wholesale electricity will be significantly lower 
during the coming decade than previous estimates indicated. 

That's important because a major piece of the sale agreement 
under which Entergy Nuclear Corp. plans to buy Vermont Yankee is 
a promise that GMP and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. will 
buy the plant's power from Entergy. 

The prices for the electricity under that ''purchase-power 
agreement'' and comparisons between those prices and projections 
of what power might cost on the open market have dominated much 
of the discussion in board hearings on the sale during the past 
two weeks. 

GMP got the La Capra study on Jan. 16, officials said. But last 
week, the company's chief financial officer, Nancy Brock, told 
the board that the most recent market forecasts dated back to 
last summer. Company officials said Thursday that Brock hadn't 
been told of the more recent study until Saturday, two days after 
her testimony. They added that the study had been commissioned as 
part of another project and had nothing to do with the Vermont 
Yankee sale. 

Board Chairman Michael Dworkin said he and the board's other two 
members were ''disturbed,'' that the study had not been made 
available before this week. He called GMP ''less than 
responsible'' in its handling of the price forecast. 

The Conservation Law Foundation had received the La Capra report 
Wednesday, and had immediately raised issues about it. CLF 
attorney Mark Sinclair said GMP's lateness in making the report 
public raised serious issues. 

''They've been hiding the ball on us,'' he said. 

Central Vermont Public Service Corp. is also doing an update of 
the New England power market, according to its attorney, Kenneth 
Picton, who said the information would be shared with the others 
involved in the Yankee sale as soon as it was ready. 
*****************************************************************
 13 UK backs renewable energy over nuclear 

New Scientist 

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

Exclusive to the Web 
             
The nuclear industry's bid to build 10 or more new nuclear power 
stations in the UK has been decisively rejected by the 
government's long-awaited energy review, published on Wednesday. 

The best way to cut the pollution that is changing the climate is 
to boost renewable energy and improve energy efficiency, 
concludes the report by the Cabinet's Performance and Innovation 
Unit. Widespread fears that the report would be doctored to make 
it more sympathetic to nuclear power have proved unfounded. 

Both the power company, British Energy, and environmental groups 
claimed this week that the final version of the report would be 
more pro-nuclear than earlier drafts. In December, a draft was 
leaked to New Scientist (in print, 15 December 2001). 

But in fact the final version, though edited, is substantively 
the same as the leaked draft. "Because nuclear is a mature 
technology within a well-established global industry, there is no 
current case for further government support," it says. 

Unsolved problems 

The industry's plan for a 10 gigawatt nuclear programme to 
replace existing stations is dismissed as too inflexible. 
Reactors are perceived as being vulnerable to accidents and 
attack, and the problem of how to dispose of the radioactive 
waste they create remains "unsolved". 

"The immediate priorities of energy policy are likely to be most 
cost-effectively served by promoting energy efficiency and 
expanding the role of renewables," the report concludes.

It recommends increasing the target for the proportion of UK 
electricity generated by wind, wave and other renewable sources 
from 10 per cent by 2010 to 20 per cent by 2020. And it urges a 
20 per cent improvement in the efficiency with which energy is 
used by industry, transport and consumers by 2010. 

The reports adds, however, that "the options of new investment in 
nuclear power and in clean coal need to be kept open, and 
practical measures taken to do this". For nuclear, this means 
continuing the UK's involvement in the international development 
of future reactor designs that could cut costs and waste.

Predictably, the review has disappointed both the industry, which 
wanted more financial support, and its opponents, who wanted 
nuclear power to be completely ruled out and a more ambitious 
target for renewables. The argument, however, is far from over. 
There is now to be several months of public consultations, 
followed by a government White Paper in the autumn. 
 
Rob Edwards 17:21 14 February 02

*****************************************************************
 14 Plymouth Town meeting asked to send nuclear message

Old Colony Memorial at SouthofBoston.com
 
By Brian Falk
MPG Newspapers
 
PLYMOUTH (Feb. 14) - Town meeting might vote this spring on a 
recommendation to temporarily close Pilgrim nuclear power plant 
until the federal government studies the plant's security against 
terrorist attacks.

 Bill Abbott, a Precinct 12 representative, wants town meeting to 
send letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state 
in support of an independent security review at the plant. His 
resolution, a petitioned town meeting article, says security at 
the plant is not enough to repel a terrorist attack, which he 
said could lead to a radiation leak.

 "Nuclear plants have been named as a specific terrorist threat," 
Abbott said, "but no action has been taken to provide security at 
the plants."

 President George W. Bush warned in his State of the Union 
address that the nation's nuclear plants are terrorist targets.

 Plant spokesman David Tarantino said Pilgrim's security has been 
increased since Sept. 11, and that the plant performed well on 
recent security tests.

 "We are well protected," Tarantino said.

 Town meeting has no authority over the nuclear plant - which 
sits on the Plymouth shoreline - and would only be requesting the 
temporary closure.

 Although Abbott collected enough signatures to put the proposal 
on the April town warrant, town meeting might not vote on it. 
Town moderator Steven Triffletti said he is still deciding 
whether to bring the proposal to the floor, since it's only a 
recommendation.

 Abbott's petition also asks the NRC to consider decommissioning 
the plant permanently if the region's safety cannot be ensured by 
security measures. Abbott said this would put Plymouth on record 
as a community concerned with nuclear security.

 "It's not an anti-nuclear petition brought by activists, but a 
group of concerned citizens," Abbott said.

 Tarantino believes the opposite. "This is a thinly guised 
attempt by activists to close Pilgrim," Tarantino said.

 Years ago, Abbott strongly opposed plans to build a second 
nuclear reactor at Pilgrim.

 Current security measures at Pilgrim include National Guard 
checkpoints at the gates, daily Coast Guard flyovers and water 
patrols, state police patrols in the perimeter woods and a larger 
private security force at the plant. Two resident NRC inspectors 
are stationed at the plant.

 Pilgrim has also extended the restricted area around the plant. 
The Coast Guard has created a temporary 1,000-yard exclusion area 
in the bay off the plant's shoreline and is proposing to make 
this a permanent exclusionary zone.

 Abbott said he thinks it's within town meeting's legislative 
powers to make a recommendation. Triffletti isn't so sure.

 "If it's appropriate for town meeting to act on the article, it 
will, and if not, it won't," Triffletti said. "I'm concerned 
about setting precedent for something outside of the jurisdiction 
of town meeting."

 Triffletti said he will continue discussions with the town's 
legal counsel and other town moderators before making a decision.

 Abbott's resolution also calls for the NRC and Pilgrim to move 
the plant's spent fuel rods - nuclear waste - from storage in 
water tanks to a dry cask system buried underground. Abbott said 
this type of system is much safer.

 "The petitioners would be better served by petitioning the 
federal government to take the fuel rods off the site 
completely," Tarantino said.

 The federal government claims responsibility for the nation's 
nuclear waste, and has been studying Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a 
possible underground waste storage facility for almost 20 years. 
The Bush administration recently proposed moving ahead with the 
Yucca Mountain project, but Nevada officials have promised to 
fight its construction.

[http://oldcolony.southofboston.com/forms/subscribe/] | CONTACT 
US [http://oldcolony.southofboston.com/extras/contactmpg.shtml] 
MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: 
(508) 746-5555
*****************************************************************
 15 Britain's energy policy is a welcome contrast to Mr Bush's dismal effort

Independent   News UK

© 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

15 February 2002

Bush and Britain worlds apart on climate control From either side 
of the Atlantic yesterday came contrasting approaches to energy 
policy, testifying to two very different sets of national and 
political priorities. In London, the Cabinet Office issued an 
energy review that testifies to the winds of change sweeping 
British thinking about how best to safeguard energy supplies. The 
guiding ideas are sustainability, clean energy and the need to 
cut carbon emissions in line with our international obligations.

Near Washington, President Bush set out his proposals for a 
painless and voluntary shift towards (slightly) less profligate 
energy usage in the US: tax incentives for householders 
installing solar panels and drivers buying fuel-efficient cars, 
and encouragement for companies to reduce carbon emissions – but 
no tougher regulation or statutory limits, and precious little 
recognition of wider international interests or commitments.

Where the targets recommended in the Cabinet Office review 
represent real cuts in consumption and carbon emissions, those 
enshrined in Mr Bush's programme are merely cuts in the growth 
rate of both. Where the London document projects that energy 
consumers could be paying up to 6 per cent more for their 
electricity in 20 years, the whole point of the White House 
proposals is to lull consumers, and producers, into believing 
that their cheap-energy dependence can and will be fed in 
perpetuity.

That the two policy statements appeared on the same day was 
coincidental. Mr Bush cynically rushed out his long-awaited plans 
before leaving for Japan. The unstated aim was to prevent the 
administration's rejection of the Kyoto treaty from souring Mr 
Bush's talks in Tokyo. The Cabinet Office review is a 
contribution to the comprehensive rethink of energy policy 
announced by the 

Government last year that is due to result in a White Paper in 
the autumn. There are no prizes for judging which approach is the 
more likely to have a beneficial effect. The British review 
recommends that renewable energy should supply 20 per cent of our 
electricity by 2020. A 40 per cent improvement is recommended in 
the energy efficiency of British homes. It would be a caricature 
to depict the Cabinet Office proposals as studded with 
hydro-electric dams, windmills and biomass, and the Bush plan 
shrouded in smoke, through which ageing coal-fired power stations 
and gas-guzzling vehicles can just be detected, but the result 
might not be so very different.

Experts gauge that the targets for Britain are attainable, but 
would entail big changes in the energy system and society – 
changes that are largely to be welcomed. Where the emphasis has 
been on securing sufficient energy at all, or keeping it 
affordable, these proposals add sustainability and curbing 
climate change to the longer-term calculation. They also regard 
Britain, rightly, as part of the wider world in terms of its 
energy needs. The one regrettable feature is that nuclear power 
remains on the agenda and that its liabilities are not more 
sharply defined. With that one caveat, however, the Cabinet 
Office proposals deserve to form the basis of the national energy 
policy.

Mr Bush's plan could not be more different. It keeps the US aloof 
from international concerns. It panders to the big American 
energy companies in shielding them from their own extravagance 
(the only statutory element is a reduction in air pollution 
standards for older power stations). And it projects a real 
growth in carbon emissions as a notional reduction, by casting it 
in terms of a presumed rise in GDP. The only positive aspect of 
the American plan is that it has been formulated at all. The 
world's outrage at Washington's rejection of Kyoto has generated 
some shame, after all. 

*****************************************************************
 16 Energy Secretary Abraham Unveils Nuclear Power 2010; 
Public-Private Partnership on Clean, Affordable Energy

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: February 15, 2002      

New Initiative to Include DOE’s Savannah River, Portsmouth, Ohio 
and Idaho Reservations in Site Selection Process for Nuclear 
Power Plant Construction     

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham unveiled 
the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative aimed at building new nuclear 
power plants in the United States before the end of the decade. 
The Secretary announced the Department’s latest initiative in 
remarks before the Global Energy Summit in Washington, DC. 

“We have set an ambitious target for this important work but one 
that is achievable,” said Secretary Abraham. “In keeping with the 
President’s National Energy Policy, I am pleased to announce this 
new public-private partnership aimed at building and operating 
new nuclear plants in the United States by the end of this 
decade.” 

Secretary Abraham also noted that the Department's Nuclear Power 
2010 initiative strongly supports the President's recently 
released climate initiative. The Secretary noted, "It is my hope 
that as we work to meet the President’s objectives, more and more 
people will appreciate the strong link between an expanded role 
for nuclear power and reducing greenhouse emissions.” 

The Department proposes to invest $38.5 million in FY 2003 as 
part of a multi-year program to partner with the private sector 
to explore both federal and private sites that could host new 
nuclear plants; to demonstrate the efficiency and timeliness of 
key Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing processes designed to 
make licensing of new plants more efficient, effective and 
predictable; and to conduct research needed to make the safest 
and most efficient nuclear plant technologies available in the 
United States. 

Secretary Abraham also announced awards to two nuclear utilities, 
Exelon and Dominion Resources, to conduct initial studies of 
several sites that could eventually host new nuclear power 
plants. Both privately-owned sites and the Energy Department’s 
own Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in 
Idaho (INEEL), Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS), and 
the Portsmouth site in Ohio will be considered in the site 
selection process. 

Secretary Abraham noted that “....each of these sites has the 
right physical characteristics, experienced workforces, and 
supportive local communities to make a nuclear plant project a 
success.” 

The studies will determine the costs, schedule, and specific 
activities required to submit an Early Site Permit (ESP) 
application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 
participating utilities will pay most of the cost of these 
studies. 

These studies are the first step in the process. Before the end 
of the month, the Department will invite utilities across the 
Nation to propose cost-shared projects to demonstrate the NRC’s 
evaluation process. Identifying and obtaining NRC permits for 
acceptable sites will determine new power plant construction 
sites, thereby removing a major hurdle to building a new nuclear 
plant by 2010. 

The ESP process was established by the NRC in 1989 for utilities 
to complete the site evaluation component of nuclear power plant 
licensing before a decision is made to build a plant. With such a 
permit approved, a utility or other applicant can proceed with a 
license application to the NRC, providing a far more predictable 
and streamlined process toward building a new nuclear power 
plant. 

In the other aspects of the initiative, the Department will 
cooperate with industry to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission’s “one-step” licensing process and conduct research 
and development on advanced gas-cooled reactor technologies. The 
Department is interested in the potential of these advanced 
nuclear energy plant technologies because of their inherent 
safety characteristics, potentially very competitive costs, and 
capability to cost-effectively produce hydrogen. 

Nuclear energy is among the cleanest sources of power in the 
world. Since the 1970's nuclear power has enabled the U.S. to 
avoid emitting over 80 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 
approximately 40 million tons of nitrogen oxides, noted Abraham. 

Copies of the Secretary’s remarks are available on the 
Department’s web site [http://www.energy.gov] . 

More information about Nuclear Power 2010 can be found on the 
Department’s nuclear energy web site  [http://www.nuclear.gov] . 
	 			 
Media Contact: Jill Schroeder, 202-586-4940 Hope Williams, 
202-586-5806 Release No. PR-02-028 

*****************************************************************
 17 Nuclear power plant on DOE land proposed
 
Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:46 a.m. on Friday, February 15, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is proposing to spend 
$38 million on a joint government-industry project to study 
whether a new commercial nuclear power plant can be built on 
federal land.

 The Energy Department plan envisions completing a new commercial 
power reactor by 2010, although the site has yet to be 
determined, said members of Congress who have been briefed on the 
proposal Thursday.

 The three sites to be studied are at the Savannah River weapons 
complex near Aiken, S.C.; the site of the now closed uranium 
processing plant, known as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant, near Piketon, Ohio; and the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls.

 The plan, if Congress provides the money, would give a major 
boost to companies that have been showing increased interest in 
building a new nuclear power plant.

 The last time an American utility sought a license from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a new reactor was 1973. 
Several plants were scrapped after construction began, some even 
after construction was virtually completed.

 But in recent years, there has been a nuclear revival, with 
several companies indicating to the NRC that they may submit a 
license for a new reactor in the next year or so. Industry 
officials have said that in most cases a new plant will have to 
be built on the site of an existing reactor or on federal land to 
avoid reduce community opposition.

 The Energy Department said it will work with two nuclear 
utilities companies -- Exelon and Dominion Resources -- on the 
proposed project. Both utilities are major operators of existing 
power reactors. Exelon, which is working on a new reactor design 
called a "pebble bed", already has informed the NRC that it 
probably will apply for a license for a new reactor in the next 
year or so.

 The Energy Department proposal, called "Nuclear Power 2010," 
would help the companies study the three government sites, 
determine how much it would cost to build a plant and how the 
process to get an NRC license might be streamlined.

 Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., among the lawmakers briefed on the 
project, said the public-private partnership would involve the 
government in both building and operating the new reactor.

 "I applaud (the) initiative to explore new sites for future 
power plants," said Chambliss, whose district is not far from the 
Savannah River complex.

 With the announcement "to move ahead with exploration of 
increased nuclear energy, we move one step closer to increasing 
our energy independence," said Chambliss.

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 18 Azeris raise issue of Armenian nuclear plant in Council of Europe 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 14, 2002

Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Sarq

Baku, 13 February, Sarq correspondent F. Huseynzada: Armenia is 
trying to hide its concern over Azerbaijan's plans to discuss the 
Armenian nuclear power station's threat to the security of the 
South Caucasus at the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council 
of Europe] Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

The head of the Armenian delegation to PACE, Ovanes Ovanesyan, 
described such attempts by the Azerbaijani authorities as 
"ridiculous". He said that the Armenian nuclear power station met 
all MAGATE [International Agency for Atomic Energy] safety 
requirements and that it was permanently monitored by this 
organization. "I can note with regret that our Azerbaijani 
colleagues frequently reach absurd heights in their zeal to 
blacken Armenia. The Council of Europe should not be turned into 
a `theatre of the absurd'," Ovanesyan said.

However, Azerbaijan, which believes that the Armenian side's 
excuses are the usual subterfuge, is not going to abandon plans 
to draw the European community's attention to this issue. In 
Strasbourg, MPs from the Milli Maclis [Azerbaijani parliament] 
have already initiated work on two documents which contain facts 
on the Armenian nuclear power station's fatal impact on the 
environment, a member of the Azerbaijani delegation in PACE, 
Gultakin Haciyeva, told Sarq news agency. 

The first document - "Environmental situation in Nagornyy 
Karabakh and seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts" - was 
submitted to the PACE in last June.

The other document, which was adopted recently, mostly considers 
seismic activity in the region, where this nuclear power station 
is located. That is why Haciyeva says that it is natural for the 
Azerbaijani delegation to want to inform European countries about 
this threat at all international meetings. She said that the 
Council of Europe was the best tribune for this, as it is the 
most competent European organization. However, the MP admitted 
that international bodies did not have real levers to force this 
station to close.

Source: Sarq news agency, Baku, in Russian 1440 gmt 13 Feb 02 
/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.

*****************************************************************
 19 Armenian nuclear plant workers receive October salaries 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 15, 2002

Text of Ayk Gevorkyan report by Armenian newspaper Aykakan 

Zhamanak on 15 February entitled "Give me six months" Yesterday, 
we received information that the Energy Ministry has paid 175m 
drams [308,914 dollars] into the account of the Armenian Nuclear 
Power Plant [ANPP]. So far the plant's wage arrears stand at 450m 
drams [794,351 dollars]. The Energy Minister Armen Movsisyan said 
no new debts have been accumulated and earlier debts will paid in 
the next six months. Currently, the government owes three months 
salary to ANPP workers - November, December and January. We were 
informed by the ANPP that the workers received their wage for 
October yesterday. There is no guarantee that the energy 
minister's promise regarding the payment of debts during the next 
six months will be honoured, but Armen Movsisyan said: 

'We paid so far and the rest will be paid, too'. As for staging 
another strike, the minister said that he was sure that workers 
would not strike. 'Everybody is surprised that how the three 
months wage arrears can be paid during the next two months'. 
Armenian workers will be happy when they receive their salary.

Source: Aykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan, in Armenian 15 Feb 02 p3 /BBC 
Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 20 Millions in need of aid 16 years after Chernobyl: report

FILE: A relative of a Chernobyl worker who died in the clean-up 
operations mourns at a wreath laying ceremony in Kiev. Efrem 
Lukatsky, AP

AFP - 2/9/2002

UNITED NATIONS - Sixteen years after the Chernobyl nuclear 
disaster, millions of people are still in need of international 
assistance and have "chronic dependency," according to 
UN-commissioned study presented this week.

"Populations in Belarus, the Russian federation and Ukraine would 
continue to experience general decline unless significant new 
measures are adopted to address health, the environment and 
unemployment," according to the report, presented at UN 
headquarters in New York.

More than seven million people in those three nations are still 
suffering the consequences of the explosion and fire at 
Chernobyl's number four reactor on April 25-26, 1986. Chernobyl, 
in northern Ukraine, is seven kilometers (four miles) from the 
border with Belarus.

Two thousand people have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and 
between 8,000 and 10,000 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in 
the next few years, according to the report, which was carried 
out on site mid-year 2001.

Between 100,000 and 200,000 people either remained in the area or 
have returned to live in the 30-kilometer (19-mile) area that is 
still highly contaminated. In theory, people are banned from 
being in the area.

Despite the danger, "the psycho-social welfare of people who 
stayed in their homes is better than that of those who were 
relocated," the report found.

"A fundamental shift is needed in the way assistance is delivered 
to people still suffering from the Chernobyl disaster, 
emphasizing long-term community redevelopment and empowerment in 
which the population affected play a key role," said Kenzo 
Oshima, director of the Office for the Coordination of the 
Humanitarian Affairs.

However, rather than urgent aid, which after 16 years doesn't 
make such sense, focusing on development and reconstruction of 
society and institutions is important, said Kalman Mizsei, with 
the UN Development Program.

"Sound finances and the creation of an open competitive market 
economy and an investment-friendly business environment are 
preconditions for sustained recovery in the affected areas," is 
one of the report's conclusions. 

©Copyright 2001 TheNewsMexico.com
*****************************************************************
 21 U.S. tightens nuclear security

Reuters | Breaking News from Around the Globe Country 

15 February, 2002 01:11 GMT 

By Peter Millership and Simon Denyer 

WASHINGTON/KARACHI (Reuters) - The Bush administration has 
ordered all 103 U.S. nuclear power plants to tighten 
anti-terrorism measures as one report said investigators were 
convinced a new al Qaeda chief of operations was planning a fresh 
attack on the United States. 

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf cast doubt on a statement 
made by the prime suspect in the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl that 
he thought the reporter was dead, saying British-born Islamic 
militant Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was untrustworthy. 

The U.S. military said two soldiers were lightly wounded in a 
firefight at their base in Kandahar on Wednesday but a blaze on 
Thursday which was extinguished was the result of a stray 
American flare and not hostile fire. 

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sought to reassure Europeans 
military action against Iraq was not imminent amid warnings from 
Russia, Canada and France that Iraq should not be the next target 
in the war on terrorism. 

Iran's IRNA news agency, quoting an informed source, said 150 
people with suspected ties to al Qaeda or the Taliban were 
arrested near the border with Pakistan. 

U.S. planes dropped envelopes containing two $100 bills and 
bearing a picture of President George W. Bush to win hearts and 
minds in southern Afghanistan, while tribal elders in the 
province of Khost warned of bloodshed if a governor appointed by 
the interim administration of Hamid Karzai was not removed. 

In a report which could not be immediately confirmed officially, 
the Arabic television channel al-Jazeera said Afghan Muslim 
pilgrims, angry over flight delays, attacked and killed the 
Afghan interim transport minister at Kabul airport. 

With unrest threatening to spread in Afghanistan, U.N. 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his envoys stepped up lobbying 
of the United States and others on expanding the presence of 
foreign troops in the shattered Central Asian nation. 

NEW AL QAEDA MASTERMIND, TIMES SAYS 

The New York Times said Abu Zubaydah, a 30-year-old Palestinian, 
had become al Qaeda's new chief of operations replacing Mohammed 
Atef, who was believed to have been killed in a U.S. bombing raid 
in Afghanistan. 

Zubaydah has been linked directly to planning the Sept. 11 
strikes, which killed more than 3,000 people, and tied to plans 
for a wave of attacks in Europe that were to occur last year, 
including plots to blow up the American embassies in Paris and 
Sarajevo, the Times said, citing U.S. officials. They were 
apparently thwarted by the authorities. 

