*****************************************************************
05/17/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.127
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: Ex-Energy Chief Aims for N.M. Gov.
2 US: New Whistleblower Law Holds Agencies Accountable 
3 US: Group calls for an end to whistleblower case 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
4 US: TVA OKs Restarting Ala. Reactor
5 US: TVA votes to restart reactor: $1.7 billion project to create 
6 US: TVA Plans Reactivation Of Nuclear Plant in Ala.
7 US: Nuclear plant shutdown planned over weekend
8 US: Board Votes to Restart Nuclear Reactor in Alabama
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
9 Flooding of Soviet uranium mines threatens millions 
10 US:  Las Vegas SUN: Photo: A model of what a nuke accident would do
11 US: IAAP panel gets a lesson in radiation detection 
12 US: Sick workers pursue broader coverage 
13 US: Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on Terrorist Warning
14 US: Neighbors of nuclear plants line up for free medication
15 US: Difficult to detect authentic threat
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
16 US: Energy secretary admits space limitations at Yucca site
17 AU: SA Government Moves Against Canberra's Radioactive Dump Plans 
18 US: Uncertainty over Yucca
19 US: S.C. asks court to halt plutonium
20 AU: Lewis supports N-dumps 
21 US: S.C. Gov. Seeks End to Plutonium
22 US: Abraham: Yucca Not Enough for Waste
23 US: Energy secretary admits space limitations at Yucca site 
24 US: Nevada senators spar with Abraham during Yucca hearing
25 US: Repubs split of Hodges opposition to Denver 
26 US: Ensign, Reid grill Abraham on Yucca
27 US: Yucca Editorial: When good friends are hard to find
28 US: Students paint nuke disaster picture
29 US: Energy secretary admits that nuclear waste will pile up even
30 US: Yucca: Senator Harry Reid Statement for Energy and Natural Resou
31 US: Goshutes: Wild Idea 
32 US: Weapons Grade Plutonium: Not In My Backyard. 
33 AU: Clash looms over low-level nuclear waste repository at Woomera
34 US: S.C. governor asks federal court to stop plutonium shipments 
35 US: Hodges' asks court to stop plutonium
36 US: Hunters PointP: Playground from hell no place for children
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
37 July 4, 1999: Clinton, Nawaz, Vajpayee and a N-war
38 N-accord unlikely to make world safer 
39 Treaty helps 'Westernize' Russia
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
40 Congressman demands review of DOE legal support 
41 ORNL whistleblower wins appeal
42 Lawmakers introduce Rocky Flats legislation 
43 DOE: One year after NEP 
44 More problems for EEOICP - complaints on getting benefits
45 Opinions:Still opposes SRS' MOX mission 
 
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Ex-Energy Chief Aims for N.M. Gov.
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
May 16, 2002 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- Sounding more like a candidate for secretary 
of state than governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson has spent 
the past several months touting his experience dealing with the 
world's "bad guys" in places like Iraq and North Korea. 

The strategy serves to highlight the power-packed resume that has 
helped make Richardson the dominating figure in the governor's 
race. 

The former Clinton administration energy secretary is considered 
the odds-on favorite to succeed GOP Gov. Gary Johnson, who is 
barred from seeking a third term. The Democrat has raised $2.9 
million for his campaign, four times more than the closest 
Republican candidate, and has no opponents in the June 4 primary. 

"It's pretty unusual to have a person who so early in the race 
seems to be the overwhelming favorite to win," said F. Chris 
Garcia, a University of New Mexico political science professor.

"Unless he hurts himself, it is very probable he will be 
successful." 

All the action over the next few weeks will be on the Republican 
side, where state Rep. John Sanchez faces Lt. Gov. Walter Bradley 
in the primary. A recent poll showed the two in a dead heat, far 
ahead of the third GOP hopeful, Rob Burpo. But even the 
Republicans suggest Richardson is the giant in the race. 

Said Bradley: "The No. 1 question I get is, `Can you beat Bill 
Richardson?' I just simply answer, `You bet, but he ain't going 
to like it.'" 