American investigators said they were convinced Zubaydah, one of 
the few al Qaeda leaders to know the identities of those who 
passed through camps in Afghanistan, was now trying to activate 
sleeper cells for new strikes on the United States and its 
allies, the Times reported. 

American intelligence agencies believe he was at Osama bin 
Laden's side in Afghanistan in the first weeks after Sept. 11, 
and Bush administration officials say there is fragmentary 
evidence that he escaped to Pakistan, the Times reported. 

With the FBI warning of more possible attacks, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission ordered tighter security including more 
rigorous employee screening and guard training and stopping of 
cars and trucks on approach roads to plants. 

"The commission has decided to issue orders to require prudent 
interim compensatory measures because the generalised 
high-level-threat environment has persisted longer than 
expected," the NRC said in a statement. 

The Federal Aviation Administration has already banned flights 
within 12 miles (19 km) of most U.S. nuclear plants. Police in 
the U.S. capital said they planned to create a network of public 
surveillance cameras in Washington to help fight terrorism, 
sparking outrage among privacy advocates. 

DOUBTS OVER MILITANT CONFESSION 

Pearl's abduction has been an embarrassment to Musharraf during 
his visit to Washington this week, but police say they are 
closing in on the kidnappers after making four arrests. 

Prime suspect Sheikh Omar, as he is known, appeared in an 
anti-terrorism court in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi 
and calmly confessed to the abduction of Pearl three weeks ago, 
in an apparent protest at the U.S. war in Afghanistan. 

"As far as I understand, he is dead," the bespectacled and 
clean-shaven Sheikh Omar said. In response to a question from the 
judge, Sheikh Omar said, "Yes, I kidnapped him." 

But investigators said Omar's statement could have been a 
publicity stunt, pointing out he had initially told them Pearl 
was alive. Pearl's Wall Street Journal employers said they were 
confident he was still alive. 

The State Department issued a warning to Americans in the Middle 
East. "The Department of State has unconfirmed reports that 
American citizens may be targeted for kidnapping or other 
terrorist actions," it said. 

While Musharraf pledged in Washington to support Karzai's 
government, Pakistani officials said they hoped verbal attacks by 
Afghanistan's interim ministers would cease as a result of a 
pledge by the two neighbours to bury Taliban-era bitterness. 

MUSHARRAF -- FROM OUTCAST TO ALLY 

Musharraf completed his public transformation from political 
outcast to U.S. ally on Thursday when he was hailed in Congress 
as the leader of a "new Pakistan." 

But although he wound up his visit to Washington with plaudits 
and promises and some aid, analysts said full economic and 
military cooperation would await further steps back towards 
democracy and continued cooperation with the war on terrorism. 

Musharraf was condemned in the United States after his 1999 
military takeover but is now embraced for his support of the U.S. 
operation in Afghanistan. 

As the war on terrorism widened, the commander in chief of U.S. 
special forces met his troops in the southern Philippines on 
Thursday, 72 hours before the United States opens a new front in 
its global war on terror. 

About 160 U.S. special forces soldiers are to be deployed on the 
largely Muslim Basilan island to train Filipino troops in 
fighting Abu Sayyaf guerrillas, who are holding hostage a U.S. 
missionary couple and a Filipina nurse and who have been linked 
by the United States to al Qaeda. 

Security officials in Sanaa said that a Yemeni man who blew 
himself up with a hand grenade during a police raid on Wednesday 
was linked to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden which 
killed 19 U.S. soldiers. 

Meanwhile, FBI officials said that five of the 17 men named in an 
alert on Monday about a possible terror attack against the United 
States already were in custody in Yemen. 
*****************************************************************
 22 Monitoring stations on the Saudi border to check nuclear leakage
 
 Saudi Arabia, Local, 2/14/2002 

The chairman of the city of King Abdul Aziz for Sciences and 
Technologies has stated that Saudi Arabia has placed monitor 
station on all its borders in order to depict any nuclear leakage 
that might take place from the neighboring states.
 
In a statement to the Saudi daily al-Jazira issued on Wednesday, 
the Saudi official, Saleh Bin Abdul Rahman ( the chairman of the 
city) said that the commission which he is heading and involved 
in technological and scientific development in the Kingdom "had 
installed monitor stations on all border points of the Kingdom in 
order to check any nuclear leakage in the neighboring states."
 
He indicated the effects on the environment resulted from the 
depleted Uranium following the Gulf war. He explained that a team 
from the International Agency of the Nuclear Energy visited the 
position where such traces do exist and is making studies on the 
"damaged areas."
   
Copyright © 1995-2001 Arabic News.com, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23  New York nuclear power plant is leaking small amount of radioactive coolant -

2/15/2002 - ENN.com
 
  New York nuclear power plant is leaking small amount of 
radioactive coolant Friday, February 15, 2002 By Jim Fitzgerald, 
Associated Press WHITE PLAINS, New York — Radioactive coolant is 
leaking from a steam generator of the Indian Point nuclear plant, 
but it's not enough to endanger anyone or slow down the plant, 
officials said. 

Plant owner Entergy Corp. reported that sensors detected 
radioactivity — about one-tenth of an ounce (2.8 grams) a day — 
in what is supposed to be the clean water that is converted to 
steam. 

"It's very small. It's being monitored. There's no danger," 
Entergy spokesman Larry Gottlieb said Thursday. 

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
estimated the leak at 0.04 gallons (0.152 liters) a day, while 
federal guidelines permit 432 gallons (1,640 liters) a day. 

But activists who have been campaigning to close the plant said 
the leak is the latest proof of the danger of nuclear reactors in 
such a densely populated area as the New York suburbs. The plant 
is 35 miles (55 kilometers) north of New York City. 

"It just reinforces that this plant is vulnerable to structural 
problems, to accidents, and potentially to a terrorist attack," 
said Alex Matthiessen, who leads the environmental organization 
Riverkeeper. 

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets and Sheehan said the leak probably 
dates from late 2000, when then-owner Consolidated Edison 
installed new steam generators, bowing to public pressure after 
the worst accident in the plant's history. On Feb. 15, 2000, a 
tube in the steam generator burst, spilling radioactive coolant 
and sending a tiny amount of radioactive steam into the 
atmosphere. 

Amid fears of a terrorist attack, critics have increased pressure 
to shut down the plant . On Thursday, Westchester County 
Executive Andrew Spano announced a draft plan to distribute 
potassium iodide pills that help fight radiation sickness to 
schools and other institutions. 

Copyright 2002, Associated Press
*****************************************************************
 24 Georgia not stockpiling iodide 

02/15/02
 
021502 metro 21 Jacksonville.com KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE 
-- Unlike their Florida counterparts, Georgia health officials 
have no plans to ask the federal government for a free supply of 
potassium iodide pills to treat residents exposed to high levels 
of radiation. --> Friday, February 15, 2002 

Last modified at 11:14 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2002 
Georgia not stockpiling iodide Kings Bay supply only for workers 

  Visit our special <b>America's Attack on Terrorism</b> site 
[http://www.jacksonville.com/special/terror] By Gordon Jackson 

Times-Union staff writer 

KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE -- Unlike their Florida 
counterparts, Georgia health officials have no plans to ask the 
federal government for a free supply of potassium iodide pills to 
treat residents exposed to high levels of radiation.

 There is a supply of the drug in Camden County at Kings Bay 
Naval Submarine Base but only enough to treat personnel working 
on base, a Navy spokesman said yesterday.

 The drug, offered by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is 
free to states developing plans to help residents in the event of 
a radiation leak at nuclear power plants.

 In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush is asking federal officials for 
783,000 doses of the drug -- enough to treat every resident 
living near the state's three nuclear power plants.

 The primary response in Georgia by state emergency workers is to 
evacuate residents who might be exposed to radiation, said Lisa 
Ray, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Emergency Management Agency.

 "Some of those counties [with nuclear power plants] are very low 
in population within 10 miles of a nuclear facility," Ray said.

 Camden County does not have a nuclear power plant, but Kings Bay 
is home port to 10 nuclear-powered Trident submarines and one of 
the largest stockpiles of nuclear missiles in the nation.

 Susan Bates, a spokeswoman at Camden Medical Center, said the 
St. Marys-based hospital has a disaster preparedness plan that 
includes decontamination of a small number of people exposed to 
high doses of radiation.

 Those exposed would be treated in a shower that rinses off 
contaminants, Bates said.

 Alan Youngner, a pharmacist at Camden Medical Center, said there 
was a "small concern" large doses of potassium iodide aren't 
available locally, but "this drug is only a small part of the 
answer" when treating people exposed to radiation.

 "It doesn't protect the body from other radioactive isotopes," 
he said. Youngner said it was probably unreasonable to expect 
every county in the nation that has a nuclear power plant or 
military facility with nuclear weapons or submarines to stockpile 
enough of the drug to treat everyone exposed.

 Part of the problem, Youngner said, is hospitals have limited 
storage space for drugs and there may not be enough room at some 
medical facilities to house a supply of potassium iodide large 
enough to treat everyone.

 There also are other potential threats to public health, such as 
exposure to anthrax and smallpox that concern those in the 
medical community, Youngner said.

 "You can't expect a hospital to stock everything you need [in 
the event of a terrorist attack]," Youngner said. "No one is 
equipped to deal with a large-scale accident."

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has a 
stockpile of medications that could reach an exposed area 
anywhere in the nation within 12 hours, Youngner said.

 Staff writer Gordon Jackson can be reached at (912) 729-3672 or 
via e-mail at gjackson@jacksonville.com 
[gjackson@jacksonville.com] .
 
                                        
This site, and all its content, © The Florida Times-Union 
*****************************************************************
 25 Westchester County Asks State for Pills to Block Radioactivity Effect

 February 15, 2002
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD 

[W] HITE PLAINS, Feb. 14 — Westchester County officials said 
today that they would ask the state for more than 500,000 
potassium iodide tablets for people living near the Indian Point 
nuclear plants, and perhaps beyond, in an effort to thwart 
radiation-induced thyroid cancer in an emergency. 

Andrew J. Spano, the county executive, outlined a draft plan to 
distribute the pills, just hours after he was notified of a small 
radioactive leak that has been occurring intermittently at Indian 
Point 2 since November. No radiation is escaping into the 
atmosphere and there is no public health threat, plant and 
government officials said, and the amount leaking is nowhere near 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's threshold for shutting down 
or slowing the plant. 

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, which operates the two 
active reactors at the site in Buchanan, N.Y., 35 miles north of 
Midtown Manhattan, said that even though there was no public 
safety threat, officials chose to divulge the problem because of 
heightened concern about the plants. 

Some people want Indian Point shut down because they see it as 
vulnerable to terrorist attacks and a threat to the densely 
populated area. 

The drive to acquire potassium iodide is an offshoot of those 
fears. New York is one of nine states that have requested 
stockpiles of potassium iodide, an over-the-counter drug known by 
its chemical name, KI, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
which is making available six million tablets to states for 
distribution to people living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant. 

New York is requesting 1.2 million pills. The state is working on 
plans to stockpile them for schools and other institutions but is 
asking counties surrounding the plants to come up with plans to 
distribute the pills to the public, said Donald Maurer, a 
spokesman for the state's Office of Emergency Management. 

Today, before the county prepares a final report, Mr. Spano met 
with 150 school and municipal officials as well as emergency 
workers to discuss concerns about distributing the pills. The 
goal, he and his aides said, is to ensure that people have the 
pills in their medicine cabinets before any emergency. He said 
the county would not have the pills at a central place for pickup 
during an emergency because that could interfere with an 
evacuation. 

County officials said they would begin a campaign to teach people 
how to use the pills, and try to dispel any notion that they were 
a cure-all for radiation sickness. 

Some at the meeting said they believed the talk of the pills 
would overshadow efforts to improve evacuation plans, which state 
and county officials maintain are the best defense against 
exposure to radiation. 

"I feel the most important thing we should be addressing is the 
evacuation plan," said Gail Abraham, a school nurse in Chappaqua, 
one of several communities where parents have demanded a 
stockpile of KI. Children are more susceptible to 
radiation-induced thyroid cancer, and many parents in the area 
have already bought supplies at pharmacies and from Internet 
suppliers. Ms. Abraham said she agreed KI should be acquired but 
"I don't know how it would be distributed to students at the 
schools and still evacuate." 

Mr. Spano said the county would also investigate acquiring pills 
or making them available at reduced cost to people living outside 
the 10- mile radius. He said it was important to get a plan in 
place soon, to help calm nerves, which he predicted would be 
further rattled by word of the radioactive leak. 

Entergy said the leak, which it said was caused by flawed 
welding, was discovered when radiation was detected in water in 
one of four new steam generators installed at the end of 2000 by 
Con Edison, which then owned the plant. 

The leak, company officials said, amounted to about 4 ounces a 
day, well below the 432 gallons of leakage per day allowed under 
specifications developed by the federal government and the 
nuclear industry. It is also below the threshold of five gallons 
a day agreed upon by Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission as a result of a radioactive leak almost two years ago 
to the day. That leak, said to be caused by a cracked tube in a 
steam generator, forced an 11- month shutdown of Indian Point 2. 
  
  Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information   
*****************************************************************
 26 Le Monde Dipl.: Russia's nuclear sewer 
 
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:57:50 -0600 (CST)

 
<http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/02/13nuclear>

    Le Monde diplomatique
    -----------------------------------------------------

    February 2002
THE RISKY BUSINESS OF WASTE DISPOSAL
                       Russia's nuclear sewer

      A journalist was sent to prison for four years last year
      after filming the Russian navy dumping radioactive waste
      into the Sea of Japan. He, like many other Russians and
    environmental organisations, opposed the new laws that allow
     the privately profitable import of foreign nuclear waste.

                   by our special correspondent NATHALIE MELIS *

      The deal offered by Minatom (Russia's nuclear energy
      ministry) was that Russia was willing to accept 20m
      tonnes of foreign nuclear waste in exchange for $20bn.
      Former minister Yevgeni Adamov worked to lift the ban on
      storing and burying imported foreign nuclear waste (the
      terms of the ban were previously set out in article 50 of
      Russia's environmental statutes). Countries seeking to
      unload their nuclear waste - including Japan, South
      Korea, Taiwan and several east European nations - are now
      free to do so. In contrast Switzerland is re-evaluating
      its 1998 protocol of intent with Russia, and the German
      environment minister, J|rgen Trittin, announced last June
      that his country would no longer support "an
      irresponsible gamble with the health and safety of the
      Russian people" (1).

      On 18 July 2000 Minatom introduced three bills before the
      Duma, the Russian federal parliament, seeking to amend
      existing legislation to permit "imports of nuclear waste
      and materials, together with irradiated fuels, for
      storage, burial or reprocessing" (2). Significantly, one
      of the bills sought to establish a special fund to clean
      up sites contaminated by 50 years of nuclear experiments
      (see box). Minatom extolled the waste-import programme's
      financial benefits: $3.5bn for the federal budget and
      $7bn for clean-up operations. Some $9bn would be made
      available to the atomic energy industry, which according
      to Adamov constitutes "Russia's pride and joy". It would
      also seem to be a guarantee of the country's financial
      independence.

      According to a December 2000 Romir opinion poll, 94% of
      Russians were opposed to lifting the waste-import ban.
      Nevertheless on 21 December 2000 the Duma approved the
      legislation's first reading by a vote of 318 to 38 (3).
      After some hesitation the bill passed its second reading
      on 18 April 2001. The final reading on 6 June 2001 saw a
      big drop in support, with only 243 deputies in favour and
      125 against.

      It fell to the Russian Council of the Federation (the
      upper parliamentary chamber), which represents the
      various Russian regions, to declare its intentions.
      Various governors and regional assemblies, who enjoy
      closer ties to the Russian people, expressed their
      opposition. Worried over his political future, the former
      Council speaker, Yegor Stroyev, postponed the vote until
      27 June 2001, thereby missing the constitutional deadline
      for the Council's final decision. In the end Russia's
      regional governors abstained, effectively sidestepping
      the issue.

      Vladimir Putin had never come out publicly with his own
      opinion. Before signing the legislation on 11 July 2001,
      he had taken pains to meet with various hand-picked
      "representatives of society" while various TV programmes
      sung the praises of nuclear power. The president also set
      up a commission to approve the nuclear imports on an
      individual basis and appointed as its head Jaures
      Alferov, the 2000 Nobel laureate in physics and a
      supporter of the waste-import programme. According to
      Minatom, if everything proceeds smoothly, the programme
      should be operational in three years' time.

      The environmentalists' quick reaction was spurred by the
      Kremlin's decision to undercut the efforts of those it
      deemed "anti-pollution spoilsports". In June 2000 a
      presidential decree placed the Committee on the
      Environment and the Federal Forest Service, both vestiges
      of the former ministry for the protection of natural
      resources, within the new natural resources ministry.

      The government's anti-environmental offensive had begun
      several months earlier. On 20 February 2000 environmental
      organisations were raided in three different cities.
      Investigators searched the St Petersburg offices of
      Zelyoni Mir (Green World) and seized documents relating
      to the nuclear industry. The following month the police
      raided Greenpeace's Moscow offices with orders - which
      were not authorised by any Russian court of law - to seal
      the premises on the grounds of tax fraud.

      The Russian federal security service (FSB), the KGB's
      successor, has also harassed anti-nuclear activists. In
      December 1999, as part of its investigation into
      "terrorist" activity, the FSB interrogated and threatened
      Alissa Nikoulina, co-ordinator of the anti-nuclear
      campaign undertaken by Ecodefense and the Russian
      Socio-Ecological Union (Soez). Three months previously
      Vladimir Slivyak, one of the anti-nuclear campaign's
      leaders, had been forced into a car and interrogated. A
      military journalist, Grigory Pasko, was convicted
      following his first trial for espionage and treason in
      1999, then granted an amnesty (4); he received a new
      four-year sentence last December. Nuclear disarmament
      expert Igor Sutiagin has spent more than two years in
      prison for "treason".

      The public relations war between the Kremlin and the
      environmentalists began to heat up in June 2000. "There
      will be no clean-up of the contaminated zones, no
      reprocessing and no financial benefits for the people",
      shouted the environmentalists at various demonstrations.
      "The contaminated regions the ministry has referred to
      represent one of Russia's most pressing ecological
      problems, and at least $200bn will be required to fix the
      damages", explains Aleksei Yablokov, former environmental
      advisor to President Boris Yeltsin and currently
      co-ordinator of Soez's anti-nuclear campaign. But the
      waste-import legislation failed to specify the terms and
      conditions for financing clean-ups and other operations.

      The environmentalists point out that there is currently
      only one reprocessing site, the Mayak complex in the
      Urals. Yet Mayak can only process 200 tonnes of waste a
      year, while 14,000 tonnes remain stockpiled at insecure
      locations, "stored underground without authorisation",
      according to Ms Nikoulina. New sites will have to be
      built to accommodate the foreign shipments, and the
      weekly Novaia Gazeta warns that "the waste will be
      'forgotten' and no one will ever come to remove it" (5).
      Ecologists and journalists alike have concerns with
      respect to reprocessing, despite Minatom's assertions
      that spent fuel is not a waste product, but rather a raw
      material that is reusable and resalable (6).

                      A reputation for secrecy

      Minatom has a reputation for secrecy. Adamov, its former
      head, was sacked following accusations in the Duma of
      corruption; his successor, Alexander Rumyantsev, is also
      an avid proponent of nuclear waste imports. Before
      heading Minatom, he ran the Kurtchatov Institute, a
      nuclear research facility that caused a scandal last
      April when it was revealed that 2,000 tonnes of nuclear
      waste were being stored at the institute's headquarters
      in the heart of Moscow. This came as no surprise since
      the minister - who has close ties to the MDM Group, the
      powerful financial conglomerate, and who is currently
      under attack by the Alfa Group, which has been on the
      upswing ever since Putin's rise to power - allegedly
      plans to skim off a portion of the proceeds from waste
      reprocessing. Rumyantsev hopes to use the remaining funds
      as intended to build 30 additional nuclear power plants,
      together with the world's first floating nuclear plant.

      A portion of the proceeds may be used to develop "new
      generation" nuclear weapons, aimed at making "limited"
      nuclear wars possible. "In ten years' time", writes the
      weekly Moskovskie Novosti (7), "during some antiterrorist
      operation, one tiny bomb will explode. This will
      neutralise the terrorists in one fell swoop, together
      with their goats, cows, vegetables and anything else they
      might own". Russia's most recent military doctrine,
      approved by Putin on 10 January 2000, confirms this
      possibility and provides for the use of nuclear weapons
      "if all other means to resolve the situation have been
      employed or have proved ineffective".

      According to Slivyak, Minatom is aware that the import
      programme is inherently unmanageable: "Minatom has a hard
      enough time dealing with its current problems. But given
      the economic crisis, the scales were tipped by the
      nuclear community's desire to save Russia's reactors and
      by the banks lurking greedily behind Minatom. The waste
      will simply be buried, while some of the proceeds will be
      used to shore up Russia's nuclear industry; a portion
      will end up in the pockets of the ministry's bureaucrats
      and the bankers".

      On 23 January 2001 Ecodefense released a report on the
      dangers of transporting nuclear materials. It raised the
      following concerns: the waste-import legislation does not
      meet international standards; Russia uses outmoded
      shipping containers; its regional and federal statutes
      are at variance; the rules governing the granting of
      transportation licences are ludicrous; personnel-related
      competence and safety are in doubt; 40% of Russia's
      railway infrastructure is defective, etc.

      These conclusions shed light on the status of Russia's
      nuclear industry. Even though the country's scientific
      community shows great promise, its nuclear industry
      continues to evolve under unstable conditions;
      corruption, irresponsibility and chronic shortages of
      funds have held sway for decades. According to the United
      States State Department, the world's seven most dangerous
      nuclear sites are located within the borders of the
      former Soviet Union (8).

      In June 2000 the environmentalists officially applied to
      hold a Russia-wide referendum on two issues: importing
      nuclear waste and establishing governmental agencies to
      ensure effective environmental protection. Over a
      four-month period the environmentalists worked to collect
      2m signatures as required by Russia's constitution. On 25
      October 2000 a petition with 2.5m signatures was
      presented to the central elections commission, which
      invalidated 800,000 signatures for spurious reasons a
      month later. The Greens' referendum application was
      rejected by the constitutional court in March 2001.

                       Winning the PR battle

      The environmentalists won a significant public relations
      battle stemming from their anti-nuclear camp held in the
      Ural region, near the city of Chelyabinsk and the Mayak
      reprocessing centre. From 23 July to 5 August 2000, some
      60 representatives from organisations representing 10
      Russian cities, and countries such as Austria and
      Slovakia, pitched tents in one Mayak's most polluted
      districts - although it is not officially recognised as
      such. Soez, Ecodefense and two local groups sought to
      focus attention on public health standards in the
      contaminated zone; they also protested nuclear imports
      and waste storage at the Mayak site and condemned plans
      to build a brand-new nuclear plant in the southern Urals.

      While scientists from western Siberia's University of
      Novossibirsk checked radioactivity levels, the
      environmentalists staged demonstrations throughout
      Chelyabinsk. On 3 August 2000 some 30 protestors blocked
      the entrance to the residence of the regional governor,
      Petr Sumin, who agreed to meet with the protestors. On 8
      August vice-governor Andrey Kosilov announced that he
      would not allow the storage of foreign nuclear waste at
      Mayak and would oppose waste imports unless Russia's 2001
      federal budget included provisions for the social
      rehabilitation of the region's inhabitants.