Richardson - a 54-year-old former congressman, U.N. ambassador 
and energy secretary at the center of the Wen Ho Lee case - is 
already looking ahead to the general election. In fact, he carved 
out his campaign themes a long time ago. 

"Over the years, I have negotiated with some pretty bad guys - 
Saddam Hussein, the North Koreans ... the Taliban. So I can 
negotiate with the Legislature. Right?" Richardson told a 
cheering audience in January as he kicked off his campaign. 

His latest TV commercials - which show him meeting with Saddam 
and are meant to convey his international stature as a negotiator 
who helped free hostages in far-flung places - say he is the one 
who "will make a difference for New Mexico." 

Garcia said he is not surprised by the emphasis on foreign policy 
because it is harder for the Republicans to criticize. Garcia 
nonetheless questioned the wisdom of the ad showing Richardson 
shaking Saddam's hand. 

While the California-born and Massachusetts-educated Richardson 
talks about big international decisions, Richardson's opponents 
are calling him a carpetbagger planning to use the governor's 
office as a springboard for higher office. 

Sanchez and Bradley have emphasized their deep New Mexico roots. 
Sanchez's great-great grandfather, for example, was a territorial 
legislator in 1860. 

Richardson has dismissed talk of seeking higher office and said: 
"New Mexico's my home, and I will stay here forever." 

Though the GOP race is far from settled, Sanchez and Richardson 
already have swapped shots. 

After Richardson criticized the governor for not naming a 
homeland security director after Sept. 11, Sanchez said Energy 
Department security problems and the Lee case at the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory left Richardson no room to talk. "It's almost 
hypocritical," Sanchez said. 

Richardson criticized Sanchez for likening the state's Democratic 
leadership to a "banana republic," saying it showed a lack of 
maturity. 

The Lee case, which dogged Richardson until he left the Energy 
Department last year with the arrival of President Bush, does not 
seem to have become a factor in the campaign. 

Lee, a Taiwan-born naturalized U.S. citizen, spent nine months in 
jail on suspicion of spying for the Chinese before pleading 
guilty in 2000 to improperly downloading nuclear data. His 
backers have complained that he was a victim of racial profiling. 

The much-criticized investigation began before Richardson became 
secretary, though he recommended in 1999 that Lee be fired. 
Richardson said he stands by his actions and denied any racial 
profiling on his part. 

"Under some ultimate sense he does bear the responsibility," 
Garcia said. But "it's not going to be an easy case to make when 
it comes to specific instances and specific responsibilities." 

On the Net: [http://www.richardsonforgovernor.com] 
[http://www.johnsanchezforgovernor.com] 
[http://www.bradleyforgovernor.com] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 2 New Whistleblower Law Holds Agencies Accountable 

Environment News Service: AmeriScan: May 16, 2002
 
AmeriScan: May 16, 2002
 
WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2002 (ENS) - Legislation signed Wednesday 
will require federal agencies to pay for settlements in 
whistleblower cases out of their own budgets. 

The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act of 2002 (HR 169, the No FEAR Act) is aimed at 
providing additional incentives for federal agencies to 
discourage discrimination against employees who report or 
publicize wrongdoing by their employers. 

"This is a piece of civil rights legislation that increases 
government accountability by requiring federal agencies to pay 
from their own budget for settlements or judgments resulting from 
discrimination cases," White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer 
said Wednesday. "It also requires employees to be notified of 
their rights under all discrimination laws, and it enforces the 
agencies to report to the Congress information pertaining to 
civil rights abuses." 

The impetus for the bill was a August 2000 jury decision finding 
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had 
discriminated against Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, a senior social 
scientist, and awarded that scientist $600,000. An investigation 
by the House Science Committee "found a disturbing pattern of 
intolerance, harassment, discrimination and retaliation at the 
Environmental Protection Agency," the House Committee on the 
Judiciary noted in a release about the bill. 

Passage of the bill "means now the federal government will have 
to obey its own laws," Coleman-Adebayo said Wednesday. By 
requiring agencies to pay for court settlements or judgments for 
discrimination and retaliation cases out of their working 
budgets, instead of allowing the agency to use a general, 
government wide fund, the bill may make agencies more accountable 
for their actions towards whistleblowers, supporters say. 