      Tensions were exacerbated that December when federal
      deputies voted in favour of the waste-import project. On
      15 January 2001 initiatives were organised in a dozen
      cities across Russia: in Tomsk "radioactive" dollars were
      distributed and local residents were coached on lobbying
      their political representatives; in Irkutsk signatures
      were gathered for a petition to be presented to the
      regional parliament; in Saratov the Ecological Theatre
      put on street performances; in Nijni-Novgorod activists
      from the Dront ecological centre distributed postcards
      addressed to the federal deputies. The actions were all
      successful: thousands of postcards were mailed out and,
      several days later, the governor who was seeking
      re-election, came out against waste imports. There were
      few street protests, either because people were fearful
      of the police or questioned their own ability to
      influence events; nevertheless the public registered its
      disapproval via opinion polls, TV programmes and
      letter-writing campaigns. As a result, by March 2001
      almost a third of Russia's regional parliaments had voted
      against the waste-import programme.

      The larger ecological organisations also staged various
      international initiatives. The public-relations war
      shifted to Taiwan and Japan, where local media contended
      that exports of nuclear waste to Russia were lawful. Soez
      flooded Russian parliamentarians with faxes, with help
      from environmental organisations based in Kazakhstan
      (whose parliament is also considering the legalisation of
      waste imports), Greece, the United Kingdom and
      Kyrgyzstan.

      In the Duma, some members of Grigory Yavlinsky's liberal
      party Yabloko and the SPS (Union of Rightist Forces)
      opposed the project and sought to reduce the scope of the
      legislation. One of their proposed amendments would have
      required the Duma to approve the waste-import contracts
      on an individual basis. Another would have required
      reprocessed materials to be sent back to the various
      countries of origin. Both amendments were defeated.

      Two hundred people gathered in Moscow in front of the
      Duma on 15 February 2001 for a demonstration organised by
      Soez, Ecodefense and the Yabloko party. Aman Tuleyev, the
      popular governor of western Siberia's Kemerovo region,
      expressed his outrage at the waste-import programme. Last
      March President Putin received a letter signed by 600
      citizens groups from all over Russia. On 22 March
      Greenpeace got into the act: two young women clad in
      white robes distracted the guards stationed at the
      building entrance while two activists scaled the walls
      and hung a huge banner from the windows of the Duma. The
      next day editorials expressed alarm at the
      ineffectiveness of the security services responsible for
      guarding the people's representatives.

      Then last 18 April members of the Khraniteli Radugi
      environmental association handcuffed themselves to the
      doors of the Duma (9). The following month, just before
      the legislation received its third and final reading, the
      tide of demonstrations showed no sign of abating. Some
      200,000 signatures were collected in the Irkutsk region;
      residents mobilised in the port city of Novorossisk,
      where local authorities had given Minatom their approval
      in principle to nuclear waste shipments. Last June nine
      members of the Russian Academy of Sciences wrote an open
      letter to President Putin expressing their opposition to
      the programme.

                 'People don't die from radiation'

      The nuclear energy minister, speaking on television in
      March 2001, offered this rebuttal to the
      environmentalists: "People don't die from radiation. But
      they sometimes hang themselves after listening to your
      speeches. It's a medical fact: among Chernobyl's dead,
      there were many suicides". At the plenary session of the
      Russian Environmental Congress, created by the Kremlin to
      oppose the proposed referendum campaign, journalists were
      told: "The ignorant masses should have no say in the
      matter".

      Russians looked on in alarm last October as a convoy
      arrived from Bulgaria including 41 tonnes of spent
      nuclear fuel, bound for the Krasnoyarsk storage site (in
      eastern Siberia) and eventual reprocessing. The contract
      governing the shipment was not drawn up by scientific
      experts as required by law (10), and a fresh scandal
      erupted: even though the firm named by the Bulgarian
      nuclear plant to act as middleman went out of business in
      March 2001, it was still listed as the financial
      intermediary. This offshore company, Energy Invest and
      Trade, was closely linked to the notorious Alfa Group,
      whose bankers took over the management of Minatom's
      accounts - and thus the Bulgarian contract - last year.

      Several hours before the nuclear convoy passed by, 15
      cars from another train derailed, damaging 350m of track.
      "The lives of thousands of people living along the
      trans-Siberian railway will be threatened by 670 of these
      convoys if the 20,000 tonnes of waste are transported to
      Siberia", Slivyak estimates. Three regional referendums
      on these questions are being organised. Will the Russian
      people's right to state their position on such critical
      decisions be denied once again? Ms Mikoulina thinks
      democracy itself is at stake.

      The Russian people are under no illusions. According to a
      June 2001 Romir opinion poll, one third of Muscovites
      believed that the Duma's decision primarily served the
      interests of the foreign owners of the nuclear waste;
      19.6% thought that the decision reflected the wishes of
      Minatom and 17.8%, the Russian government. A mere 4% of
      Muscovites viewed the decision as serving the interests
      of the Russian people.
        ____________________________________________________

      * Brussels-based journalist

      (1) The Guardian, London, 12 July 2001.

      (2) A 1995 presidential order sought to legalise imports
      but was successfully appealed by Greenpeace before the
      constitutional court.

      (3) The Duma vote concerned proposed amendments to
      article 50 of the environmental statutes.

      (4) The charges against Pasko stemmed from his providing
      Japanese media outlets with footage of the Russian navy
      dumping radioactive and chemical waste in the Sea of
      Japan.

      (5) Novaia Gazeta, Moscow, 8-15 October 2000.

      (6) In its reprocessed form, irradiated fuel contains
      more plutonium than uranium. Plutonium, which is reusable
      for civilian or military purposes, is much more toxic
      than uranium.

      (7) This Moskovskie Novosti quotation (Moscow, 26
      December 2000-2 January 2001) alludes to a 1999 Russian
      Security Council order calling for rapid development of
      new-generation controlled-power weapons buried deep in
      the ground for use in local and limited nuclear wars.

      (8) See Reni Sepul, "Recrudescence des accidents au
      niveau international", Avancies, Brussels, May 2000.

      (9) The members of the Khraniteli Radugi are known as the
      Rainbow Keepers.

      (10) This contract was signed in June 2000 and was not
      affected by the subsequent amendments. Nevertheless the
      earlier legislation permitted imports for reprocessing,
      with two caveats: nuclear materials were to be shipped
      back to their country of origin and each contract was
      subject to expert evaluation.

                                    Translated by Luke Sandford

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. **
*****************************************************************
 27 Bush 's recommendation on Yucca Mountain is not based on sound science

Public Citizen | Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program | 


Feb. 15 - The administration's recommendation on Yucca Mountain 
is not based on sound science

President George W. Bush will be flip-flopping on a campaign 
promise and putting the public at risk if he accepts Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham’s recommendation to create a nuclear 
waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, Public Citizen said 
today.

During his presidential campaign, then-candidate Bush vowed that 
any decisions regarding the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca 
Mountain would be based not on politics but on "sound science." 
Evidence indicates that Abraham’s recommendation is based on 
nothing of the sort. White House sources have indicated Bush will 
accept Abraham’s recommendation and forward it to Congress. If he 
does, Bush -- whose presidential campaign received nearly 
$300,000 from the nuclear power industry according to the Center 
for Responsive Politics – will be putting politics first and 
turning his back on a campaign promise made to Nevadans and the 
nation.
*****************************************************************
 28 Yucca: AV meeting focuses on tainted groundwater

Pahrump Valley Times  

By:February 13, 2002

Historic groundwater contamination - not the sort feared as a 
result of the Yucca Mountain Project - will be the focus when the 
Community Advisory Board (CAB) for Nevada Test Site programs 
meets tonight in Amargosa Valley.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held from 6:30 
to 9 p.m. at the Amargosa Valley community center on Farm Road.

At issue is a recent CAB peer review of the federal strategy for 
remediation of groundwater contamination, which is the result of 
nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. Between 1951 and 1992, 
828 underground tests were conducted at the 1,350-square-mile 
federal installation in Nye County.

Members of the Community Advisory Board and staff from the Nevada 
Test Site will be on hand tonight to discuss the remediation 
effort and the peer review. State and county representatives have 
also been invited to attend.

The issue of groundwater contamination is of particular interest 
to Amargosa Valley residents, who live "downstream" from the test 
site. Testing has shown plumes of contaminated groundwater near 
some of the sites of underground blasts. To date, no water-borne 
radioactive particles from underground nuclear tests have been 
found in monitoring wells outside of the test site.

©Pahrump Valley Times 2002 
*****************************************************************
 29 Russian nuclear plant set to open training centre for waste 
disposal 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 14, 2002

Text of report by Russian news agency RIA

Krasnoyarsk, 14 February, RIA correspondent Boris Ivanov: 

A special training centre to handle radioactive waste, mainly of 
military origin, is being set up in the closed town of 
Zheleznogorsk, near Krasnoyarsk [formerly Krasnoyarsk-26], 
Vasiliy Zhidkov, the director-general of the Mining and Chemical 
Combine that will host the centre, has told RIA.

Zhidkov said that the centre will deal, in the first place, with 
liquid nuclear waste. Enormous volumes of it have already been 
accumulated in the world, and in order to process it one requires 
not just "big money", but special technologies as well, he said.

"We won the international tender, as our methods were considered 
to be close to ideal," Zhidkov said. The new centre will provide 
paid services by training nuclear specialists from any country. 
It will demonstrate the entire technological process of handling 
nuclear waste, from its extraction from underground tanks, where 
it has been stored for decades, up to transforming it into the 
solid state and placement in a special glass-concrete jacket for 
final burial.

Source: RIA news agency, Moscow, in Russian 0820 gmt 14 Feb 02 
/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 30 Russia to take back spent fuel from nuclear stations abroad 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 14, 2002

Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS

Krasnoyarsk, 14 February: Spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power 
stations which are being built by Russia in Iran, China and India 
is to be brought back to Russia.

The stations will use Russian nuclear fuel which, under the 
provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, should be 
returned to the country of origin, Valeriy Lebedev, deputy 
minister of atomic energy, told ITAR-TASS on Thursday [14 
February].

The construction of a nuclear power station in Iran is to be 
completed at the end of 2004 or early in 2005, Lebedev pointed 
out. Special nuclear-fuel assemblies are to be supplied there by 
that time.

After the service length of each such nuclear-fuel assembly 
expires, it is subject to return to Russia for reprocessing. 
Similar operations will be carried out at the nuclear power 
stations in India and China.

Russia has signed three contracts to build nuclear power stations 
in these countries and each station will have two reactors.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1053 gmt 14 Feb 
02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 31 D.C. Protest over n-waster transport plans

Public Citizen | Press Room - 

Feb. 14, 2002

Demonstrators at Capitol Protest Dangerous Nuclear Waste 
Transportation Plan

Lawmakers Are Urged to Reject Yucca Mountain Recommendation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Demonstrators gathered outside the Capitol 
building this morning to oppose a proposed nuclear waste dump and 
the cross-country nuclear shipments it would require. 
Representatives of national environmental, consumer advocacy and 
public interest groups joined members of Nevada’s congressional 
delegation to urge President Bush and Congress to abandon the 
Yucca Mountain Project.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to officially 
recommend to the president that a high-level nuclear waste 
repository be developed at Yucca Mountain, located 80 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas in Nevada. Bush likely will refer the 
recommendation to Congress. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn has announced 
his intention to veto the project, but Congress could override 
Nevada’s objection. A vote by Congress is expected this spring. 
"The proposal for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain would 
send tens of thousands of radioactive waste trains and trucks 
through 44 states and the District of Columbia, putting millions 
of Americans at risk," said Michael Mariotte, executive director 
of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). "Each 
shipment of nuclear waste is a ‘mobile Chernobyl,’ an accident 
waiting to happen." Today’s event took place against the backdrop 
of a full-sized model of a nuclear waste transportation cask 
painted with radiation symbols and a skull and crossbones.

Bruce Williams, Takoma Park, Md., City Council member and mayor 
pro tem, expressed concern about rail lines through Takoma Park 
that have been identified as likely transport routes for Yucca 
Mountain shipments. "The risks posed by nuclear waste shipments 
have been a concern in our community for the past 20 years. We 
are committed to keeping this dangerous cargo out of Takoma Park 
to protect the health and safety of residents," Williams said. 
Takoma Park officials have designated the town a nuclear-free 
zone.

Participants in the rally held signs that read, "Stop atomic 
trains and trucks" and "No nuke waste trains through D.C." A 
Valentine’s Day card to Bush was on display, urging the president 
to "have a heart" and reject the Yucca Mountain recommendation.

Speakers also raised concerns about the site itself.

"Yucca Mountain is in an earthquake zone," said Anna Aurilio, 
legislative director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. 
"The Department of Energy’s own scientists admit that if nuclear 
waste is buried at this location, radiation will eventually leak 
into the groundwater and contaminate the surrounding 
environment."

Ann Mesnikoff, Washington representative of the Sierra Club’s 
Global Warming and Energy Program said, "Public health and the 
environment should not be sacrificed for the narrow economic 
interests of polluting energy industries. Congress should shelve 
the Yucca Mountain Project and invest in a clean energy future."

Added Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass 
Energy and Environment Program, "Secretary Abraham’s site 
recommendation lacks credibility, given that this 
administration’s energy policies have been seriously discredited 
by the inappropriate and secretive involvement of energy industry 
tycoons. We call upon Congress to oppose the Yucca Mountain 
Project to protect the integrity of government processes, as well 
as public health and safety."

###
*****************************************************************
 32 Nuclear waste site choice criticized

United Press International: 

By Scott R. Burnell
UPI Science News
Published 2/14/2002 6:21 PM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Nevada's congressional delegation 
joined environmental and anti-nuclear groups on Capitol Hill 
Thursday to ask the Bush administration to drop plans for a 
nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, outside of Las Vegas.

The country's nuclear power plants are running out of room to 
store spent fuel on their own property, so a permanent disposal 
site is needed.

The Department of Energy has spent two decades studying the idea 
of placing casks of spent nuclear fuel deep underground for 
thousands of years. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has 
recommended going ahead with plans to create the Yucca Mountain 
depository.

President George Bush is expected to forward the proposal to 
Congress, but the entire chain of events is now suspect, said 
Wenonah Hauter, director of the Critical Mass program at the 
watchdog group Public Citizen.

"Secretary Abraham's site recommendation lacks credibility, given 
that this administration's energy policies have been seriously 
discredited by the inappropriate and secretive involvement of 
energy industry tycoons," Hauter told a gathering outside the 
House chambers.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a longtime opponent of the site, said 
many agencies, including the General Accounting Office, and a 
former director of the Yucca program, have concluded the science 
behind the plan is not complete. Both Reid and Rep. Jim Gibbons, 
R-Nev., said Bush should take more time to examine all the 
evidence before making his decision.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said picking the site will not 
solve the nuclear waste problem.

"If Yucca Mountain is approved, 77,000 tons of deadly high-level 
nuclear waste will be transported on our nation's roads and 
rails, through 43 states, for the next 30 to 40 years," Berkley 
said in a statement. "DOE knows it would lose support (for the 
plan) if those routes were made public."

Even if the plan is approved and the site completed, spent fuel 
will continue to pile up at nuclear plants to satisfy a five-year 
"cooling-off" requirement before shipment, Public Citizen said in 
a statement. Yucca is not even large enough to hold the expected 
88,000 tons of waste the nation's plants are expected to generate 
in their lifetimes, the group said.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm, said 
attacks on the plan's scientific basis are unjustified. A panel 
of scientists, chosen by the National Academy of Sciences to 
review the Yucca proposal, found "no individual technical or 
scientific factor has been identified that would automatically 
eliminate Yucca Mountain from consideration," NEI said in a 
statement. The academy recommended going ahead with the project 
in phases, the group said.

The GAO report Reid referred to confuses picking a suitable site 
with licensing a facility, NEI said. The Energy Department is 
aware of issues needing further study, and has fulfilled all the 
legal requirements for recommending the site, the group added. 

Copyright © 2002 United Press International
  
*****************************************************************
 33 Bush Approves Recommendation of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for 
Nuclear Waste Storage                

FOXNews.com
  
Friday, February 15, 2002
 			 				 					 			   			     			     			     			 			
WASHINGTON — President Bush accepted a recommendation from his 
energy secretary that Yucca Mountain in Nevada become the 
repository for 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from 
nuclear plants around the country, White House officials 
announced Friday. 
                                                                                                                
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham formally recommended the site to 
Bush Thursday in a letter in which he said he is convinced the 
proposal for a nuclear waste facility 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas is "based on sound scientific principles that ... will be 
able to protect the health and safety of the public." 
			 				
"They have reviewed more than 17,000 documents, had more than 100 
public hearings. This has been over a 20-year period, that was 
based on a scientific and technological investigation," said 
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer Friday.
 			 				
The decision earned immediate criticism from the House Minority 
Leader.
 			 				
"I am deeply disappointed by the administration's decision on 
Yucca Mountain. There is not nearly enough scientific knowledge 
to reach a conclusion about the safety of transporting, then 
dumping, thousands of tons of radioactive, nuclear waste in the 
state of Nevada," said Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. "I will work 
with other Democratic Leaders in the House and the Senate to 
overturn the administration's decision in Congress and to 
safeguard the health of the people of Nevada."
 			 				
Abraham notified Nevada a month ago that he would recommend the 
site to the president. He said it had been studied for 20 years 
at a cost of more than $4 billion and had been shown to be 
"scientifically and technically suitable." 
			 				
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Abraham's recommendation "a 
hasty, poor, and indefensible decision" at a time when "the 
science does not yet exist" to ensure the wastes can be contained 
for thousands of years. 
			 				
If, as expected, the Nevada legislature objects, it will trigger 
an intense lobbying effort by Nevadans in Congress, where a 
majority vote of lawmakers can override the state's objection. 
That would clear the way for the administration to seek 
construction and operating licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. 
			 				
Nevada has 60 days to file a protest. Then, Congress has 90 days 
to override. Even if approved and licensed, the site is not 
expected to open and accept waste until 2010 at the earliest. 
			 				
About 40,000 tons of used reactor fuel, which will remain highly 
radioactive for as long as 10,000 years, currently sit in waste 
pools and concrete bunkers at 103 commercial power reactors in 31 
states. Power plants produce about 2,000 tons of used reactor 
rods a year. 
			 				
Abraham said, "compelling national interests," made more apparent 
by the Sept. 11 terror attacks, require development of a remote 
centralized disposal site. 
			 				
"More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of one or more 
of these sites" that now hold the waste, Abraham said. 
			 				
Nevada's senators have said that while Abraham wants to create a 
safe place to store the waste, the transport of the waste, via 
truck shipments, is unsafe.
 			 				
Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn and members of the state's 
congressional delegation went to the White House last week to ask 
that Bush not act hastily on Yucca Mountain. Guinn was sharply 
critical of Abraham's decision, because state officials contend 
the safety of the site has not been assured. 
			 				
On Friday, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman attacked Bush for his 
decision.
 			 				
"I called him a blockhead before, I've called him a fathead 
before, it's too good for him," Goodman said.
 			 				
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 			 	 	   
[politics@foxnews.com]                                                  
     	
Fox News Network, LLC 2002. All rights reserved. 		
*****************************************************************
 34 Reid: Time for Bush to show he is 'man of his word'
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 14, 2002 
 
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Nevada lawmakers urged President Bush on 
Thursday to make good on his campaign promises and demand more 
scientific data before deciding whether to accept the Energy 
Department's recommendation to build a nuclear waste dump at 
Yucca Mountain. 

Opponents of the proposed waste dump appealed to the president 
after Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham forwarded to Bush his 
formal recommendation to store 77,000 tons of the nation's 
nuclear waste north of Las Vegas. 

"I told the president that if he decides to go forward with a 
recommendation to designate Yucca Mountain as a nuclear 
repository I will exercise my veto power," Gov. Kenny Guinn said. 

State Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said her office was 
prepared to "immediately" go to court to challenge Abraham's 
recommendation and Bush's decision. 

"We will file a legal challenge based on our belief that sound 
science proves that the site is unsuitable," Del Papa said, 
noting that the Energy Department had not issued a final 
environmental impact study before the recommendation was sent to 
the president. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking from the Senate floor said 
Abraham made a "hasty, poor and indefensible decision. 

"Now the question of whether a high-level nuclear waste dump will 
be built in Nevada lies with President Bush," Reid said. 

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told 
The Associated Press that Bush intends to accept Abraham's 
recommendation and that a decision could come from the president 
as early as Friday. 

Reid, the second-highest ranking member of the Senate, said Bush 
should postpone any decision-making until he receives additional 
"peer-reviewed science of the highest caliber. 

"That science does not yet exist," he said. 

"The president has the responsibility and the authority to 
fulfill the promise he made to Nevada as a candidate. I urge 
President Bush to exercise that authority and show the nation he 
is a man of his word," Reid said. 

"The DOE has obviously been hell-bent for the repository, 
regardless of the science or lack thereof," said Bob Loux, the 
top Nevada state appointed official working to oppose the 
project. 

"There's this move forward at breakneck speed regardless of the 
regulations and the law and sound science." 

Loux said the state was prepared to challenge the recommendation 
based on how the decision was reached and on unresolved technical 
issues cited in both a November congressional General Accounting 
Office review and a January report by an independent Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board. 

The GAO cited 293 unresolved technical issues and recommended 
that the Energy Department postpone a site recommendation until 
they were addressed. 

The Technical Review Board criticized the Energy Department 
scientific work at Yucca Mountain as "weak to moderate." 

"I don't think the people of the country realize what is being 
proposed by DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham," said Las Vegas Mayor 
Oscar Goodman. "What a Valentine's Day Gift." 

Goodman said he has identified 109 cities each with populations 
of at least 100,000 residents on transportation routes in 43 
states through which nuclear material would have to be shipped to 
Nevada. 

"Americans need to be aware of the vulnerability of their 
communities," he said. 

Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nuclear Waste Task 
Force, a Las Vegas advocacy group that has followed the process 
since the mid-1980s, said the group had been holding out hope DOE 
would see the light, but that the decision was not unexpected. 

"We haven't lost. We've just begun to fight," she said. 

Treichel recalled the federal government's assurances in the 
1950s, 1960s and 1970s that people living downwind of the Nevada 
Test Site faced no danger from fallout from nuclear weapons 
tests. 

"They finally agreed to compensate people who had been harmed," 
Treichel said. "The assumption was that we learned a lesson about 
victimizing people. Here, they run roughshod over us." 

Former Nevada Gov. Robert List is among the few high-profile 
backers of the waste dump 90 miles north of Las Vegas. 

"After $8 billion dollars, 20 years and four presidents and all 
the announcements in recent weeks from the DOE, this should not 
come as a shock to anybody," List said. 

The Republican, who was governor from 1979 to 1983, has been 
working as a consultant with the Nuclear Energy Institute, a 
Washington-based pro-Yucca trade and lobbying group, to nudge 
Nevada residents toward negotiating for federal benefits in 
return for accepting the dump. 

"Nevadans and their public officials are fighting it vigorously," 
List said. "But we have to realize that, like it or not, it's a 
national issue with major ramifications for national security and 
energy independence" 

"I don't think our president has a whole lot of choice here," 
List said. 

"Our governor will veto it," said Doris Jackson, a saloon 
operator and chairwoman of an elected advisory board in Amargosa 
Valley, a Nevada farming town of about 1,300 people about 15 
miles west of Yucca Mountain. "But that's just a stall for time." 

"It would be nice if they took all those millions of dollars and 
found a better way to use all that energy instead of burying it," 
Jackson said. 

--- Associated Press writers Brendan Riley and Ken Ritter 
contributed to this report. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 Bush to approve recommendation to use of Nevada's Yucca Mountain 
for nuclear waste storage
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 14, 2002 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush intends quickly to accept a 
recommendation from his energy secretary that Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada be developed to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive 
waste, White House officials said. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham formally recommended the site to 
Bush in a letter late Thursday in which he said he is convinced 
the proposal for a waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas is "based on sound scientific principles that ... will be 
able to protect the health and safety of the public." 

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 
Bush intends to accept Abraham's recommendation, and a decision 
could come from the president as early as Friday. 

"The president will review it," White House spokeswoman Claire 
Buchan said, declining to give a timetable. 

Abraham notified Nevada a month ago that he would recommend the 
site to the president. He said it had been studied for 20 years 
at a cost of more than $4 billion and has been shown to be 
"scientifically and technically suitable." 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Abraham's recommendation "a 
hasty, poor, and indefensible decision" at a time when "the 
science does not yet exist" to ensure the wastes can be contained 
for thousands of years. 

Nevada has said it would file a protest, which would mean that 
Congress would have to approve the president's action, or another 
location would have to be found. Even if approved and licensed, 
the site is not expected to open to take waste until 2010 at the 
earliest. 

The Yucca site is expected to handle thousands of tons of used 
reactor fuel rods, which now are kept at 103 commercial power 
reactors in 31 states, and highly radioactive defense waste now 
stored in eight states. 

Abraham said "compelling national interests," made more apparent 
by the Sept. 11 terror attacks, require development of a remote 
centralized disposal site. "More than 161 million people live 
within 75 miles of one or more of these sites" that now hold the 
waste, Abraham said. 

Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn and members of the state's 
congressional delegation went to the White House last week to ask 
that Bush not act hastily on Yucca Mountain. Guinn was sharply 
critical of Abraham's decision, because state officials contend 
the safety of the site has not been assured. 

Still, Bush will try to reassure Nevada's officials, including 
Republican officeholders fearful of a political fallout, that the 
selection of Yucca Mountain is scientifically sound. 

If Bush approves and Nevada objects, it will trigger an intense 
lobbying effort by Nevadans in Congress, where a majority vote of 
lawmakers can override the state's objection. That would clear 
the way for the administration to seek construction and operating 
licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

About 40,000 tons of used reactor fuel, which will remain highly 
radioactive for as long as 10,000 years, currently sit in waste 
pools and concrete bunkers at 103 commercial power reactors in 31 
states. Power plants produce about 2,000 tons of used reactor 
rods a year. 

Opponents of a proposed dump in Nevada rallied Thursday on 
Capitol Hill, the first of many such protests likely in coming 
weeks. If Bush approves the site, Nevada has 60 days to file a 
protest. Then Congress has 90 days to override. 

"I totally oppose this. I do not want anything that could affect 
the health of my wife and two kids coming into my state," said 
Nevadan Hugh Jackson as he and several dozen protesters chanted 
"Nuclear wastes, No way!" outside the Capitol. Sen. John Ensign, 
R-Nev., told the group that while Nevadans of all political 
parties oppose the Yucca Mountain project, those in other states 
through which the waste will be shipped also should be alarmed. 

"The transportation of this is unsafe," Ensign said. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov/ 
[http://www.ymp.gov/] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 36 Nevada officials call on Bush to ignore nuclear recommendation
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 14, 2002 
 
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Nevada lawmakers urged President Bush on 
Thursday to make good on his campaign promises and demand more 
scientific data before deciding whether to accept the Energy 
Department's recommendation to build a nuclear waste dump at 
Yucca Mountain. 

Opponents of the proposed waste dump appealed to the president 
after Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham forwarded to Bush his 
formal recommendation to store 77,000 tons of the nation's 
nuclear waste northwest of Las Vegas. 

"I told the president that if he decides to go forward with a 
recommendation to designate Yucca Mountain as a nuclear 
repository I will exercise my veto power," said Gov. Kenny Guinn 
whose action would send the issue to Congress. 

State Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said her office was 
prepared to "immediately" go to court to challenge Abraham's 
recommendation and Bush's decision. 

"We will file a legal challenge based on our belief that sound 
science proves that the site is unsuitable," Del Papa said, 
noting that the Energy Department had not issued a final 
environmental impact study before the recommendation was sent to 
the president. 

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called Abraham's 
recommendation "corrupt and morally bankrupt." 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking from the Senate floor, said 
Abraham made a "hasty, poor and indefensible decision. 

"Now the question of whether a high-level nuclear waste dump will 
be built in Nevada lies with President Bush," Reid said. 

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told 
The Associated Press that Bush intends to accept Abraham's 
recommendation and that a decision could come from the president 
as early as Friday. 

Reid, the second-highest ranking member of the Senate, said Bush 
should postpone a decision until he receives additional 
"peer-reviewed science of the highest caliber. 

"That science does not yet exist," he said. 

"The president has the responsibility and the authority to 
fulfill the promise he made to Nevada as a candidate. I urge 
President Bush to exercise that authority and show the nation he 
is a man of his word," Reid said. 

Nevada Republicans in Congress were just as critical. 

"For the past decade, the DOE has continued to base a site 
suitability analysis on flawed science, unsound data, and 
unconscionable bias," U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. 

"I am dismayed that Secretary Abraham is willing to jeopardize 
the lives of millions of Americans, by whose homes, schools, and 
hospitals, high level nuclear waste will be traveling. 
Unfortunately, Secretary Abraham appears determined to send 
nuclear waste to Nevada, regardless of the facts." 

Bob Loux, the top appointed state official working to oppose the 
project said the federal government has been moving at breakneck 
speed despite regulations and safety concerns. 

"The DOE has obviously been hell-bent for the repository, 
regardless of the science or lack thereof," Loux said. 

Loux said the state was prepared to challenge the recommendation 
based on how the decision was reached and on unresolved technical 
issues cited in a November congressional General Accounting 
Office review and a January report by an independent Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board. 

The GAO cited 293 unresolved technical issues and recommended the 
Energy Department postpone a site recommendation until they were 
addressed. The Technical Review Board criticized the Energy 
Department scientific work at Yucca Mountain as "weak to 
moderate." 

"I don't think the people of the country realize what is being 
proposed by DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham," said Las Vegas Mayor 
Oscar Goodman. "What a Valentine's Day Gift." 

Goodman said he has identified 109 cities each with populations 
of at least 100,000 residents on transportation routes in 43 
states through which nuclear material would have to be shipped to 
Nevada. 

"Americans need to be aware of the vulnerability of their 
communities," he said. 

Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nuclear Waste Task 
Force, a Las Vegas advocacy group that has followed the process 
since the mid-1980s, said the decision was not unexpected. 

"We haven't lost. We've just begun to fight," she said. 

Treichel recalled the federal government's assurances in the 
1950s, 1960s and 1970s that people living downwind of the Nevada 
Test Site faced no danger from fallout from nuclear weapons 
tests. 

"They finally agreed to compensate people who had been harmed," 
Treichel said. "The assumption was that we learned a lesson about 
victimizing people. Here, they run roughshod over us." 

Former Nevada Gov. Robert List is among the few high-profile 
backers of the waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

"After $8 billion dollars, 20 years and four presidents and all 
the announcements in recent weeks from the DOE, this should not 
come as a shock to anybody," List said. 

The Republican, who was governor from 1979 to 1983, has been 
working as a consultant with the Nuclear Energy Institute, a 
Washington-based pro-Yucca trade and lobbying group, to nudge 
Nevada residents toward negotiating for federal benefits in 
return for accepting the dump. 

"Nevadans and their public officials are fighting it vigorously," 
List said.

"But we have to realize that, like it or not, it's a national 
issue with major ramifications for national security and energy 
independence" 

"I don't think our president has a whole lot of choice here," 
List said. 

Doris Jackson, a saloon operator and chairwoman of an elected 
advisory board in Amargosa Valley, a Nevada farming town of about 
1,300 people about 15 miles west of Yucca Mountain, said the 
waste dump is not a solution. 

"It would be nice if they took all those millions of dollars and 
found a better way to use all that energy instead of burying it," 
she said. 

"Our governor will veto it," Jackson said. "But that's just a 
stall for time." 

Associated Press writers Brendan Riley and Ken Ritter contributed 
to this report. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 37 Yucca Mountain, Capitol events spotlight nuclear waste battle
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 14, 2002 
 
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Two top lobbyists toured a proposed nuclear 
waste site Thursday, and opponents rallied on Capitol Hill as 
both sides prepared for an expected congressional fight about 
burying the nation's radioactive waste in Nevada. 

"This is a national issue," declared John Sununu, a Republican 
former New Hampshire governor and presidential chief-of-staff. He 
was hired last year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to push for 
approval of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. 

"I'm very impressed with the facility ... its capacity and 
immensity," Sununu told The Associated Press in a post-tour 
telephone interview while traveling 90 miles back to Las Vegas. 
"Once you get inside, you see that the geology and engineering is 
on the right track." 

Lobbying partner Geraldine Ferraro said she was satisfied with 
Energy Department and Bechtel SAIC project scientists' assurances 
that volcanic and earthquake activity is rare at Yucca Mountain, 
and that underground water contamination is unlikely. 

"We ran the gamut with questions Nevada has been asking," said 
Ferraro, a former New York congresswoman and Democratic vice 
presidential candidate. "I'm satisfied with the answers that this 
would be the appropriate place for the repository." 

In Washington, D.C., opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan - 
including three Nevada congressional representatives, one state 
lawmaker and officials from environmental and advocacy groups - 
rallied around a full-sized model of a silver nuclear cask to 
highlight dangers of transporting radioactive waste. U.S. Rep. 
Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., raised the specter of a radioactive cask 
breaking open near a school, business or hospital. 

"An accident or attack ... would result in an environmental 
catastrophe lasting tens of thousands of years," she said. 

The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce broke last year with the 
national organization after expressing fears that a mishap while 
shipping material past the Las Vegas Strip could hurt thousands 
of hotel-casino guests. Just the possibility is enough to scare 
tourists away, the chamber said. 

Lisa Gue, a policy analyst for Public Citizen, an anti-nuclear 
lobbying organization, said nuclear waste won't just be a Nevada 
issue "once trucks and trains start rolling down the roads and 
rails." 

The contrasting events focused attention on the mountain 
northwest of Las Vegas and on the Capitol, where a fight over the 
proposed dump seems certain. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham took a similar tour last month 
and announced three days later that despite some unanswered 
scientific questions, he would recommend the site as suitable to 
entomb the nation's 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. 

Bush has called nuclear power a cornerstone of his national 
energy policy, and the Energy Department has been under pressure 
to find a place to dispose the nation's spent nuclear fuel. 

Yucca Mountain has been under study since 1982. It includes a 
five-mile test tunnel bored into the volcanic ridge at the 
western edge of the Nevada Test Site - where nuclear test 
explosions took place from 1951 to 1992. 

The Energy Department wants to begin accepting waste at the site 
in 2010. The project could cost an estimated $58 billion over two 
decades and leave the site radioactive for 10,000 years. 

Bush has not said whether he will approve Yucca Mountain, but 
aides say he is likely to accept Abraham's recommendation. 

If so, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn has pledged to exercise a state 
veto, sending the matter to Congress, where a simple majority in 
both houses would prevail. Sununu and Ferraro are expected to 
provide lobbying weight to counter Nevada's congressional 
delegation that includes U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the second-ranking 
Democrat in the Senate. 

Reid joined Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Rep. Shelley Berkley, 
D-Nev., at Thursday's Capitol Hill rally. 

Sununu downplayed his comments last month that if Nevada won't 
take the nation's nuclear waste, "maybe Americans ought to 
vacation somewhere else." "I would hope that those who object to 
the site follow the law," he said Thursday. "I hope they don't do 
it so they create a negative reaction around the country." 

"We have a long history in this process," Sununu added. "There 
are 130-plus sites in 39 states waiting for this process to move 
forward. There's been $20 billion collected from the American 
ratepayer to bring this forward." 

Yucca Mountain opponents say it would be safer to leave nuclear 
material in place in casks and cooling pools at 103 commercial 
nuclear reactors and various industrial and military sites 
nationwide. 

They emphasize the risks of sabotage or accident while the 
material is being shipped by truck and train to Nevada. 

Ferraro said she was confident unanswered technical and 
scientific questions - and protesters' concerns about 
transporting nuclear waste in man-made casks - will be answered 
before the target date for the repository to open. 

"I think a lot of the scientific information will come out during 
the licensing," she said. 

"If we can clone a baby, we can figure out how to make those 
casks safe," Ferraro added. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project Web site: http://www.ymp.gov 
[http://www.ymp.gov] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Bush to OK Nevada Nuclear Dump Site
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 15, 2002 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - 

President Bush, citing national security concerns and years of 
scientific studies, will approve Yucca Mountain in Nevada for 
long-term disposal of thousands of tons of highly radioactive 
commercial and government nuclear waste, administration officials 
say. 

An administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, 
said Bush intends to accept Abraham's recommendation Friday. 

Once the president acts, Nevada has said it would file a protest 
and under a 1987 law Congress then would have to sustain the 
president's decision by a majority vote of both houses. The 
process could take four or five months. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham late Thursday formally 
recommended the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas as the place 
to bury radioactive waste that has been piling up at the nation's 
commercial nuclear reactors and at U.S. defense facilities, 
beginning as early as 2010. As much as 77,000 tons of waste could 
be entombed there. 

In a letter to the president, Abraham said a review of 20 years 
of scientific studies has convinced him that the waste can be 
kept in volcanic rock 950 feet beneath the Nevada desert without 
risk to public health or the environment. "I could not and would 
not recommend the Yucca Mountain site without having first 
determined that (it will) ...protect the health and safety of the 
public," Abraham said. 

Rejecting critics' claims that the science has not clearly shown 
the wastes can be contained for thousands of years at the Nevada 
site, Abraham said his conclusions were "based on sound 
scientific principles." 

The Yucca Mountain site, which also will have to get approval 
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if a decision is made to 
proceed, is expected to handle thousands of tons of used reactor 
fuel rods now kept at 103 commercial power reactors in 31 states 
as well as highly radioactive defense waste now being stored in 
eight states. 

Some of the radioisotopes will remain deadly for more than 10,000 
years. Abraham notified Nevada a month ago that he would 
recommend the site to the president. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Abraham's recommendation "a 
hasty, poor and indefensible decision" at a time when "the 
science does not yet exist" to ensure the wastes can be contained 
for thousands of years. 

Abraham said "compelling national interests" - made even more 
apparent by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks - require development 
of a remote centralized disposal site. 

"More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of one or more 
of these sites" now holding the waste, he said. 

Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn and members of Nevada's 
congressional delegation made an appeal at the White House last 
week asking that Bush not act hastily on Yucca Mountain. Guinn 
was sharply critical of Abraham's decision because state 
officials claim the safety of the site has not been assured. 

Still, Bush will try to assure Nevada's officials - including 
Republican office holders fearful of a political fallout from the 
decision - that the selection of Yucca Mountain is a 
scientifically sound one. 

Opponents of a proposed dump in Nevada rallied Thursday on 
Capitol Hill, the first of many such protests likely in the weeks 
ahead. If Bush approves the site, Nevada has 60 days to file a 
protest. Then Congress has 90 days to override the state 
objection. If it doesn't, lawmakers will have to find a new 
location. 

"I totally oppose this. I do not want anything that could affect 
the health of my wife and two kids coming into my state," said 
Nevadan Hugh Jackson as he and several dozen protesters chanted 
"Nuclear wastes, no way!" outside the Capitol. Sen. John Ensign, 
R-Nev., told the group that Nevadans weren't the only people who 
should worry about Yucca Mountain. If it is built, thousands of 
waste shipments will cross 43 states over both rail and highways. 

"The transportation of this is unsafe," said Ensign. 

The Energy Department and nuclear industry said the shipments can 
be conducted safely and that leaving the wastes at reactor sites 
poses security and safety concerns as well. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov/ 
[http://www.ymp.gov/] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain: the next phase


Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
The time to file a 10th Amendment lawsuit is ... when? 

After numerous delays both political and procedural, Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham has finally sent Nevada his little 
Valentine. On Thursday he did what everyone knew perfectly well 
he was going to do: recommended to President Bush that Yucca 
Mountain be authorized as the nation's permanent site for 
high-level nuclear waste. 

This is only another in a long series of thoroughly predictable 
steps aimed at placing spent commercial nuclear fuel rods and 
other radioactive wastes in the bowels of the mountain 100 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas. It will still be years -- if ever -- 
before the cannisters start trundling through Pioche. 

Cynical promises have long been made that such a decision would 
be based on "science, not politics," of course. But the 
reliability of such promises could easily be judged by the fact 
they were made by politicians ... not scientists. 

The Nevada site has been the only one under study for more than a 
decade, and the well-heeled commercial nuclear industry urgently 
needs somewhere to store the hot and glowing leftovers that have 
been piling up in on-site reflective pools at their reactors 
scattered across 31 states. 

This development, however, should serve as a goad to officials 
such as Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, who have 
long dithered about, explaining that a 10th Amendment challenge 
to this high-handed federal conduct is "being studied," and may 
be "incorporated into Nevada's opposition" once the issue has 
"ripened." 

If Ms. Del Papa is serious, the time for filing a 10th Amendment 
suit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court (not merely "studying" 
some cobbled-together action which would make the constitutional 
case "part of Nevada's opposition") now looms. 

How many more years of "study" are required? 

Yes, the opposition will argue that the people of the territory, 
"In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of 
the United States" of 1864, in order to become a state, agreed 
that, "The people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, 
that they forever disclaim all right and title to the 
unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that 
the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition 
of the United States ..." 

But Nevada was also guaranteed it entered the union on an "equal 
footing" with the original states. How does the acreage 
controlled by the federal government in any way trump that? 

Even if we grant that Washington has a "right and title" to these 
lands -- and it's worth noting the lands are no longer within a 
"territory," as stipulated -- surely that's different (and more 
limited) than "sole legislative jurisdiction," which is not 
expressly granted for any locations but the District of Columbia 
and the island territories. 

If some private corporation were to buy 50 acres in Summerlin, 
the state and county might well disclaim "all right and title" to 
that land ... but does it thus follow said private firm can build 
its own private nuclear waste dump, oblivious to any state 
regulations to the contrary? 

Just because the federal government may be a landholder within 
the state, could it practice slavery on its inholdings, or other 
acts which are crimes under Nevada law? Is the state sovereign, 
or not? 

One suspects Ms. Del Papa, a Democrat whose political instinct is 
to favor all the largess flowing out of Washington, hopes the 
answer is "or not." But she was elected to do the opposite: to 
assert Nevada's sovereignty, and to win. 

Wasn't she?
 
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002
*****************************************************************
 40 YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Decision on waste goes to Bush

Spencer Abraham The energy secretary sends President Bush a 
letter endorsing Nevada site.
 
Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
Energy secretary tells president location 'technically suitable' 

By STEVE TETREAULT and KEITH ROGERS 
REVIEW-JOURNAL 

WASHINGTON -- Nevada's prospects to become the nation's burial 
ground for nuclear waste were placed in the hands of President 
Bush on Thursday when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
transmitted a packet to the White House recommending that Bush 
approve a Yucca Mountain repository. 

Abraham digitally signed and electronically relayed to the 
president a four-page letter declaring the Nevada ridge 100 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas "technically suitable" after 20 years of 
study. 

The energy secretary said a repository would serve "compelling 
national interests" for defense, homeland security and a stable 
energy supply. 

Nevada leaders responded by renewing their commitments to block 
the repository program in court and in Congress. 

"I urge President Bush to exercise authority and show the nation 
he is a man of his word" by rejecting Yucca Mountain on the 
grounds of incomplete science, said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. 

White House officials confirmed they had received the material 
but gave no sign what Bush would decide or when. 

The Associated Press reported that a White House official, 
speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush intends to accept 
Abraham's recommendation, and a decision could come from the 
president as early as today. 

Bush is scheduled to depart Saturday for a weeklong trip to 
Japan, Korea and China. 

Echoing some of the reasons he gave to Gov. Kenny Guinn when he 
announced Jan. 10 he favored Yucca Mountain, Abraham told Bush 
that not moving forward to getting a repository licensed "would 
be an irresponsible dereliction of duty." 

The energy secretary cited homeland security and said facilities 
housing spent nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste and 
excess plutonium "were intended to do so on a temporary basis" at 
more than 131 sites in 39 states. 

"More than 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of one or 
more of those sites," his letter said. "These materials would be 
far better secured in a deep underground repository at Yucca 
Mountain, on federal land, far from population centers, that can 
withstand an attack well beyond any that is reasonably 
conceivable." 

Without a repository, Abraham said, the United States will not 
meet a pledge to decommission some nuclear weapons and a 
commitment to help Russia do the same. 

Among documents accompanying Abraham's letter was the Energy 
Department's site suitability evaluation, science and engineering 
report, and a preliminary "sufficiency" comment from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, the agency that would be responsible for 
judging the department's application for licenses to build and 
operate a repository. 

Also in the packet was the department's final environmental 
impact statement on Yucca Mountain, a document attorneys for 
Nevada have said probably will be the focus of a new round of 
state lawsuits against the program. 

Abraham told Bush he "considered carefully" Nevada's case against 
Yucca Mountain, including arguments that the site has not been 
studied sufficiently, that transportation of nuclear waste is too 
dangerous and would harm the Las Vegas economy and that Nevadans 
have not been heard. 

"None of these arguments rises to a level that would outweigh the 
case for going forward," he said. 

A congressional official who had been in contact with White House 
and Energy Department officials in recent days said a decision by 
Bush should not take long. "The president is not going to have 
the secretary send it to him until he's ready to sign it." 

Should Bush endorse Abraham's findings, Guinn would have 60 days 
to veto the decision. Then the clock would start ticking for 
Congress to vote on overriding the governor. Lawmakers would have 
90 "legislative days" to act, a calendar that takes into account 
recesses. 

While some expect votes by midsummer, Nevada politicians are 
looking into strategies to delay the repository program further 
while trying to reduce federal spending for it, tie up the Energy 
Department in court and build public opinion in the state's favor 
by questioning waste transportation safety. 

Abraham's follow-through on his Jan. 10 announcement came as no 
surprise to Nevada leaders, who were expecting it since Sunday, 
when a 30-day waiting period expired. 

Guinn, Reid, and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., appealed to Bush in an 
Oval Office meeting Feb. 7 to heed their warnings that Yucca 
Mountain is a bad bet scientifically and a politically potent 
issue that could hurt Bush and other Republicans. 

Nevada leaders argue that DOE cannot show Yucca Mountain, as 
required by law, could stop radionuclides from 77,000 tons of 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from escaping into 
groundwater beneath the mountain during a 10,000-year period. 

Nevada, Clark County and the city of Las Vegas have filed 
lawsuits contending the department changed its suitability rules 
when it discovered deficiencies at Yucca Mountain. 

On Thursday, Guinn spoke to White House officials at 3:45 p.m. in 
Nevada and was told Abraham would be delivering his 
recommendation. 

Guinn was told he would be notified before the president makes 
his decision public, Guinn's spokesman Greg Bortolin said. 

"I made my feelings known to the president last Thursday, 
face-to-face in the Oval Office in the White House," Bortolin 
quoted Guinn as saying. "I told the president if he decides to go 
forward to designate Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository, I 
will exercise my veto power." 

Late Thursday, Reid took to the Senate floor to blast Abraham's 
decision and challenge Bush to "fulfill a promise he made to the 
nation as a candidate" in 2000 to let "sound science" guide him 
on nuclear waste. 

"The president should wait until he receives peer-reviewed 
science of the highest caliber. That science doesn't exist," Reid 
said. 