In May 2001, a report by the General Accounting Office, the 
investigative arm of Congress, found that federal agencies do not 
track complaints, whistleblower cases or their costs, making it 
hard to determine if an agency has a pattern of misconduct. 

The bipartisan No FEAR Act was sponsored by House Judiciary 
Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, 
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, and 
Representative Connie Morella, a Maryland Republican. 

"No longer will discrimination and retaliation be swept under the 
rug and considered an inconvenience for working at a federal 
agency," said Sensenbrenner. "By holding accountable those who 
insist upon discriminating against others, the federal government 
will become a role model for civil rights - and not civil rights 
violations." 

Agreement Accelerates Oak Ridge Cleanup 

OAK RIDGE, Tennessee, May 16, 2002 (ENS) - Two federal agencies 
and the state of Tennessee have signed an agreement to accelerate 
cleanup of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge nuclear 
laboratory. 

The DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Tennessee 
officials signed a Letter of Intent to complete cleanup 
operations at Oak Ridge by 2016, with high risk cleanup slated to 
be finished by 2008. 

"This pact provides the framework necessary to accelerate cleanup 
and it is a major step to effectively reduce health risks and 
expedite the environmental cleanup of the Oak Ridge nuclear 
sites," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. 

The DOE is setting aside $105 million under the Cleanup Reform 
Account for Oak Ridge, boosting the total Oak Ridge environmental 
management budget to about $520 million in fiscal year (FY) 2003. 

Previous appropriated funding levels for the Oak Ridge Site were 
$448 million in FY 2001 and $480 million in FY 2002. 

The parties to the agreement will use results of the Oak Ridge 
Comprehensive Closure Plan, which focuses on strategies for 
accelerating cleanup and closure of the East Tennessee Technology 
Park, the Melton Valley Watershed and the further development of 
a comprehensive sitewide waste disposition strategy. 

Among the cleanup challenges will be the complete decontamination 
and decommissioning of the East Tennessee Technology Park at Oak 
Ridge, the removal of spent nuclear fuel from the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, and the cleanup of a groundwater plume of 
volatile organic compounds beneath Oak Ridge's Y-12 facility. 

The DOE plans to develop a set of specific progress goals by June 
14. 

"Accelerated cleanup agreements will accomplish results in a 
manner that is safe, protective of human health and the 
environment, and in compliance with state and federal 
environmental laws," Abraham said. "The Oak Ridge pact is a 
framework for all Department sites to follow in moving toward an 
accelerated cleanup plan because it provides the necessary level 
of detail and criteria to reach a commitment to faster, safer 
cleanup." 

This is the second agreement reached under the DOE's new 
Environmental Management Accelerated Cleanup Program, whose goal 
is to streamline operations by working with states and regulators 
to target and reduce the greatest health and environmental 
cleanup risks at the country's Cold War nuclear weapons 
production facilities. 

Š Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved. <img
*****************************************************************
 3 Group calls for an end to whistleblower case 

05/17/02
 
 The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff 

For about a decade now, Joe Carson has been battling the 
Department of Energy in court over retaliation he says he 
suffered for reporting safety and security violations.

 Carson says his actions resulted in a lowering of his usual 
performance rating and his removal from surveillance 
responsibilities, among other things. He was assigned to a safety 
oversight role in Oak Ridge by DOE headquarters.

 In April 1999, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board ruled 
that DOE's actions were reprisal for Carson's whistleblowing. 
DOE's appeal was rejected by the board in a February 2000 
decision that ordered Carson restored to his job.

 However, that decision did not put an end to Carson's troubles 
with the federal agency.

 Carson said he reached an agreement last summer with DOE's Oak 
Ridge Operations office on a settlement. DOE headquarters 
rejected the settlement and broke off discussions, he said.

 "Enough is enough," says Carson, who has had several 
organizations speak out about his case.

 The Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local 
Oversight Committee, which monitors DOE activities, is the latest 
group to chime in on the Carson case. After deciding not to do so 
a year ago, the advisory group has decided to address the Carson 
case via a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

 "While we cannot comment on the merit of his allegations, the 
CAP (Citizens' Advisory Panel) urges you to direct DOE to honor 
the legal rulings to date and reach a fair settlement with Mr. 
Carson," the letter states. "The agency should be embarrassed by 
its failure to resolve the litigation in a timely manner and 
allowing this matter to drag on at considerable expense to 
taxpayers."