He cited critical comments about the Yucca Mountain program by 
members of the presidentially appointed Nuclear Waste Technical 
Review Board and investigators from the General Accounting 
Office. 

In a statement, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called the 
secretary's move "corrupt and morally bankrupt" when it is 
"crystal clear that science does not support the project." 

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he was disappointed but not 
surprised. "Unfortunately, Secretary Abraham appears determined 
to send nuclear waste to Nevada regardless of the facts." 

At a news briefing late Thursday, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman 
continued his verbal assault on Abraham. 

"I've called him a blockhead before, I've called him a fathead 
before. It's too good for him. That's it. Any questions?" 

Goodman said a decision to move nuclear waste to Nevada might 
lead to civil disobedience. 

"I hope today won't be remembered as the second Valentine's Day 
massacre because what he did has put the entire country into 
harm's way," Goodman said. 

Former Nevada Gov. Robert List, a consultant to the Nuclear 
Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry, said, 
"I don't think the president has a whole lot of choice here." 

List said in a telephone interview: "We're dealing with spent 
fuel with an industry that lights one out of every five light 
bulbs in America. We need energy independence, and this all ties 
together. 

"Nevada just happens to be the brunt of it. This is about more 
than Nevada. It's about our nation and our national policy." 

Meanwhile, attorneys for the state were preparing to file a new 
lawsuit challenging the secretary's recommendation. 

Bob Loux, director of the state's nuclear waste project office, 
said it would be filed either today or Tuesday in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals in Washington, after state officials examine the 
documents Abraham made public to back his recommendation, 
particularly the final environmental impact statement. 

webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 41 Pro-dump lobbyists tour Yucca Mountain
 
Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
By KEITH ROGERS and STEVE TETREAULT 
REVIEW-JOURNAL 

On the day Nevada lawmakers joined environmental groups in 
Washington, D.C., to urge President Bush and Congress to turn 
back the Yucca Mountain Project, two backers of the nuclear waste 
repository, John Sununu and Geraldine Ferraro, toured the site 
Thursday. 

Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor and chief of staff to the 
first President Bush, flew by helicopter to Yucca Mountain with 
Ferraro, a former New York congresswoman, to get a look at the 
place where the federal government wants to store the nation's 
most lethal nuclear waste. 

The pair of pro-Yucca lobbyists for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
said upon their return they feel confident that concerns raised 
by Nevadans will be addressed during the licensing phase of the 
project if things go as planned. 

"Most potent poisons last forever. This stuff doesn't," Sununu 
said during an unscheduled briefing at the Sundance Helicopters 
terminal at McCarran International Airport. 

He was referring to 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste, 
most of it spent fuel from nuclear power reactors, destined for 
disposal in the volcanic-rock ridge, 100 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas. 

Scientists are designing the repository and a system of 
engineered barriers to entomb the waste for at least 10,000 
years. But federal scientists estimate that peak doses from the 
decaying waste will not occur until 300,000 years to 800,000 
years after a maze of tunnels in the mountain is loaded with the 
waste, with the first shipments arriving in 2010. 

State Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux reacted to Sununu's 
comment: "Obviously Mr. Sununu is not very well informed on this 
issue." 

At an anti-Yucca Mountain rally in Washington, police would not 
allow a 15-foot scrap metal mock-up of a nuclear waste container 
onto Capitol grounds, a point not missed by anti-nuclear 
activists. 

"For security reasons we're not allowed to bring a fake cask 
anywhere near the Capitol, but nuclear waste is safe enough to 
drive through major urban centers? We say that's hypocrisy!" 
Wenonah Hauter told roughly five dozen activists and onlookers. 

Hauter, director of the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and 
Environment Program, and representatives from the Sierra Club, 
the Nuclear Information Resource Service, the Alliance for 
Nuclear Accountability, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and 
Friends of the Earth spoke at the hour-long event, which was 
punctuated by songs and slogans. 

With the metal cask parked on a flatbed truck nearby at the 
Library of Congress, the protesters settled for an inflatable 
model as a prop for their protest. Afterwards, about 15 activists 
and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., walked to the library and 
recited anti-Yucca chants by the cask. 

Berkley and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., 
encouraged the demonstrators, who focused on possible dangers 
involved in shipping nuclear waste across 43 states to Yucca 
Mountain. 

"Prior to Sept. 11, everyone thought we were just making noise 
about transportation," Ensign said. "Now we know how serious a 
possible terrorist threat these 'mobile Chernobyls' really are." 

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., planned to attend but was tied up on a 
call from Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee, an aide said. 

In Las Vegas, Sununu predicted that in the distant future, 
technological advances could turn the waste into an energy 
reserve. "It will turn out to be the most economically viable 
source of energy in the future." 

He said he was impressed that scientists measure the geologic 
stability of the Yucca Mountain area in "millions of years and 
tens of millions of years." 

"Everything I saw confirms ... it's a very appropriate 
selection," he said. 

"Obviously it's an appropriate site in relation to the 130 some 
odd places where this material is located across the country," 
Sununu said. He was referring to Abraham's reason for wanting to 
consolidate the waste at one location. Abraham contends the waste 
would be safer at Yucca Mountain rather than at several potential 
terrorist targets in reactor sites across the nation. 

Nevada leaders argue the reactor sites still will be storing 
nuclear waste as spent fuel is generated even if Yucca Mountain 
becomes the nation's and world's first burial ground for highly 
radioactive waste. 

Sununu offered no reaction to comments earlier in the day by Las 
Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who said Sununu had "some big nerve to 
come into our community." 

The mayor, still steaming from earlier references Sununu made 
concerning patriotism in the state, said the lobbyist "is putting 
a buck in his pocket, like a prostitute." Goodman said he had no 
questions for Sununu because "I don't respect him." 

Sununu last month raised the ire of Goodman, Reid and Ensign in 
claiming that Nevada is shirking its national security 
responsibilities by challenging Abraham's decision to recommend 
the site for construction of a repository. 

Goodman was far more tempered in his comments about Ferraro, the 
first woman to run for vice president and a fellow Democrat. 

About her decision to visit Yucca Mountain, Goodman said, "I 
don't object to anyone going out to Yucca Mountain. They go out 
and recognize how close it is to us." 

Sununu said the only purpose of his Las Vegas trip was to see 
Yucca Mountain at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

Ferraro said she would leave the site-suitability determination 
up to President Bush. But, she said, "To me, it's the one place 
on this Earth that seems appropriate." 

Later, she said, "I think the concerns we're hearing from the 
people in Nevada will be addressed and should be addressed." 

Steve Kerekes, director of media relations for the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, said Nevada officials and environmental activists are 
overstating potential transportation hazards. 

"Transportation has been done safely for 35 years, and we fully 
expect and are confident the federal government will do what it 
has to do to ensure continued safety," he said. 

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002
*****************************************************************
 42 Impact report favors rail routes

Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 

By KEITH ROGERS 
REVIEW-JOURNAL 

Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel destined for a 
repository at Yucca Mountain would be hauled at a high price over 
the nation's interstates and new rail lines proposed for Nevada. 

The plan is described in the final, 10,000-page environmental 
impact statement released Thursday. The document culminates a 
20-year scientific investigation and analysis of the mountain, 
100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to determine its suitability as 
a nuclear waste storage site. 

The document, which will be considered by President Bush, 
estimates a combined price tag of up to $47 billion for 
repository construction, waste transportation and related costs. 

The preferred plan calls for most of the high-level waste and 
spent fuel to be transported by rail, said Joe Ziegler, senior 
technical adviser to the Yucca Mountain Project manager. 

The document evaluates the effects of dozens of natural and 
man-made risk scenarios. 

"For the final EIS, because of recent events, we did an analysis 
of an airplane crash possibility. We did not call it terrorism," 
Ziegler said late Thursday. 

The analysis showed that a surface facility near the mountain, 
where spent fuel rods would be stored temporarily, would not be 
breached by a plane crash. 

A jetliner crashing into a transportation cask might jar some of 
the cask's seals and result in slight leaks, "and the 
consequences would be relatively minor," he said. 

Two possible sabotage events, one for rail transportation and the 
other for truck shipments, were based on an Sandia National 
Laboratories study involving military weapons that was updated in 
1999, Ziegler said. 

"In the final EIS, the study was not updated. The experts thought 
that the (1999) update was still valid," he said. 

State Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said he is skeptical 
about the terrorism analysis. He questioned whether the report 
contains an in-depth analysis of the potential for an anti-tank 
missile breaching a waste container. 

"How could you be conducting a war on terrorism without any 
analysis of impacts from what terrorism could be?" Loux said. 

Loux also was critical of the document's reference to a so-called 
flexible design for the repository, in which relatively high and 
low temperatures would result from the spacing of waste canisters 
in a maze of tunnels inside the mountain. 

"Clearly no one can know what the final impacts are if they don't 
have a final design. DOE refuses to settle on a design, which is 
an obvious flaw," Loux said. 

Ziegler had a different assessment. 

"The bottom line is the impacts of transportation are small and 
the impacts of a repository are small," he said. 

The estimated cost of the project after this year would be $31.5 
billion to $43.1 billion for construction and operation of the 
repository, plus $4.3 billion to accept, store and transport the 
materials, the final document states.
 
webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 43 Presidential Letter to Congress endorsing Yucca Mt.

   Home > News &Policies > February 2002 

For Immediate Release
 Office of the Press Secretary
 February 15, 2002 
Presidential Letter to Congress 

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President of the Senate 

February 15, 2002 


Dear Mr. Speaker:   (Dear Mr. President:) 

In accordance with section 114 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
1982, 42 U.S.C. 10134 (the "Act"), the Secretary of Energy has 
recommended approval of the Yucca Mountain site for the 
development at that site of a repository for the geologic 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste from 
the Nation's defense activities.  As is required by the Act, the 
Secretary has also submitted to me a comprehensive statement of 
the basis of his recommendation. 

Having received the Secretary's recommendation and the 
comprehensive statement of the basis of it, I consider the Yucca 
Mountain site qualified for application for a construc-tion 
authorization for a repository. Therefore, I now recommend the 
Yucca Mountain site for this purpose.  In accordance with section 
114 of the Act, I am transmitting with this recommenda-tion to 
the Congress a copy of the comprehensive statement of the basis 
of the Secretary's recommendation prepared pursuant to the Act. 
The transmission of this document triggers an expedited process 
described in the Act.  I urge the Congress to undertake any 
necessary legislative action on this recommendation in an 
expedited and bipartisan fashion. 

Proceeding with the repository program is necessary to protect 
public safety, health, and the Nation's security because 
successful completion of this project would isolate in a geologic 
repository at a remote location highly radioactive materials now 
scattered throughout the Nation.  In addition, the geologic 
repository would support our national security through disposal 
of nuclear waste from our defense facilities. 

A deep geologic repository, such as Yucca Mountain, is important 
for our national security and our energy future.  Nuclear energy 
is the second largest source of U.S. electricity generation and 
must remain a major component of our national energy policy in 
the years to come.  The cost of nuclear power compares favorably 
with the costs of electricity generation by other sources, and 
nuclear power has none of the emissions associated with coal and 
gas power plants. 

This recommendation, if it becomes effective, will permit 
commencement of the next rigorous stage of scientific and 
technical review of the repository program through formal 
licensing proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  
Successful completion of this program also will redeem the clear 
Federal legal obligation safely to dispose of commercial spent 
nuclear fuel that the Congress passed in 1982. more 

2 

This recommendation is the culmination of two decades of intense 
scientific scrutiny involving application of an array of 
scientific and technical disciplines necessary and appropriate 
for this challenging undertaking.  It is an undertaking that was 
mandated twice by the Congress when it legislated the obligations 
that would be redeemed by successful pursuit of the repository 
program.  Allowing this recommendation to come into effect will 
enable the beginning of the next phase of intense scrutiny of the 
project necessary to assure the public health, safety, and 
security in the area of Yucca Mountain, and also to enhance the 
safety and security of the Nation as a whole. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH 

# # #
*****************************************************************
 44 Yucca Mountain Presidential Press Statement

For Immediate Release
 Office of the Press Secretary
 February 15, 2002 

Yucca Mountain Statement 

Statement by the Press Secretary 

The President today notified the Congress that he considers Yucca 
Mountain qualified for a construction permit application, taking 
the next in a series of steps required for approving the site as 
a nuclear materials repository. The President's decision to 
recommend Yucca Mountain is based on sound science.

 It follows decades of scientific study and a determination by 
the Secretary of Energy that the site can be safely used to store 
these materials. In the course of making his decision, the 
President listened to the Governor, the State's Senators, and 
representatives of the people of Nevada and gave careful 
consideration to their views.   

He also consulted extensively with his science and environmental 
advisers to ensure that they concurred with the science, safety, 
and environmental conclusions of the Secretary's recommendation. 

Finding a safe and central repository is not only mandated by 
law, but it is in America's national security and homeland 
security interests.  Forty percent of our Navy's fleet depends on 
nuclear power.   

Currently, nuclear materials are stored in 131 above-ground 
facilities in 39 states, and 161 million Americans live within 75 
miles of these sites.  One central site provides more protection 
for this material than do the existing 131 sites.   

One out of every five times someone turns on a light switch, it's 
thanks to the fact that nuclear power produces 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity.  Given the environmental benefits of 
nuclear power, a safe repository for nuclear materials will help 
us pursue our energy and environmental security goals. 

Since the Congress passed a law requiring a repository in 1982, 
this has been a serious issue for the American people.  The 
President recognizes that the law now gives Nevada the 
opportunity to disapprove the recommendation and, if they do, 
then the Congress will have an opportunity to act.  After two 
decades, the time has come to resolve this issue once and for 
all. 

###
 
*****************************************************************
 45 Yucca Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer

Q    Ari, does the President believe that the science on Yucca 
Mountain is complete enough to make an informed decision on its 
future? 

MR. FLEISCHER:  Well, on January 10th the Secretary of Energy 
informed Nevada officials that he was going to recommend to the 
President that the facility at Yucca be opened on a permanent 
basis.  That recommendation then has been pending for some 30 
days, a little bit more.  And since that time, the President's 
team has taken a very careful look at it. 

The Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality 
has analyzed it.  The President's Science Advisor has analyzed 
it.  The report was formally presented to the President last 
night. 

The President will be having something to say about that.  And 
when he does, we will inform you.  It's under review, and then 
the President will inform people of what decision he has made.  
But it has received extensive review along the way.  The 
President has also met with officials from Nevada from the 
government -- Governor of Nevada, the Senators of Nevada, as well 
as met with the Secretary of Energy to discuss it fully. 

Q    Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will, didn't the 
President say during the campaign that he would not make a 
decision on Yucca Mountain until all the science was in?  Does he 
believe the science is all in now? 

MR. FLEISCHER:  The President said he would make the decision 
based on sound science.  And what the Department of Energy has 
done, in preparation for the review that has been received here, 
they have reviewed more than 17,000 documents, had more than 100 
public hearings.  This has been over a 20-year period, that was 
based on a scientific and technological investigation. 

Q    The point of my question at the beginning, does he believe 
the science is in now?  Does he believe the science is sound 
enough to make an informed decision? 

MR. FLEISCHER:  As a result of what the President has received, 
the President does have sufficient scientific basis to make a 
decision. 

*****************************************************************
 46 Russia soon to be flooded with nuclear waste!

Pravda.RU 

Feb, 14 2002   

 Last year, despite the protests of environmental groups and the 
smouldering discontent of Russians, the law on the importation 
and processing of spent nuclear fuel was passed in Russia. 
Officials from the RF Nuclear Ministry persistently persuaded 
people of the project’s economic advantage. It was said that 
Russia would earn $20 billion within the next twenty years by 
processing spent nuclear fuel. It was said that the money could 
be spent then on the development of nuclear power enterprises. 
However, the questions regarding the protection of the earned 
money from theft remained unanswered. 

The scale of the project is rather impressive. Deputy Nuclear 
Minister Valery Lebedev said in an interview to ITAR-TASS that 
spent fuel from nuclear power plants in Iran, India, and China 
“will certainly make its way back to Russia.” In addition, those 
plants are being built by Russian specialists, and they will be 
supplied with fuel from Russia. According to the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, this fuel is to be returned to the 
country of origin. 

The construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran is to be 
completed by the end of 2004 to the beginning of 2005. By that 
time, special installations with nuclear fuel will be delivered 
there. Each installation is to be delivered back to Russia for 
reprocessing when its life expires. Similar operations will be 
performed at the nuclear power plants in India and China. Russia 
has signed three contracts, according to which nuclear power 
plants are to be constructed in these countries. Two reactors 
will operate at each of the plants. 

This means that Russia will not greatly profit from the 
reprocessing of the spent fuel delivered from the countries 
mentioned above. However, Western countries are paying special 
attention to the project. Germany is very attractive from this 
point of view. The German government decided to gradually close 
all nuclear power plants on its territory. Trains with spent fuel 
from Germany are likely to be transported to Russia soon. 

However, the problem of the importation of spent nuclear fuel is 
still pressing for most people in Russia. Opponents tried to 
organize an environmental referendum, but the failed: according 
to the law, not less than 2 million signatures need to be 
collected to initiate a referendum; the ecologists collected 2.5 
million, but 600,000 of them were rejected as defective by the RF 
Central Election Committee. As a result, the case was submitted 
to the European court in Strasbourg. If the court takes the 
environmentalists' side, the referendum may still take place. 

However, nothing hampers the importation of spent nuclear fuel to 
Russia so far. The hypothetical sum of $20 billion is extremely 
tempting. However, the money is not easy to earn, as the market 
has been shared long ago. And Russia still fails to conclude an 
agreement according to which it will see real money. 

Vasily Bubnov PRAVDA.Ru 

Translated by Maria Gousseva 

Read the original in Russian: 
http://pravda.ru/main/2002/02/14/37051.html 
[http://pravda.ru/main/2002/02/14/37051.html] 

  Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU 
*****************************************************************
 47 Bush OKs Yucca Mountain waste site
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 15, 2002 
 
By Erin Neff 

<erin@lasvegassun.com [erin@lasvegassun.com] >, Cy Ryan and 
Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com [grove@lasvegassun.com] >

 WASHINGTON -- President Bush today approved Energy Secretary 
Spencer Abraham's strongly worded recommendation that a national 
nuclear waste dump be constructed at Yucca Mountain.

 Gov. Kenny Guinn said he received a call about 12:20 this 
afternoon from White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card notifying 
him of the decision.

 Guinn said he would continue to fight, and the state has several 
lawsuits either planned or filed against Yucca Mountain.

 Guinn and Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., met 
with the president last week in the White House to argue Nevada's 
case. Abraham met with the president earlier this week and White 
House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president had "laid out a 
careful process to listen to and review the information."

 Abraham made his recommendation Thursday night, sending the 
president an e-mail letter with reams of backup documentation 
following by courier.

 Despite arguments by the Nevada delegation that the scientific 
research into the viability of Yucca Mountain was incomplete, 
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the president had 
"sufficient scientific data to make a decision."

 In his letter, Abraham noted two decades of Energy Department 
research and said he believes the desert site 90 miles northwest 
of Las Vegas is a safe place to permanently bury the nation's 
most radioactive waste.

 "I have considered whether sound science supports the 
determination that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically and 
technically suitable for the development of a repository," 
Abraham said. "I am convinced that it does."

 Abraham said Yucca Mountain would have the "elements necessary 
to protect the health and safety of the public, including those 
Americans living in the immediate vicinity, now and in the 
future."

 Abraham's action drew immediate criticism from Nevada officials, 
who were expecting Bush's decision before the president leaves 
for Asia tomorrow.

 Critics noted that Bush pledged during his presidential campaign 
to base the decision on "sound science."

 In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Reid said Bush 
needed to live up to a campaign promise to base a Yucca Mountain 
decision on "sound science."

 "It's time for the president to fill the commitment he made to 
the country and the people of Nevada," Reid said. "The president 
should wait until he receives peer-reviewed science of the 
highest caliber.

 "That science doesn't exist," he added.

 Reid and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., fired off a letter to 
Bush Thursday night urging him to delay action.

 In a statement, Berkley said the president "has an obligation to 
reject the recommendation" and send it "back to the drawing 
board."

 Nevada's congressional delegation was immediately unavailable 
for comment Friday afternoon.

 In his letter, Abraham said he weighed "national compelling 
interests" in his decision, including national security, 
environmental concerns and longterm energy goals.

 Abraham noted that 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of 
nuclear waste storage sites nationwide.

 "The facilities housing these materials were intended to do so 
on a temporary basis," Abraham said. "They should be able to 
withstand current terrorist threats, but that may not remain the 
case in the future. These materials would be far better secured 
in a deep underground repository at Yucca Mountain." Nevada 
officials have argued a counterpoint: that 50 million Americans 
in 43 states live along the highway and rail routes that would be 
used to haul waste to Nevada -- putting them at risk of a 
terrorist strike. Nevada lawmakers had stressed that point at a 
rally with anti-Yucca activists at the Capitol just hours before 
Abraham sent his letter.

 "It is important to get this message all across this country," 
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told a crowd of roughly 50 protesters. 
"Let's keep this stuff right where it is."

 Nevada officials have a strategy that now centers on the courts 
and Congress. They have filed lawsuits challenging the project 
and plan to file more, and they are lobbying Congress for an 
expected vote.

 Guinn said he will veto the decision, which will then send the 
issue to a vote of both houses of Congress.

 Guinn, who will have 60 days to veto the president's decision, 
would not immediately say when he will act.

 Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said Thursday the state is 
prepared to "immediately" file another suit against the Energy 
Department.

 "We will file a legal challenge based on our belief that sound 
science proves that the site is unsuitable," Del Papa said. That 
suit could be filed as soon as today with Del Papa pledging to 
file another suit on the president's decision.

 Nevada's Congressional delegation plans a bit more diplomatic 
approach to lure colleagues onto the state's side. After a Guinn 
veto, Congress would have 90 legislative days to override the 
governor's decision by a simply majority of both houses. Although 
many believe the battle will be lost in the House, Senate 
Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., pledged last year the dump 
will be blocked if Democrats control the Senate -- which they now 
narrowly do. In addition to the state's anticipated lawsuit 
against Abraham's decision, four other lawsuits are traveling 
through the courts in hopes of finding any legal remedy. "All it 
takes is one to succeed and the dump's dead," said Robert Loux, 
director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

 In addition, state Engineer Hugh Ricci has refused to extend the 
temporary water permit obtained by the Energy Department in its 
study of the site. That permit expires April 10, and Ricci's 
action will likely prompt yet another suit. The Yucca site's 
suitability was the most important factor in Abraham's decision, 
Abraham said. He said waste could be safely isolated from the 
environment at Yucca Mountain relying on the site's remote 
location and geology, as well as man-made systems such as 
high-tech metal waste containers.

 Nuclear energy officials and repository supporters praised the 
decision.

 "It's important that the government continue to move forward on 
the Yucca Mountain project as long as science deems it prudent to 
do so," Nuclear Energy Institute president and CEO Joe Colvin 
said in a written statement. "It will help to ensure our national 
security so that future generations of Americans can continue to 
enjoy the energy, economic and clean-air benefits of nuclear 
energy."
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 48 Nuclear fuel plant waste linked to tainted Jefferson County well 

- 2/15/2002 -
ENN.com
 
Friday, February 15, 2002 By Associated Press 

ST. LOUIS — Tests show radioactive and chemical waste from a 
plant where fuel rods for the nation's nuclear reactors once were 
made has surfaced in well water of a nearby home, state officials 
said. 

Randy Maley, a state environmental specialist, said testing over 
the past two months near the former Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. 
plant revealed chemical solvents and possible traces of 
technetium-99, a radioactive fission product believed to have 
been there during the Cold War. 

The plant, in Hematite, about 35 miles south of St. Louis, was 
shut down last summer. 

Low levels of technetium-99 had turned up in a monitoring well at 
the plant in the early 1990s, but later tests of area drinking 
wells showed no contamination. 

Department of Health environmental engineer Chuck Hooper said the 
technetium levels detected would not be considered a serious 
health threat, but the solvents exceeded state and federal safety 
standards, meaning they could pose a cancer risk. 

Kevin Hayes, manager of environmental health and safety at the 
plant, said officials with Westinghouse Electric Co., the site's 
current owner, confirmed the presence of the solvents but 
requested more testing. "Our perspective is that the state's 
results raised more questions than they answered," Hayes said in 
Thursday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "If it's coming from us, 
we'll work with the agencies and develop a plan to deal with it 
effectively." 

Westinghouse installed a filter on the well Monday to deal with 
the solvents and was paying for bottled drinking water for the 
well's users, Hayes said. The well is two-tenths of a mile from 
the plant. 

British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Westinghouse's parent company, bought 
the nuclear fuel holdings of Swiss-based Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., 
which had run the plant since 1989. 

Copyright 2002, Associated Press
*****************************************************************
 49 Eleven Irish arrested at Sellafield protest
 
  By  [dlabanyi@irish-times.com]     Last updated: 14-02-02, 16:49   

Eleven Irish people were arrested today at a protest outside the Sellafield
nuclear plant in Cumbria.

 More than 170 Irish protestors began a peaceful blockade of the 
nuclear facility organised by Globalise Resistance and 
Gluaiseacht.

 Five women and six men are currently being questioned at 
Workington Police Station in Cumbria. 

Protestors confirmed to Ireland.com that a formal protest is 
being lodged against the allegedly "heavy-handed" approach of the 
police. A number of protesters claimed they were struck by 
police. Superintendent Steve Turnbull, for West Cumbria, denied 
those allegations. He said the protestors had altered tactics and 
recklessly blockaded the main road in the region, causing 
"horrendous problems".

 "The general public were brought into today’s protests. Schools 
couldn’t open, trains didn’t run because staff couldn’t get 
through and we have been flooded with complaints about their 
action. Workers travelling to and from Sellafield were also 
delayed in tailbacks on the A595. 

"We agree that the protestors are able to exercise their 
legitimate right to protest, and to also ensure operations at 
Sellafield are not disrupted by the protests."

 Today’s action is part of an ongoing protest by Irish student 
groups against the commissioning last December of the mixed oxide 
(MOX) plant at Sellafield which recycles used uranium and 
plutonium. 

Separately, the British government this afternoon published an 
"Energy Review" study to plan for the country’s energy systems 
over the next 50 years. Published by the Performance and 
Innovation Unit, the report says the option of "new investment in 
nuclear power needs to be kept open" in the context of moving to 
low carbon power generation techniques. 

Legal action taken last year by the Irish Government failed to 
reverse the decision to open the MOX plant. 

Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace 
have continually stated that MOX production at Sellafield is 
environmentally damaging and financially risky. 

The Irish Times  

*****************************************************************
 50 Bush will OK Nevada location to store tons of nuclear waste now piling up
across the nation, officials say 

By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, 2/15/2002 03:21 

WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush, citing national security concerns 
and years of scientific studies, will approve Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada for long-term disposal of thousands of tons of highly 
radioactive commercial and government nuclear waste, 
administration officials say. 

Once the president acts, possibly as early as Friday, Nevada has 
said it would file a protest and under a 1987 law Congress then 
would have to sustain the president's decision by a majority vote 
of both houses. The process could take four or five months. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham late Thursday formally 
recommended the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas as the place 
to bury radioactive waste that has been piling up at the nation's 
commercial nuclear reactors and at U.S. defense facilities, 
beginning as early as 2010. As much as 77,000 tons of waste could 
be entombed there. 

In a letter to the president, Abraham said a review of 20 years 
of scientific studies has convinced him that the waste can be 
kept in volcanic rock 950 feet beneath the Nevada desert without 
risk to public health or the environment. ''I could not and would 
not recommend the Yucca Mountain site without having first 
determined that (it will) ...protect the health and safety of the 
public,'' Abraham said. 

Rejecting critics' claims that the science has not clearly shown 
the wastes can be contained for thousands of years at the Nevada 
site, Abraham said his conclusions were ''based on sound 
scientific principles.'' 

White House officials, speaking Thursday on condition of 
anonymity, said Bush intended to accept Abraham's recommendation. 

''The president will review it,'' White House spokeswoman Claire 
Buchan said, declining to give a timetable. 

The Yucca Mountain site, which also will have to get approval 
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if a decision is made to 
proceed, is expected to handle thousands of tons of used reactor 
fuel rods now kept at 103 commercial power reactors in 31 states 
as well as highly radioactive defense waste now being stored in 
eight states. 

Some of the radioisotopes will remain deadly for more than 10,000 
years. Abraham notified Nevada a month ago that he would 
recommend the site to the president. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Abraham's recommendation ''a 
hasty, poor and indefensible decision'' at a time when ''the 
science does not yet exist'' to ensure the wastes can be 
contained for thousands of years. 

Abraham said ''compelling national interests'' made even more 
apparent by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks require development of 
a remote centralized disposal site. 

''More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of one or 
more of these sites'' now holding the waste, he said. 

Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn and members of Nevada's 
congressional delegation made an appeal at the White House last 
week asking that Bush not act hastily on Yucca Mountain. Guinn 
was sharply critical of Abraham's decision because state 
officials claim the safety of the site has not been assured. 

Still, Bush will try to assure Nevada's officials including 
Republican office holders fearful of a political fallout from the 
decision that the selection of Yucca Mountain is a scientifically 
sound one. 

Opponents of a proposed dump in Nevada rallied Thursday on 
Capitol Hill, the first of many such protests likely in the weeks 
ahead. If Bush approves the site, Nevada has 60 days to file a 
protest. Then Congress has 90 days to override the state 
objection. If it doesn't, lawmakers will have to find a new 
location. 

''I totally oppose this. I do not want anything that could affect 
the health of my wife and two kids coming into my state,'' said 
Nevadan Hugh Jackson as he and several dozen protesters chanted 
''Nuclear wastes, no way!'' outside the Capitol. 

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told the group that Nevadans weren't 
the only people who should worry about Yucca Mountain. If it is 
built, thousands of waste shipments will cross 43 states over 
both rail and highways. 

''The transportation of this is unsafe,'' said Ensign. 

The Energy Department and nuclear industry said the shipments can 
be conducted safely and that leaving the wastes at reactor sites 
poses security and safety concerns as well. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov/ 
*****************************************************************
 51   Environmental officials to clean up hazardous clock-making sites in 4 Conn.
cities 

By Associated Press, 2/15/2002 01:13 

WATERBURY, Conn. (AP) Decades after cities in Connecticut 
welcomed clock-building industries, state environmental officials 
have discovered the hazards of radium compounds used in the 
production process. 

Officials of the Department of Environmental Protection on 
Thursday announced plans for a $750,000 cleanup of former clock 
factory sites in Bristol, New Haven, Thomaston and Waterbury. 

The targeted sites total 2 million square feet, said Carmine 
DiBattista, chief of DEP's Bureau of Air Management. 

A former Waterbury Clock Factory site in Waterbury will be the 
first to be treated. 

''We know exactly where the contamination is,'' said Dr. Dada 
Jabbour, director of hazardous materials for the Waterbury Health 
Department. 

Radium, which is a radioactive element in uranium, is valued for 
its ability to glow in the dark. It was combined with other 
elements and used to paint dials of watches and clocks. 

Chicago researchers investigating public health concerns radium 
dial painters routinely dampened and shaped the tips of their 
paint brushes by touching the brushes to their tongues led to the 
discovery of environmental problems. 

State environmental officials have conducted a preliminary 
assessment, DEP Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque Jr. said. 

Residents who live near the old clock factories do not face an 
immediate health risk, he said. 

The project is funded with a $750,000 Urban Action Grant from the 
state Bond Commission. It will require about 45 workers. 
*****************************************************************
 52 Secretary Abraham Recommends Yucca Mountain Site To President 
Bush Citing "Sound Science" and "Compelling National Interests"

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: February 14, 2002             

WASHINGTON, DC - Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today 
formally recommended to President Bush that the Yucca Mountain 
site in Nevada be developed as the nation's first long-term 
geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste, relying on 
more than 20 years and $4 billion in scientific study that 
demonstrates Yucca Mountain is scientifically and technically 
suitable for development. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 
temporary surface storage facilities located at 131 sites in 39 
states. 

In his letter to the President, Abraham said, "I have considered 
whether sound science supports the determination that the Yucca 
Mountain site is scientifically and technically suitable for the 
development of a repository. I am convinced that it does. The 
results of this extensive investigation and the external 
technical reviews of this body of scientific work give me 
confidence for the conclusion, based on sound scientific 
principles, that a repository at Yucca Mountain will be able to 
protect the health and safety of the public when evaluated 
against the radiological protection standards adopted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency and implemented by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission." 

Abraham said he also considered national compelling interests in 
making his recommendation, but "irrespective of any other 
considerations, I could not and would not recommend the Yucca 
Mountain site without having first determined that a repository 
at Yucca Mountain will bring together the location, natural 
barriers, and design elements necessary to protect the health and 
safety of the public." 

There are also compelling national interests that require 
development of a repository including energy and national 
security, homeland security, nuclear nonproliferation policy, 
secure disposal of nuclear waste, and ongoing efforts to clean up 
the environment at former nuclear weapons production sites. 

In addressing homeland security, Abraham said, "More than 161 
million people live within 75 miles of one or more of these 
sites. The facilities housing these materials were intended to do 
so on a temporary basis. They should be able to withstand current 
terrorist threats, but that may not remain the case in the 
future. These materials would be far better secured in a deep 
underground repository at Yucca Mountain." 

Yucca Mountain is a geologically stable site, positioned in a 
closed groundwater basin, isolated on federally controlled land, 
housed approximately 1000 feet underground, and located farther 
from any metropolitan area than the great majority of less 
secure, temporary nuclear waste storage sites that exist today. 

"After months of study based on scientific and technical research 
unique in its scope and depth, and after reviewing the result of 
a public review process that went well beyond the requirements of 
law, I reached the conclusions that technically and 
scientifically the Yucca Mountain site is fully suitable; that 
development of a repository serves the national interests in 
numerous and important ways; and that the arguments against its 
designation do not rise to a level that would outweigh the case 
for going forward. Not completing the site designation process 
and moving forward to licensing the development of a repository, 
as Congress mandated almost 20 years ago, would be an 
irresponsible dereliction of duty," Abraham said. 

Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982, 
recognizing the overwhelming, long-held scientific consensus that 
the best option for high-level radioactive waste disposal would 
be a deep underground repository. In 1987, Congress directed the 
Secretary of Energy to investigate and recommend to the President 
whether such a repository could be located at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, after scientific study of 9 other sites resulted in Yucca 
Mountain being ranked the top site. 

As part of the scientific investigation of Yucca Mountain, some 
of the world's preeminent scientists have examined every aspect 
of the natural process and conducted equally exhausting analysis 
into the benefit of adding engineered barriers to the design, 
that will further protect the health and safety of the public and 
add to the successful performance of the mountain. 

Scientists have mapped and comprehensively analyzed the 
geological structures of Yucca Mountain and its surrounding 
environment, including rock units, faults, fractures, and 
volcanic features. They have excavated more than 200 pits and 
trenches to remove rocks and other material for direct 
observation; drilled more than 450 sampling boreholes; collected 
over 75,000 feet of core samples; collected and analyzed over 
18,000 geologic and water samples; constructed over six and 
one-half miles of tunnels to provide direct access to the rocks 
that would be used for the repository; conducted a continuous 
4-year-long test, heating some seven million cubic feet of rock 
over its ambient temperature; and examined over 13,000 engineered 
material samples to determine their performance and corrosion 
resistance in a variety of environments. Using this vast 
reservoir of information, they have followed a deliberate and 
cautious approach in forecasting the performance of the 
repository over the 10,000-year regulatory period. 

Their work has been openly and thoroughly reviewed by DOE and 
oversight entities such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the U.S. Geological 
Survey, as well as by scientific peer reviews conducted by other 
bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Under provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Secretary 
Abraham is required to publicly make available 
statutorily-required documents that are part of his basis for the 
recommendation, including the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement. The Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement 
evaluates the impact of a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 
including study of transportation and potential accident 
scenarios analyzing potential impacts from sabotage or terrorism. 

In the course of considering Yucca Mountain, the Department of 
Energy satisfied legal requirements for public participation by 
conducting more than 100 public hearings to discuss the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement, siting characterization work, and 
other public and technical issues. 

Copies of these documents are available at  
[http://www.energy.gov] or [http://www.ymp.gov] . In addition, 
the Department has made available a set of Frequently Asked 
Questions, providing answers to the most commonly raised public 
interest topics surrounding the study of Yucca Mountain and the 
disposition and transportation of high-level nuclear waste. 

NOTE TO EDITOR: Copies of Secretary Abraham's letter to President 
Bush follows this release and can be found at  
[http://www.energy.gov] . 

NOTE TO PHOTO EDITOR: A digital photo of Sec. Abraham 
transmitting the recommendation and supporting documents is 
available online at [http://www.energy.gov] . 
	 			 
Media Contact:  Joe Davis       202-586-4940 Release No. 
PR-02-027 

*****************************************************************
 53 Nevada Nuclear Waste Site Recommended to Bush

ABCNEWS.com : 

Feb. 14 
By JoAnne Allen

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday received a 
recommendation from the Department of Energy to choose a Nevada 
site as a repository for the nation's nuclear waste, the White 
House said ahead of a final decision expected soon.
 
Democratic congressional sources have said Bush could act this 
week on the formal recommendation to build a radioactive waste 
repository under Yucca Mountain, a proposal immediately condemned 
by Democrats in the state worried over health risks.
 
"The White House has received (Energy) Secretary (Spencer) 
Abraham's recommendation report on Yucca Mountain," said White 
House spokeswoman Claire Buchan. "The president will review it 
and we will advise you when he makes a decision."
 
The site in the Nevada desert 90 miles from Las Vegas would store 
70,000 tons of radioactive material from the nation's 103 nuclear 
power plants for an estimated 10,000 years.
 
In a letter to Bush accompanying the recommendation, Abraham said 
he was convinced the site for the permanent repository was 
suitable.
 
"After months of study based on scientific and technical research 
unique in its scope and depth, and after reviewing the result of 
a public review process that went well beyond the requirements of 
law, I reached the conclusions that technically and 
scientifically the Yucca Mountain site is fully suitable," the 
energy secretary said. 

RECOMMENDATION ASSAILED
 
Critics of the plan, including Nevada politicians, worry that 
radioactive material might seep into the ground, posing health 
risks for residents, and cite the risks of transporting nuclear 
waste over great distances.
 
"Secretary Abraham has made a hasty, poor, and indefensible 
decision," Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat, said in a 
statement. He urged Bush to demand a scientific review by 
independent experts before making a final decision.
 
"The president should wait until he receives peer-reviewed 
science of the highest caliber," Reid said. "That science does 
not yet exist."
 
In a separate statement, Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, 
called on Bush to reject the recommendation.
 
"All the evidence has indicated that a recommendation right now 
is dangerously premature and the height of irresponsibility," she 
said. "All of the evidence that has surfaced in recent weeks, and 
over the course of this study, has made it crystal clear that 
science does not support the project."

 
  Nevada's Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn has filed a lawsuit 
against the Bush administration to fight a decision to dispose of 
70,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest 
of Las Vegas. The plaintiffs named are the state of Nevada, Las 
Vegas and Clark County. The Yucca Mountain site is shown in an 
undated photo. Photo by Dept Of Energy/Reuters
   
Copyright 2002 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 54 Yucca: Statutory Materials Supporting the Recommendation
 
The statutorily required information is set out in Section 
114(a)(1) of the NWPA, which states: 

Together with any recommendation of a site under this paragraph, 
the Secretary shall make available to the public, and submit to 
the President, a comprehensive statement of the basis of such 
recommendation, including the following: 

(A) a description of the proposed repository, including 
preliminary engineering specifications for the facility; 

(B) a description of the waste form or packaging proposed for use 
at such repository, and an explanation of the relationship 
between such waste form or packaging and the geologic medium of 
such site; 

(C) a discussion of data, obtained in site characterization 
activities, relating to the safety of such site; 

(D) a final environmental impact statement prepared for the Yucca 
Mountain site pursuant to subsection (f) and the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.], 
together with comments made concerning such environmental impact 
statement by the Secretary of the Interior, the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the Administrator, and the Commission, 
except that the Secretary shall not be required in any such 
environmental impact statement to consider the need for a 
repository, the alternatives to geological disposal, or 
alternative sites to the Yucca Mountain site; 

(E) preliminary comments of the Commission concerning the extent 
to which the at-depth site characterization analysis and the 
waste form proposal for such site seem to be sufficient for 
inclusion in any application to be submitted by the Secretary for 
licensing of such site as a repository; 

(F) the views and comments of the Governor and legislature of any 
State, or the governing body of any affected Indian tribe, as 
determined by the Secretary, together with the response of the 
Secretary to such views; 

(G) such other information as the Secretary considers 
appropriate; and 

(H) any impact report submitted under section 116(c)(2)(B) [42 
U.S.C. 10136(c)(2)(B)] by the State of Nevada. 

This material is attached to the Recommendation, as follows: 

  + The description of the repository called for by section 
114(a)(1)(A) is contained in Chapter 2 of the YMS, Rev. 1. 

  + The material relating to the waste form called for by section 
114(a)(1)(B) is contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of the YMS, Rev. 1. 

  + The discussion of site characterization data called for by 
section 114(a)(1)(C) is contained in Chapter 4 of the YMS, Rev. 
1. 

    + The EIS-related material called for by section 114(a)(1)(D) 
is contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 
Nevada, along with letters received from the Secretary of the 
Interior, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), transmitting 
their respective comments on the final EIS. 

    + The information called for by section 114(a)(1)(E) is 
contained in a letter from NRC Chairman Meserve to Under 
Secretary Card, dated November 13, 2001. 

    + The information called for by section 114(a)(1)(F) is 
contained in Section 2 of two separate reports, the Comment 
Summary Document (CSD) and the Supplemental Comment Summary 
Document (SCSD), and in a separate document providing responses 
to comments from the Governor of Nevada sent to the Department 
after the public comment periods on a possible site 
recommendation closed. 

    + Section 114(a)(1)(G) provides for the inclusion of other 
information as the Secretary considers appropriate. The report, 
Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Evaluation (DOE/RW-0549, February 
2002 ), has been included as other information. This report 
provides an evaluation of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain 
site against Departmental guidelines setting forth the criteria 
and methodology to be used in determining the suitability of the 
Yucca Mountain site, pursuant to section 113(b)(1)(A)(iv). In 
addition, impact reports submitted by the various Nevada counties 
have been included as other information to be forwarded to the 
President. In transmitting these reports to the President, the 
Department is neither deciding on, nor endorsing, any specific 
impact assistance requested by the governmental entities in those 
reports. 

    + The State of Nevada submitted an impact report pursuant to 
section 114(a)(1)(H). In transmitting this report to the 
President, the Department is likewise neither deciding on, nor 
endorsing this report.   
*****************************************************************
 55 Bush will OK Yucca Mountain for storage of tons of stored nuclear 
waste 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:46 a.m. on Friday, February 15, 2002

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, citing national security 
concerns and years of scientific studies, will approve Yucca 
Mountain in Nevada for long-term disposal of thousands of tons of 
highly radioactive commercial and government nuclear waste, 
administration officials say.

 Once the president acts, possibly as early as today, Nevada has 
said it would file a protest and under a 1987 law Congress then 
would have to sustain the president's decision by a majority vote 
of both houses. The process could take four or five months.

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham late Thursday formally 
recommended the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas as the place 
to bury radioactive waste that has been piling up at the nation's 
commercial nuclear reactors and at U.S. defense facilities, 
beginning as early as 2010. As much as 77,000 tons of waste could 
be entombed there.

 In a letter to the president, Abraham said a review of 20 years 
of scientific studies has convinced him that the waste can be 
kept in volcanic rock 950 feet beneath the Nevada desert without 
risk to public health or the environment.

 "I could not and would not recommend the Yucca Mountain site 
without having first determined that (it will) ...protect the 
health and safety of the public," Abraham said.

 Rejecting critics' claims that the science has not clearly shown 
the wastes can be contained for thousands of years at the Nevada 
site, Abraham said his conclusions were "based on sound 
scientific principles."

 White House officials, speaking Thursday on condition of 
anonymity, said Bush intended to accept Abraham's recommendation. 
"The president will review it," White House spokeswoman Claire 
Buchan said.

 The Yucca Mountain site, which also will have to get approval 
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if a decision is made to 
proceed, is expected to handle thousands of tons of used reactor 
fuel rods now kept at 103 commercial power reactors in 31 states 
as well as highly radioactive defense waste now being stored in 
eight states.

 Some of the radioisotopes will remain deadly for more than 
10,000 years.

 Abraham notified Nevada a month ago that he would recommend the 
site to the president.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Abraham's recommendation "a 
hasty, poor and indefensible decision" at a time when "the 
science does not yet exist" to ensure the wastes can be contained 
for thousands of years.

 Abraham said "compelling national interests" -- made even more 
apparent by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- require development 
of a remote centralized disposal site.

 "More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of one or 
more of these sites" now holding the waste, he said.

 Nevada Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn and members of Nevada's 
congressional delegation made an appeal at the White House last 
week asking that Bush not act hastily on Yucca Mountain. Guinn 
was sharply critical of Abraham's decision because state 
officials claim the safety of the site has not been assured.

 Still, Bush will try to assure Nevada's officials -- including 
Republican office holders fearful of a political fallout from the 
decision -- that the selection of Yucca Mountain is a 
scientifically sound one.

 Opponents of a proposed dump in Nevada rallied Thursday on 
Capitol Hill, the first of many such protests likely in the weeks 
ahead. If Bush approves the site, Nevada has 60 days to file a 
protest. Then Congress has 90 days to override the state 
objection. If it doesn't, lawmakers will have to find a new 
location.

 "I totally oppose this. I do not want anything that could affect 
the health of my wife and two kids coming into my state," said 
Nevadan Hugh Jackson as he and several dozen protesters chanted 
"Nuclear wastes, no way!" outside the Capitol.

 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told the group that Nevadans weren't 
the only people who should worry about Yucca Mountain. If it is 
built, thousands of waste shipments will cross 43 states over 
both rail and highways.

 "The transportation of this is unsafe," said Ensign.

 The Energy Department and nuclear industry said the shipments 
can be conducted safely and that leaving the wastes at reactor 
sites poses security and safety concerns as well.

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 56 Protesters held after blockade outside Sellafield 

Irish Newspapers - 

ELEVEN Irish people were arrested and cautioned by police in 
Cumbria after a human blockade near the Sellafield nuclear plant 
yesterday caused widespread disruption to local traffic and 
schools. 

The decision to block the A595 local access road to the plant 
which held up road and rail traffic was condemned as "a dangerous 
and flawed tactic" by local police who said they had previously 
facilitated such protests .

Supt Steve Turnbull said "a repetition of today's action on the 
A595 may result in someone getting injured or even killed."

He added: "I understand the right to oppose Sellafield and 
support that right to lawfully protest but I cannot condone the 
general public becoming the target of the protestors. I have no 
doubt the protestors have done themselves a great deal of harm in 
the eyes of the local community." 

As the protesters, five women and six men, were cautioned they 
were not publicly named by police. 

The blockade started before 6am at two of the entrances to the 
plant causing a tailback of several miles. 

Many of the protestors, students and members of an environmental 
group called Gluaiseacht and a group which styles itself 
Globalise Resistance, were involved in a protest at the Faslane 
nuclear submarine base in Scotland earlier this week. They have 
been involved in two other protests at Sellafield in recent 
months which took place without incident.

Supt Turnbull said that the traffic disruption prevented local 
people getting to work and a number of schools were unable to 
open. He said trains on the west coast line linking Barrow and 
Carlisle were delayed because rail staff could not get to work. 

Bernard Purcell


© Copyright Unison
*****************************************************************
 57 Why I was proud to join the protest against Faslane’s nuclear arsenal

The Scotsman - Opinion - John Swinney: 

Friday, 15th February 2002 

PLATFORM 

John Swinney 

THE days when Scots were told to shut up and leave the 
decision-making to others were supposed to have disappeared along 
with Michael Forsyth and Margaret Thatcher. But, according to The 
Scotsman at least, the people of this country are still far too 
irresponsible to be trusted with major issues such as defence. 

I have never understood why it is acceptable for the citizens of 
Ireland or Norway to decide whether or not to have nuclear 
weapons on their soil, but unacceptable for the people of 
Scotland to take a similar decision. 

That is why I was proud to take part in the peaceful 
demonstration at the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane 
this week. I joined other politicians, churchmen and women and 
people from many walks of life who are sickened by the presence 
of these weapons in Scotland. 

The Westminster Government has decided to site the UK’s entire 
nuclear arsenal north of the Border against the wishes of the 
people who live here. The STUC, the Church of Scotland, the Roman 
Catholic Church and many other pillars of traditional Scottish 
society have consistently expressed their opposition to the 
continued presence of Trident on the Clyde. 

Opinion polls show a majority of Scots want to see these weapons 
removed. 

Those who actively oppose nuclear weapons are therefore firmly in 
the mainstream of Scottish public opinion and should not be 
dismissed, as they were in this newspaper earlier this week, as 
"agit-prop activists". They are principled and are prepared to 
stand up for their beliefs. That is something that surely should 
be admired, not rubbished. 

Many Scottish Labour politicians oppose Trident but have decided 
to keep quiet and to follow the London line. Labour changed its 
views on nuclear weapons, not out of principle, but for reasons 
of UK electoral convenience. It may be that New Labour has 
abandoned its principles so comprehensively that political 
commentators now believe convictions don’t matter anymore. But I 
am convinced that voters, more than ever, want to see politicians 
who are prepared to argue passionately for their true beliefs. 

For all my adult life I have opposed the siting of nuclear 
weapons in Scotland. The SNP is currently carrying out a review 
of international policy in the light of the events of 11 
September, and that review is firmly based on the principle on a 
commitment to a nuclear-free Scotland and to the maintenance of 
peace and stability in the wider world. That means Trident has to 
be removed from the Clyde. There are four Trident submarines 
based at Faslane, each carrying 16 missiles with, according to 
CND, three nuclear warheads. Each warhead has seven times the 
power of the Hiroshima bomb. 

These are weapons of mass destruction, designed for a Cold War 
that no longer exists and they serve no purpose in the defence of 
Scotland. 

As leader of the SNP, I am committed to winning independence so 
that the major decisions about the future of Scotland are taken 
by the people who live here. Independence would also allow 
Scotland to contribute fully to the work of the international 
community, but it would be frankly ludicrous for that 
contribution to be a nuclear one. There are far more effective 
and sensible ways for an outward-looking nation such as Scotland 
to play its part in international affairs. 

The Scotsman, in its editorial this week, made a bizarre contrast 
between the SNP’s campaign to win the arguments over the 
economics of independence and my attendance at the Faslane 
demonstration. The idea seemed to be that opposition to nuclear 
weapons is somehow incompatible with an economic policy designed 
to strengthen the competitive position of Scottish business. 

The examples of Finland and Ireland would suggest that is a 
fairly threadbare argument. Ireland’s growth rate has been 
spectacular. With the powers of independence and an imaginative 
use of corporate taxation, Ireland has an economic record that 
has far out-stripped Scotland’s - despite our greater natural 
advantages. I am not aware of this success being accompanied by 
an aggressive pro-nuclear defence policy. 


As leader of the SNP, I look forward to the day when our country 
is no longer viewed as a convenient place to dump nuclear weapons 
and instead takes on the normal powers of independence to enable 
Scottish foreign and defence policy to reflect accurately the 
needs and wishes of the people of Scotland.

©2002 scotsman.com | contact
*****************************************************************
 58 Right to have A-bomb: Those who fear the Islamic A-bomb, 
should be as scared of the other bombs... 

Turkish Daily News; Feb 14, 2002

BY ILNUR CEVIK

The forum in Istanbul between the Organization of Islamic 
Conference and the European Union has ended. It is clear that no 
one desires a clash of civilizations and that the participants 
are all prepared to make the extra effort to prevent this in the 
future. This is now called the "spirit of Istanbul."

The conference has also clearly shown that the participants agree 
that Islam is not the source of terrorism. So far so good. But 
this is not enough to erase certain prejudices against the Muslim 
world.

The conference would have been well advised to discuss the 
notorious issue of who should posses THE BOMB and who shouldn't.

According to a widespread view in the West, there are certain 
countries who should not be qualified to posses nuclear weapons. 
They feel strongly that the Islamic A-bomb is one of the leading 
threats to humanity. They also feel that Islamic countries cannot 
be as responsible about the A-bomb as their other counterparts in 
the world.

According to them, while there is no harm in India possessing 
nuclear military capability the same is not valid for neighboring 
Pakistan... They say Pakistan is not mature enough to handle this 
weapon and may even hand it over to terrorists, or even worse, 
terrorists could steal Pakistan's bombs.

Yet, no one even considers the fact that India's Hindu 
nationalist government could also display irresponsibility in 
handling nuclear weapons. They seem to forget what people are 
capable of doing in the name of nationalism...

Then of course, there is the case of Israel. It is an open secret 
that Israel does have nuclear military capability, but it is said 
that Jewish leaders are mature enough not to use it. On the other 
hand, we are told that the Arabs should never be allowed to 
posses such weapons, even under the pretext of self defense, 
simply because they are irresponsible and could use these weapons 
against Israel, hand them over the terrorists to be used against 
the West, or against the Jewish state.

Yet, no one feels that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who 
allowed or even ordered the massacre of so many people in 
Lebanon, may also be as capable of being irresponsible as Saddam 
Hussein.

Isn't this part of the great prejudices that should be discussed 
in earnest at the international level?

Should there be favored countries who are allowed to posses 
nuclear weapons and those who aren't? Is the Hindu A-bomb or the 
Jewish A-bomb less fatal for humanity?

Copyright © Asia Intelligence Wire
*****************************************************************
 59 Nuclear warhead proposal denounced

Chicago Tribune | 

Senate Democrats blast storage idea

By Matt Kelley
Associated Press
Published February 15, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Democratic senators on Thursday criticized 
President Bush's plans to cut the number of readily available 
nuclear warheads as merely "rearranging the furniture" in the 
United States' nuclear arsenal.

"This is not a reduction," said Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii). "It 
is unclear which new threat requires maintaining such a large 
arsenal of nuclear weapons."

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Bush's 
nuclear weapons plans, administration officials defended the 
program as the best response to the end of the Cold War between 
the United States and Russia.

Bush has said he wants to reduce the number of warheads ready for 
immediate use to about 2,000 from 7,000 by 2012.

Most of the remaining warheads would be stored, and would take 
months or years to be prepared for launch, said Douglas Feith, 
the top Pentagon arms-control official.

"We're closing the history books on the Cold War balance of 
terror," he told the committee.

Democrats on the panel said warheads should be destroyed, not 
just stored.

"It's warehoused terror rather than immediate terror," said Sen. 
Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's chairman.

Feith said the U.S. needs a stockpile of warheads to give the 
nation flexibility in the event of future threats.

Russian officials have criticized the plan to reduce the U.S. 
nuclear arsenal by putting warheads in reserve rather than 
destroying them.

The U.S. does not have facilities to make new warheads, but 
Russia is now making new nuclear weapons, Feith said.

"It is not a big deal for Russia to destroy a warhead, because 
they could immediately replace it with a new warhead," he said.

The administration plans to make the cuts on its own, without a 
treaty with Russia or a law that would require congressional 
approval. Thursday's hearing was a chance for senators to voice 
their opinions about Bush's nuclear arms plan.

Levin and other Democrats said the plan could create more danger 
for this country because Russia would be encouraged to store its 
unused warheads as well. Those warheads could fall into the hands 
of terrorists or other U.S. enemies, Levin said.

Republicans on the panel defended the plan. Sen. Wayne Allard 
(R-Colo.) called it "a welcome step in the right direction," and 
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said destroying warheads could make 
the U.S. vulnerable in a new nuclear arms race.

"If we destroy these weapons totally . . . we could be in a 
situation where we would not have that kind of clear superiority 
which deters war," Sessions said. "Are we sure we're not going 
too fast?"


Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune 
*****************************************************************
 60 UK joins nuclear test in Nevada 

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

Friday February 15, 2002
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
An underground nuclear test was due to be carried out at a Nevada 
site yesterday as part of a joint British and US operation. The 
test was criticised by nuclear disarmament groups on both sides 
of the Atlantic for giving a green light to other countries to 
continue their own nuclear weapons build-ups. 

A spokeswoman for the National Nuclear Security Administration in 
Nevada confirmed yesterday that the Los Alamos national 
laboratory was preparing an underground, sub-critical nuclear 
test, codenamed Vito, at a site about 60 miles from Las Vegas. 

The test does not involve an explosion resulting from a nuclear 
chain reaction. "It is a sub-critical test, which means that no 
critical mass is formed," said the spokeswoman. "It is done to 
answer questions about plutonium and how it explodes ... The 
reason we do it is to maintain our stockpile." 

She said the test, conducted jointly by the UK and US, was one of 
a series: the last test was on December 13. 

It is believed to be the first time Britain has participated in 
the US tests, although it has previously shared the results. 

The test was criticised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. 
"We believe that this test could be used to design a replacement 
for existing Trident warheads, clearly a breach of the UK 
obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty," said Nigel 
Chamberlain of CND. 

In the US, the Shundahai Network, which monitors nuclear tests, 
said that such tests send a message to the rest of the world. 

"In 1997, the US resumed these tests after a five-year halt," 
said a spokeswoman. She said that India and Pakistan had then 
initiated their own tests. 

Useful links British Nuclear Fuels Ltd 
[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for 
Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary 
[http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy 
authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological 
Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear 
Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 61 Subcritical nuclear experiment achieves aims

Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
Government scientists successfully conducted the Vito subcritical 
nuclear experiment Thursday at the Nevada Test Site, officials 
with the National Nuclear Security Administration said. 

Scientists from the Los Alamos, N.M., National Laboratory set off 
the experiment involving small amounts of nuclear materials at 
1:30 p.m., a statement from the administration's Nevada 
Operations Office in North Las Vegas said. The administration is 
a branch of the Department of Energy. 

The United Kingdom participated in the experiment under the terms 
of a 1958 agreement, the statement said. 

Vito was the nation's 16th such experiment since the program was 
launched July 2, 1997. 

The officials said Vito, as planned, did not erupt into a nuclear 
chain reaction. The purpose of the experiment was to give 
scientists information about the nation's aging nuclear weapons 
stockpile in the absence of full-scale nuclear tests. Full-scale 
tests were put on hold indefinitely by the United States in 1992. 

The experiments in a below-ground complex, 85 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas, produce data on how materials, such as plutonium, blow 
apart when detonated. 

Prior to Vito, the most recent U.S. subcritical experiment, Oboe 
7, was conducted Dec. 13 at the test site by scientists from 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
 
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002
*****************************************************************
 62 India to maintain nuclear testing moratorium - foreign minister 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 15, 2002

Text of report by Indian Doordarshan TV on 15 February

India has reassured European Union foreign policy leaders that it 
would stick to a self-imposed moratorium on testing of nuclear 
weapons. The assurance was given by External Affairs Minister 
Jaswant Singh at a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Javier 
Solana, Foreign Relations Commissioner Chris Patten, Spanish 
Foreign Minister Josep Pique, and others in Madrid.

[Singh] No, I think this canard about India undertaking another 
nuclear test is really simply that, a canard. We have publicly 
stated, prime minister has said so, and I have said it in the 
United Nations General Assembly that there is a voluntary 
moratorium that is in force, as far as India is concerned, on 
nuclear explosives testing. That shall remain in force and it is 
not time-bound. We will not also stand in the way of the 
entry-into-force of the [Comprehensive] Test Ban Treaty. [end of 
recording]

Source: Doordarshan television, New Delhi, in English 0200 gmt 15 
Feb 02

/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.
*****************************************************************
 63 Fallout Shelters Fall Short in U.S.
 
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com

Friday, Feb. 15, 2002 

Despite intelligence of homespun "dirty nukes” and the inevitable 
use by terrorists of nuclear device delivery via cruise missiles, 
the new federal Office of Homeland Security is not promoting 
fallout shelters, according to spokesman Gordon Johndroe. The 
reasoning behind the policy has the most to do with dollars and 
cents, with a little history and psychology percolating in the 
mix.

 According to Commander Michael Dobbs, a policy planner on the 
Joint Staff, an effective shelter program would cost $60 billion, 
30 times the cost of implementing a crisis relocation strategy in 
large cities.

 "Evacuation is still the primary protective measure in the event 
of a nuclear incident,” said Don Jacks of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.

 'Duck and Cover'

 Edwin Lyman, scientific director for Nuclear Control Institute, 
has evaluated the state of affairs as nothing less than a return 
to the primitive Cold War ritual of "duck and cover.” 

"If there were a nuclear explosion of relatively small yield, 
people who are maybe tens of miles away would have something like 
a half an hour to shelter themselves,” Lyman said. "Does this 
mean that the U.S. should reactivate a system of fallout 
shelters? I don’t know.”

 According to Dobbs, civil defense programs have historically 
been on the government’s back burner. Annual appropriations for 
civil defense never totaled much more than $1 billion (1962) and, 
from 1952 to 1986, varied between $200 million and $400 million. 

In 1984 per capita federal expenditures for civil defense 
programs were 75 cents, contrasted with $6 for ballistic missile 
defense and $1,350 for the Department of Defense. 

In 1957, with a bellicose Soviet Union flexing, President Dwight 
Eisenhower refused to initiate a fallout shelter program. 
Following through with his campaign promises of "missile gap” 
catch-up with the Reds, however, President John Kennedy was an 
exception to the rule, calling for "a fallout shelter for 
everyone as rapidly as possible.” 

In 1972 President Richard Nixon followed the lead of his former 
boss and refused to augment civil defense programs.

 And it is not just the government that’s been slow to get hot 
and bothered by the issue.

 In a 1953 poll, Americans were asked whether they were likely to 
build an air raid shelter within the next year. Fewer than 3 
percent said yes. True to the poll, 10 years later, fewer than 
one in 50 Americans had built any kind of shelter. And this was 
the time of the Cuban missile crisis, when fears of nuclear 
holocaust were nearly pandemic.

 According to Dobbs, the public apathy toward shelters during the 
Cold War was mostly grounded in a mind-set that such preparations 
were futile in the face of a large-scale nuclear exchange. But 
that mind-set is changing and was well on its way to being 
recast, even before September 11. 

In a 1999 survey by the Pew Research Center, 64 percent of those 
polled stated that they thought a major terrorist attack on the 
U.S. involving biological or chemical weapons would happen 
sometime over the next half century.

 The experts agree. They now see nuclear attacks from terrorists 
or a rogue nation as limited in scope and duration, making 
precautions for a WMD incident prudent. There is no more 
exaggerated fear of "nuclear winter.”

 The experts also agree that despite all that is being done by 
the states and the federal government, self-help will be the rule 
for many citizens during the initial hours of a large-scale 
nuclear incident. 

The rub, according to Dobbs: "We are spending billions to train 
first responders and local leaders, but very little to train the 
general public.” He suggested that FEMA provide citizens with 
information on how to protect themselves and their families from 
attack just as the Home Front Command does in Israel. Another 
imperative: tax incentives for Americans who install a sheltered 
space in their home.

 Dobbs also sees the nation’s stockpiling of antidotes such as 
the controversial potassium iodide as a step in the right 
direction, but of limited utility for those who have to wait days 
after an incident until the medicines can be distributed. 

Gimme Shelter

 In the meantime, some Americans are voting with their 
pocketbooks and digging up their backyards just like the good old 
days of the Cold War. "They’re treating me less like a crazy 
woman than they did before,” Dr. Jane Orient of Tucson, Ariz., 
who promotes home shelters as head of Doctors for Disaster 
Preparedness, told NewsMax.com.

 Fallout shelters are a good defense from radiation but are 
woefully inadequate in the U.S. and should become a government 
priority, she said. Dr. Orient’s favored example: "If that soot 
raining down in Brooklyn [from the World Trade Center] had been 
radioactive, there would be many thousands, maybe millions of 
people dying slow, agonizing deaths from radiation sickness that 
could have been prevented had people had access to shelter.”

 If she had it her way, the U.S. would be more like the Russians, 
Chinese or Swiss. The Moscow subways double as shelters, equipped 
with blast doors. Much of the population of Beijing could be 
evacuated underground in about 10 minutes. And Switzerland has 
shelter for 110 percent of its population in private homes and 
public buildings.

 In starkest contrast, companies such as Boeing that have 
contracts with the government are proscribed from preparing 
shelter space for emergency occupancy. It all comes full circle 
and back to the dollars and cents. There are plans for basement 
shelters that cost as little as several thousand dollars. 
However, for really effective protection against biological, 
nuclear and chemical threats, prices jump to $40,000 and higher. 
The deluxe shelters are equipped with air filtration systems and 
hand-pump toilets, allowing people to hold out from 30 days to 
several months. 

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
*****************************************************************
 64 Senate Democrats Fault Bush Nuclear (Weapons) Plan 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
By Bradley Graham
 Washington Post Staff Writer
 Friday, February 15, 2002; Page A04 

President Bush's plan to slash the number of deployed nuclear 
warheads by about two-thirds came under sharp criticism yesterday 
from Senate Democrats who accused the administration of 
exaggerating the move's significance because many of the 
decommissioned warheads are destined for storage, not 
destruction.
 
"The issue of what constitutes a reduction is what we're talking 
about," said Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's undersecretary for 
policy, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that the 
administration's plan marks a break with Cold War thinking.
 
The often strained exchanges between the senators and Feith 
during more than three hours of testimony reflected the 
skepticism and disappointment with which many arms control 
advocates have greeted Bush's decision since he unveiled it in 
November.
 
The president's initiative calls for cutting the level of 
deployed warheads from 6,000 to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 by 
2012.
 
Administration officials have portrayed the plan as a major 
turnaround in the Pentagon's nuclear war-planning, away from 
basing strategic forces on the possibility of war with Russia. 
Under the new approach, officials say, U.S. nuclear forces will 
be sized partly on the basis of potential wars with China or such 
states as North Korea, Iran or Iraq. Also factoring in the mix 
will be such considerations as the number of forces necessary to 
reassure allies that the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains "second to 
none" and dissuade adversaries from trying to match it.
 
"We're closing the history books on the Cold War balance of 
terror" with Russia, Feith told the committee.
 
But the panel's Democratic members challenged how much had 
changed. They noted that instead of committing to destroying the 
warheads, the administration intends to put most in storage where 
they can be reactivated. Further, they said, Bush's plan does not 
require dismantling any more land-based missiles, bombers and 
submarines than prescribed by a previous Pentagon review of the 
country's nuclear forces in 1994.
 
"It's warehoused terror rather than immediate terror," said Sen. 
Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's chairman, who likened 
the administration's storage of warheads to Enron Corp.'s efforts 
to "make its debts disappear by moving them from one set of books 
to another."
 
Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) called the administration's 
action "a distinction without much of a difference." And Sen. 
Jack Reed (D-R.I.) questioned "whether or not we are rearranging 
the furniture" rather than making meaningful nuclear cuts.
 
The Democratic lawmakers warned that storing decommissioned 
warheads could create more danger for the United States by 
encouraging Russia to do the same with the warheads it also 
intends to remove. The more warheads in storage, they said, the 
greater the risk of theft or illicit sale. Russia has announced 
plans for even deeper cuts, down to as low as 1,500 warheads, but 
has criticized the U.S. storage scheme and insisted on a legally 
binding agreement to ensure reductions.
 
Feith defended the planned retention of decommissioned warheads, 
saying the United States must remain flexible amid the greater 
uncertainty of post-Cold War threats. In contrast to Russia and 
other nuclear powers, he also noted, the United States does not 
have facilities to produce new warheads and so cannot be as quick 
to discard existing ones. He said the administration's planned 
removal of warheads from missiles, submarines and bombers is of 
greater significance than the Democratic senators said.
 
"We call what we're doing a reduction because we think it is 
highly significant that we're going to be reducing the number of 
warheads available for use," he said.
 
Republicans on the panel praised the administration's plan. Sen. 
John W. Warner (R-Va.) heralded it as "a breakthrough." Sen. 
Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) called it "a welcome step in the right 
direction." And Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) warned that 
destroying warheads too quickly could risk of the loss of U.S. 
nuclear superiority.
 
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 65 U.S., Britain Conduct Joint Nuclear Test 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
Reuters
 Friday, February 15, 2002; Page A02 

The United States and Britain yesterday conducted their first 
joint nuclear experiment allowed under the global Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty, officials said. The test was conducted deep 
underneath the Nevada desert.
 
Officials said the subcritical nuclear experiment was aimed at 
maintaining the safety and reliability of both nations' atomic 
weapons without resorting to underground nuclear blasts. In a 
subcritical test, there is no nuclear explosion. Scientists can 
use the experiments to draw conclusions about materials such as 
plutonium.
 
The National Nuclear Security Administration said the experiment 
took place about 960 feet beneath the Earth's surface at 1:30 
p.m. Pacific Standard Time (4:30 p.m. EST) at the Nevada Test 
Site, 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
 
Subcritical nuclear experiments are allowed under the treaty 
signed by 165 countries, including Britain and the United States.
 
The Bush administration has refused to forward the treaty to 
Congress for ratification and did not attend a global conference 
in November 2001 on the treaty's entry into force.
 
Some critics have argued subcritical tests could allow the United 
States to develop new warhead designs.
 
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 66 DOE firms up promise on Flats

Denver Post.com
 
By

The Denver Post Washington Bureau

--> Friday, February 15, 2002 - 

WASHINGTON - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has designated his 
top staffer to ensure that the Rocky Flats nuclear bomb plant is 
closed by 2006, U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard said Thursday. 

Abraham has designated his chief of staff, Kyle McSlarrow, to 
ensure the deadline is met, Allard said. The government is 
spending $7 billion to turn the site into a wildlife refuge once 
it's closed. 

Allard and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Boulder, met with McSlarrow 
and other top Department of Energy officials to "hold their feet 
to the fire" on the deadline. The DOE officials also said that 
within a few days they will issue a report to Congress that is 
needed before Rocky Flats waste can be shipped to South Carolina. 

"Sen. Allard and I were assured that the DOE is committed to the 
2006 closure," said Udall, whose district includes Rocky Flats. 
"But there are some trip wires in the near future that if we 
don't meet we're going to have trouble meeting the 2006 
deadline." 

DOE officials did not say what they will do with 800 kilograms, 
or 1,764 pounds, of plutonium with nowhere to go. They plan to 
ship most Flats plutonium to a South Carolina factory that will 
turn it into nuclear power plant fuel. 

But the 800 kilograms is not pure enough to be turned into fuel, 
raising concerns about whether cleanup might be delayed. DOE 
officials assured lawmakers they are working to find a site.
 	 
 All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post
*****************************************************************
 67 Bush's Hanford budget inadequate, insulting
 
Published Feb. 14, 2002
 
President Bush's proposal for Hanford cleanup is unacceptable - 
and the way Department of Energy headquarters officials are 
explaining the proposal, which flouts the agency's 13-year-old 
promise to clean up the site, is insulting.
 
The proposal for the year starting Oct. 1 would cut Hanford's 
cleanup funding by $262 million over the current year at a time 
when regulators say another $200 million is needed. Although the 
Energy Department's total nuclear cleanup budget would remain 
flat at $6.7 billion, $800 million is skimmed off the top for a 
special incentive account for sites that embrace innovative ways 
to cut costs and speed cleanup.
 
An incentive account is not necessarily a bad idea, but this 
proposal threatens to jeopardize cleanup projects through 
underfunding. Indeed, Hanford has shown dramatic progress, 
recently meeting several important milestones including closing a 
federal watch list of troublesome nuclear waste tanks.
 
But the department must fund its legal obligations.
 
At least one Energy Department official, in testimony this week 
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had the 
guts to admit the Energy Department did not necessarily feel 
bound by the Tri-Party Agreement with state and federal 
regulators.
 
When U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., asked Bruce Carnes, the 
department's chief financial officer, if the agency could commit 
to fund fully the agreement, he responded, "I can't." That was a 
question Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has repeatedly refused 
to answer.
 
Put that comment together with the "trust us" message elsewhere 
on this page in a letter from the Energy Department's 
environmental management chief, and you have little to inspire 
confidence in the Bush administration's commitment to clean up 
Hanford.
 
This week the Energy Department announced a replacement for Harry 
Boston, chief of the department's Office of River Protection at 
Hanford. Boston picked up the pieces after the first contractor 
for a critical waste vitrification plant was fired and quickly 
developed excellent relationships with regulators. In recent 
months he has been recommending ways to cut costs and speed 
cleanup - the very things cleanup czar Jessie Roberson said are 
key to the department's future. Boston will be shipped back to 
headquarters come summer. In his place will be Roy Schepens, a 
No. 2 manager at the department's Savannah River site.
 
Ironically, the Energy Department, which has required contractors 
to keep key managers for at least two years or pay hefty 
"bounties," announced this move after Boston had served only 16 
months. His predecessor was fired after serving a little more 
than a year.
 
Going back a year, the administration proposed a ridiculously low 
budget that also threatened to derail important Hanford cleanup 
projects. Congress ignored the insult and fully funded Hanford 
cleanup, and the president signed it into law.
 
Short of a state-filed lawsuit, a similar congressional power 
play might be the only way to fix the damage the Bush 
administration's irresponsible budget would certainly do. 

Cantwell and Washington's other senator, Democrat Patty Murray, 
are on the case, apparently joined by Republican Sen. Larry 
Craig, representing Idaho and its own cleanup site. Craig 
reportedly described the administration's cleanup budget as "dead 
on arrival."
 
Gov. Gary Locke, too, is upset with the president's proposed 
budget and is expected to visit Hanford today to underscore his 
concerns. The state might well sue the Energy Department if it 
doesn't meet its obligations under the Tri-Party Agreement.
 
While these statewide elected officials are raising Cain about 
the budget, Mid-Columbians should be concerned at their 
congressman's apparent willingness to capitulate to Bush 
administration's direction. In a statement released last week, 
Republican Doc Hastings said, "This reduction causes me concern 
because (of) its potential effect on maintaining cleanup momentum 
at the site, yet I am confident that due to our innovative 
contracts, open dialogue with state regulators and proven 
progress that Hanford is well-positioned to be one of the first 
sites to substantial funding increases from the $800 million 
accelerated cleanup account."
 
But why gamble? Why risk a lawsuit that might cause further 
delays?
 
Given the Bush administration's actions over the last year, it is 
galling for Roberson to make the comment in her letter that she 
is "surprised by the reaction of some in Washington."
 
The Bush administration needs to prove itself before it can earn 
the trust of Hanford stakeholders. So far it hasn't done that. 
What's your opinon? 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 68 Cantwell questions nuclear cleanup funds

  DJC.COM: 

provided by Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce

February 14, 2002

 WASHINGTON -- An Energy Department official has defended the 
administration's proposal to make some nuclear cleanup money 
contingent upon requiring the work to be done faster and cheaper. 

For the 2003 budget year, the administration has proposed funding 
the cleanup of former nuclear sites nationwide at levels 
consistent with the current budget -- about $6.7 billion. 
However, $800 million of that money would be doled out only after 
new agreements are reached to get the work done more efficiently. 
If the Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland, Wash., doesn't 
get any money from the proposed $800 million pool, the 
administration would be cutting its cleanup funds by $262 
million. 

"The existing way of doing business ... doesn't actually reduce 
risk, and it is in a way unconscionable fiscal policy because it 
doesn't save money," Energy Department Chief Financial Officer 
Bruce Carnes said Tuesday at a hearing of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. 

"We are looking at cleanup activities that could take until the 
lifetimes of our great-grandchildren," he said. 

As an example, he pointed out that Hanford won't be completed 
until 2070. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said she and the public 
weren't interested in using "creative accounting" techniques to 
pay for the cleanup that must be done as prescribed under legally 
binding agreements. 

Copyright ©2002 Seattle Daily Journal and djc.com. 
*****************************************************************
 69 Energy official: Aging test site workers a concern


Friday, February 15, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
Senate panel told average age of workers supplying critical 
skills is 48 

By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- The aging of technical employees at the Nevada Test 
Site and the nation's nuclear laboratories is a major challenge 
for the Bush administration as it seeks to reduce the time needed 
to conduct nuclear tests, an Energy Department administrator said 
Thursday. 

The average age of employees supplying critical skills to the 
nuclear weapons program is 48, "considerably older than that for 
the average U.S. high-tech industry," said John Gordon, 
administrator for the National Nuclear Security Agency. 

"A major fact in this demography was the low hiring rates in the 
early to mid-1990s as budgets for the weapons program were in 
decline," Gordon said in testimony submitted to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. 

"Recruiting rates have gone up modestly, but are still much lower 
than required to support planned programs," Gordon said. 

Preparing the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for 
another nuclear test would require 30 to 36 months, Gordon said, 
and that time needs to be reduced. 

"While I see no near-term need for a nuclear test, my judgment is 
that our current posture is a bit too relaxed," Gordon said. 

The last underground nuclear explosion at the test site occurred 
Sept. 23, 1992. Since 1995 the Department of Energy has conducted 
16 subcritical experiments at the test site, including one on 
Thursday, to check the safety and reliability of the nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. Subcritical experiments include 
explosions but do not result in nuclear chain reactions. 

Of the 1,407 employees who work at the test site on a daily 
basis, about 400 have underground nuclear testing experience, 
according to test site spokesman Darwin Morgan. 

About 150 of those workers have technical experience in nuclear 
testing, Morgan said. 

"We are always concerned, as years go by and people retire, about 
maintaining the knowledge base that we have and how we can pass 
that on to young people," Morgan said. 

Morgan said the test site has compiled video archives of 
interviews with scientists who have participated in nuclear 
tests. 

Troy Wade, who leads a group of contractors and suppliers 
dedicated to preserving the test site, said the aging issue is 
more of a problem for national laboratories at Livermore, Calif., 
and Los Alamos, N.M. 

"The test site tests the products of the labs, which do the basic 
science necessary to design nuclear weapons," said Wade, who is 
chairman of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., issued a statement Thursday 
urging President Bush not to resume underground nuclear testing. 

"The United States must maintain its position as a leader in the 
global effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons," Markey said.
 
webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 70 City seeks $12K monthly to lobby 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:35 a.m. on Friday, February 15, 2002

by R. Cathey Daniels 
Oak Ridger staff 

The city will pay a law/lobbying firm $12,000 each month for the 
next three years, if the Oak Ridge City Council gives the plan 
its blessing Monday night.

 Council meets at 7:30 in the Municipal Building Courtroom.

 The contract negotiated with Baker, Donelson, Bearman &Caldwell 
of Knoxville would pay the firm $144,000 per year, payable in 
monthly installments of $12,000, to attempt to garner more state 
and federal funds for the city.

 Council member Leonard Abbatiello has said repeatedly that the 
best way for the city to move to economic high ground is to "get 
DOE to pay its fair share."

 The city has been attempting to gain more federal funds for 
about 25 years.

 Last year the city spent $75,000 for Baker Donelson to research 
the issue and submit a report detailing a plan to gain more 
funds. The firm submitted its year-end report with seven 
recommendations, and suggested the city hire Baker Donelson to do 
the work.

 The firm will be required to apply to the Department of Energy 
for consideration under the special burdens clause of the Atomic 
Energy Act; pursue more federal land through the DOE 
Self-Sufficiency Agreement; mount a lobbying effort in 
Washington; pursue reinstatement of the previously terminated 
annual assistance payments; and create new state legislation 
authorizing enhanced sales tax returns based on the "uniqueness 
of Oak Ridge's situation and regional impact."

 In addition, City Council Monday will be asked to approve 
$135,000 for the newly formed Chamber of Commerce offshoot 
organization, the Oak Ridge Economic Partnership.

 That money would come from the city's Economic Diversification 
Fund; would be renewable each year; and would be used for a 
marketing plan that would portray Oak Ridge in a "positive" light 
and develop a consistent marketing theme for the city.

 Council is also expected to pass the second reading of a zoning 
ordinance that would remove the planned unit development overlay 
from the city-owned property of Parcel A.

 The city is attempting to sell that property, and needs $300,000 
from the sale to balance this year's budget.

 In addition, the council will be asked to approve resolutions to 
support the windfarm facility on Buffalo Mountain; support the 
reindustrialization effort as the preferred path toward cleanup 
of unusable DOE facilities; spend an additional $15,000 to 
complete design and construction of electrical substation 900; 
and award a bid totaling $150,000 to the Tennessee Valley 
Electric Supply Co. in Knoxville for the purchase of equipment to 
supply electricity to commercial customers with underground 
utilities.

 Council will also elect residents to several city boards.
 
R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or 
danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] .

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 71 Screening approved for OR Reservation site

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:35 a.m. on Friday, February 15, 2002

The Oak Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee announced 
in a press release that it has approved the process that the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry plans to use to 
screen for exposures from the Oak Ridge Reservation site.

 The press release was issued following the subcommittee's 
meeting in Oak Ridge on Monday.

 Specifically, the subcommittee approved ATSDR's recommendation 
to use the state of Tennessee's findings, reported in its Oak 
Ridge Health Studies (Phase I Report and Phase II Task 7 Report) 
-- also known as the Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Study and 
the Screening Level Evaluation -- to screen for past exposures 
(from 1944 to 1990) at the site.

 Additionally, the Health Effects Subcommittee also approved the 
agency's chemical screening process as a method of screening for 
current exposures, which includes exposures from 1991 to 2001.

 The Public Health Assessment Work group reviewed the agency's 
proposals for screening, including a careful evaluation of the 
state findings related to past exposures and the technical 
reviews of those findings; evaluated the public concerns; and 
reported its findings to the subcommittee.

 The subcommittee endorsed the recommendations after careful 
consideration of the work group's report, according to the press 
release.

 "We've had some good presentations from ATSDR related to the 
screening process," the press release quotes James Lewis, a 
member of the ORRHES public health assessment work group, as 
saying. "While the technical expertise of subcommittee members 
varies, we are in agreement that most of our concerns about the 
process have been addressed by ATSDR."

 The subcommittee commended the Public Health Assessment Work 
Group for its hard work on this task, the press release states.

 "The work group did a good job of considering the public 
concerns and issues," Lewis states in the press release. "When 
credible scientific information is brought to the table in the 
future, we'll carefully consider it as the process continues."

 The subcommittee is a community group with a mix of both lay and 
technical people.

 The subcommittee was formed to provide advice and 
recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention and the administrator of the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on the selection, design, 
scope, priority, and adequacy of ATSDR and CDC public health 
activities and research connected with the Oak Ridge Reservation.

 The subcommittee works with private citizens, advocacy groups, 
state agencies, and other federal agencies in the region and 
provides members of the community with an opportunity to 
communicate directly with national public health agencies. The 
subcommittee is chaired by Kowetha Davidson, of Oak Ridge.

 All Health Effects Subcommittee activities are open to the 
public, and public participation is welcomed and encouraged. 
Members of the public who have questions about the subcommittee's 
work, or the work of a particular work group, can contact 
Davidson through ATSDR's Oak Ridge field office at 422-0295. 
Callers can also contact LaFreta Dalton, designated federal 
official for the Health Effects Subcommittee, by calling, 
toll-free, 1-888-42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737).

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 72 Opinion: A shared desire for environmental cleanup results 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:27 a.m. on Friday, February 15, 2002

 Our View: 

With the reassignment of some 40 percent of the 70 senior 
executives heading the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Management Program, this is looking more like an upheaval than a 
mere shakeup.

 "The purpose of these reassignments is to better leverage the 
unique talents of these executives, force better integration 
between the field and headquarters of the real, on-the-ground 
challenges confronting the program, and to stimulate new thinking 
and creative solutions to our cleanup challenges," said Jessie 
Roberson, assistant secretary of Environmental Management, in a 
prepared statement this week.

 In short, while DOE apparently remains steeped in traditional 
bureaucratic jargon, it is something expecting better than past 
incremental, bureaucratic results.

 The shakeup reflects an understandable and growing impatience by 
the agency toward an environmental management program that at 
times has resembled a jobs program for environmental consultants, 
without producing sufficient results despite the millions upon 
millions of taxpayer dollars spent.

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, in a column published here 
this week, said the new emphasis is on accountability and 
results. And we were pleased to hear Gerald Boyd, assigned to the 
Oak Ridge Operations field office as part of this shakeup, vow to 
work with local officials, boards, the state and the 
Environmental Protection Agency as part of this new, 
results-oriented approach.

 At the same time, DOE must remain mindful that Oak Ridge and 
various cleanup sites across the nation face vastly differing 
challenges, depending upon the age of the facilities, the nature 
of production, and whether the goal is to close or reuse the 
sites.

 But the emphasis on results is something all of us should be 
able to appreciate. We welcome Mr. Boyd to Oak Ridge and trust 
the community will extend to him its full cooperation in 
achieving this important shared goal.


All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 73 A potentially Nobel-prize winning discovery. Or maybe not

Economist.com | Particle physics
       
Radioactive disputes

Feb 14th 2002 

      From The Economist print edition

IF IT proves true, remember that you read it here first. Hans 
Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and his colleagues at the Max Planck 
Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg have just reported 
the first recorded instance of neutrinoless double beta decay. 

That might not sound like news worth holding the front page for, 
but to those interested in fundamental physics, it is. If it 
turns out to be correct, it will require a substantial rewriting 
of the Standard Model, the current repository of all knowledge 
and wisdom about particle physics.

In normal beta decay, one of the neutrons in an unstable atomic 
nucleus turns into a proton, prompting the emission of two 
particles: an electron and an anti-neutrino. This fits with the 
Standard Model, which says that a fundamental quantity of the 
universe, called lepton number, must be conserved. Electrons and 
neutrinos have a lepton number of +1; their anti-matter 
counterparts, positrons and anti-neutrinos have a lepton number 
of -1. The result is that the net change of lepton number in beta 
decay is +1-1, in other words, zero.

There is a very small chance, however, that two neutrons will 
decay at the same time, resulting in the simultaneous emission of 
two electrons. That, according to a heretical theory, might occur 
without the emission of any anti-neutrinos at all, which would 
violate the conservation of lepton number and put the Standard 
Model in trouble. Such a neutrinoless double beta decay could, 
according to the theory, be detected by monitoring the energy of 
the electrons given off.

Dr Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and his colleagues looked for the 
tell-tale signal in ten years' worth of data collected from a 
radioactive-decay experiment being carried out at a laboratory 
inside Gran Sasso, a mountain in central Italy. In a paper in 
Modern Physics A, they say they have found it.

If they have, the result would not only violate the conservation 
of lepton number, it would also mean that anti-neutrinos and 
neutrinos are actually the same thing; in other words a neutrino 
is its own antiparticle. It would also have cosmological 
consequences, since it would make neutrinos into objects a lot 
more massive than is currently believed. Since neutrinos are 
extremely abundant, that would go some way towards explaining the 
so-called exotic dark matter in the universe, which observation 
shows is there, but is not made of ordinary atoms.

Not surprisingly, the announcement has provoked a backlash. An 
international group of researchers has written a letter to Modern 
Physics A, arguing that Dr Klapdor-Kleingrothaus has been 
selective in his analysis, and that the data do not show the 
result he claims. Whether that result is indeed a lemon, or the 
letter proves to be sour grapes, remains to be seen.

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2002. All rights 
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 74 Soviet Nuclear Weapons Designer Dies
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
February 15, 2002 
 
MOSCOW (AP) - Lev Feoktistov, a leading Soviet nuclear weapons 
designer who later joined a wave of scientists urging nuclear 
disarmament, has died at age 74. 

Feoktistov was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a 
department chairman at the academy's Lebedev Physics Institute. 
He died in Moscow on Thursday, his 74th birthday, of an apparent 
heart attack, Russian news reports said Friday. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent condolences to the 
physicist's family Friday, calling him a "wonderful teacher" who 
"did a great deal for the development of domestic science, 
nuclear energy and the strengthening of the defense capability of 
our country," according to the president's press service. 

The statement did not mention Feoktistov's anti-nuclear 
campaigning. Feoktistov worked from 1951 until the late 1970s 
designing nuclear warheads in the Soviet Union's Arzamas-16 and 
Chelyabinsk-70 facilities, according to a book he published in 
English in 1999 called "Nukes are Not Forever." 

He later moved to Moscow to work on civilian research. He became 
an active participant in the international Pugwash movement of 
scientists who have campaigned to eliminate nuclear weapons. 

Feoktistov acknowledged that Soviet and U.S. nuclear weapons 
development likely deterred an all-out war between the Cold War 
enemies. 

But in his book, he added: "We, those who created nuclear arms, 
must remember our share of responsibility for making humans 
defenseless from nuclear firewinds. 

"I feel that for the use of nuclear arms there can be no 
forgiveness, provided humans wish to stay humans. The sole 
logical answer is outlawing nuclear arms." Memorial services were 
planned for Monday at the Physics Institute in southern Moscow. 
No information on survivors was available. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 75 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 2001 DC Days
 
THE ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY
DC DAYS 2002
APRIL 14-17, WASHINGTON, DC
                                        
Clean up the radioactive legacy
                                        
Stop Nuclear Weapons Production
   
Join activists from around the nation for four days in Washington 
DC focused on the Nuclear Weapons Complex. This is a unique 
opportunity to meet with members of Congress and government 
officials and learn how to effectively voice your concerns about 
nuclear weapons and nuclear waste policies.
 
DC Days was an experience that I will never forget. The first 
dayof intense training provided me with the background knowledge 
required forthe planned meetings with selected government 
officials. The training includeda brief review of the law making 
process, the multitude of issues to berepresented and protocols 
to use in presenting the issues.... This tripwas a civics lesson 
far more effective than anything I received in school. I believe 
that our government can be influenced by a well informed 
populace.
 
Vern Brechin, Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA
 
Our members' experiences during DC Days are extraordinarily 
empoweringfrom start to finish. The members who volunteer to go 
are responsible forraising their own expense money, and members 
in each area of the state bandtogether to succeed. When our 
citizen lobbyists come home, they reportback to the people who 
sent them to DC through conversations, area meetings,newsletter 
articles, and of course, thank yous. ANA's DC Days helps 
turnindividual members into skilled activists.
 
Beatrice Brailsford, Snake River Alliance, Boise, ID
 
                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For more information on this year's ANA's DC Days please 
contact:
                                        
                               Trisha Christopher Alliance for 
Nuclear Accountability 1801 18th St. NW, #9-2 Washington, DC 
20009 Ph: 202-833-4668 Fax: 202-234-9536 Email: 
[trishachr@earthlink.net] www.ananuclear.org

 
                       ANA's DC Days is co-sponsored by Friends 
Committee on National Legislation & Fellowship of Reconciliation
   

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability is a network of 
grassroots and national organizations from communities in the 
shadow of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex working to address 
issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup. We 
believe there are fundamental rights to public safety, 
environmental quality, government accountability, and democracy.
 

What is DC Days?
 
In each of the past twelve years, ANA has hosted four days of 
training, education, and political advocacy that bring activists 
from around the country to Washington, DC, to explain their 
concerns to policymakers. It is an opportunity to make your voice 
heard at the national level and to network with people and 
organizations working on similar issues.
 
Why should you participate?
 
This year ANA faces several important challenges. The 
Administration is set to make major decisions concerning the 
nuclear weapons complex. Our national priorities can either be 
for health, safety, and the environment, or else they can be for 
more waste and new weapons. Your participation in DC Days will 
make a difference in the outcome. Join us and be part of the 
solution.
 
What will DC Days cost?
 
Register for the four days by March 15th and pay $75, thereafter 
it is $100. You are responsible for your travel, lodging and food 
during your stay in DC. We have suggestions for low-cost 
accommodations, but you are responsible for those arrangements. 
You can use this as an opportunity for your local group to 
fundraise the dollars to send a representative to DC to make sure 
YOUR voice is heard.
 

Priority Issues for 2002:
 
    + Defeat plans to site nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada; 

    + Support efforts to cut funding for nuclear weapons program; 

    + Oppose DOE attempts to cut corners on cleanup programs; 

    + Cut funding for plutonium fuel programs and support 
immobilization; 

    + Educate policymakers on the dangers of researching and 
developing new nuclear weapons; 

    + Secure the release of repressed studies on the health 
impacts of weapons production; 

    + Make real progress on cleaning up the Cold War legacy of 
contamination; 

    + Develop a plan for long-term environmental stewardship at 
all sites; 

    + Stop dangerous, new "pork barrel" weapons development 
projects that undermine non-proliferation goals. 

Learning and Doing - An Agenda for Action! 

DC Days Itinerary
 
April 14 - Sunday - A full day of skills and issue training. 
Morning sessions will focus on lobbying training, presenting our 
message, working as a team, and information on the current status 
of Congress and the Administration. The afternoon will be devoted 
to smaller group discussions on specific issues and sign-up for 
meetings. We will wrap up the day with a mock press conference 
and Congressional meeting to make sure our message is clear.
 
April 15-17 - Monday thru Wednesday - Team visits will be 
scheduled with key members of the Bush Administration, U.S. 
Representatives, Senators, and their staff. As a participant, you 
will have the opportunity to go to as many meetings as you are 
able, as part of a team of fellow activists. An operations 
headquarters will be set up on Capitol Hill to provide a place to 
rest between meetings, meet with other participants and share the 
information you have learned.
 
April 15 - Monday - Media Event - taking our message to the 
media. Evening - an informal Pizza Party to meet new friends and 
connect with old ones in a relaxed setting. There is a $10 charge 
for the pizza party to cover costs.
 
April 16 - Tuesday - Evening - An Awards Reception to honor those 
who have helped our cause. Past awards have been given to 
Senators, Representatives, reporters and activists who have been 
leaders on our issues.
 
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************