 Copies of the letter are expected to be sent to several elected 
representatives from Tennessee, including U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, 
R-3rd District, and U.S. Sens. Fred Thompson and Bill Frist, both 
R-Tenn.

 According to Carson, DOE has paid around $400,000 in attorney 
fees pertaining to his case.
 
Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or 
pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] .

All Contents ŠCopyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 4 TVA OKs Restarting Ala. Reactor
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
May 17, 2002 

HUNTSVILLE, Ala.- The Tennessee Valley Authority board has voted 
to restart a mothballed Alabama nuclear reactor that is projected 
to power about 650,000 homes in the South. 

The three-member board decided to go ahead with the project 
Thursday despite objections from environmentalists and questions 
about how to pay the projected $1.8 billion cost. The board 
approved the restart without a funding plan. 

The 29-year-old reactor at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant was 
shut down in 1985 because of safety concerns, but the TVA 
recently began discussing the possibility of bringing it back to 
boost economic development and power capacity. 

Environmental activists warned the board that old equipment 
increases safety risks, particularly for states east and downwind 
if there is an accident or terrorist attack at the plant. They 
pleaded with the board to allow additional public participation 
before a vote. 

"Many of the people advising are pro-nuclear," said John Noel, a 
member of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the 
Tennessee Environmental Council. He told board members they were 
making "perhaps a life and death decision." 

The board followed the recommendation of TVA employees and said 
the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that restarting the 
idle reactor was a better option than building a new 
power-producing plant. 

Board member Skila Harris disagreed with opponents who said there 
was too little public input in the decision, saying TVA does not 
operate "in a vacuum or in secrecy." 

"I felt very confident about my own personal due diligence," she 
said. "I did not limit myself to just listening to people from 
TVA." 

TVA executives told the board the utility could pay for the 
restart, possibly from existing revenues, while continuing to 
reduce its $25 billion debt. Spokesman John Moulton said 
specifics were expected within the next few months. 

Board Chairman Glenn McCullough said TVA would immediately begin 
a search for private funding. He declined to elaborate. 

"I think we are going to have some viable options," board member 
Bill Baxter said. 

Construction is expected to begin in about one year, and the 
reactor is set to restart in May 2007. TVA employees said the 
work would mostly involve replacing pipes and cable. 

The agency also will construct a new, larger cooling tower, the 
sixth at the Athens, Ala., plant. 

TVA provides electricity to about 8.3 million people in 
Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama 
and Mississippi. 

On the Net: Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov 
[http://www.tva.gov] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: 
www.cleanenergy.org 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 5 TVA votes to restart reactor: $1.7 billion project to create 
2,550 jobs at Browns Ferry -->             

 By Dennis Sherer
 Staff Writer
 May 17, 2002
 Email this story.
 
HUNTSVILLE - Tennessee Valley Authority directors Thursday 
approved restarting the Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant as they continue to search for a way to pay the $1.77 
billion price tag for the project.
 
The three-member board approved the restart and the proposal to 
extend the lives of all three reactors at Browns Ferry by 20 
years after listening for more than an hour to Valley residents 
voice support or concern about the proposals.
 
The Unit 1 reactor, which was shut down in 1985 because of safety 
concerns, is expected to begin producing electrical power again 
in May 2007. About 2,400 temporary construction jobs and 150 
permanent positions will be created by the project.
 
Rogersville Mayor Harold Chandler was elated by the decision. 
"This is really going to help our town, because we need the 
jobs," he said. "This is going to be a shot in the arm for us."
 
The plant is near Athens, less than 10 miles east of Rogersville.
 
Muscle Shoals Councilman David Yarber said Thursday's decision 
will mean jobs for people throughout the Shoals.
 
"These are very good jobs. Most will probably pay upwards of 
$35,000 a year," said Yarber, who works at Browns Ferry as an 
electrician for Stone Webster Engineering.
 
Yarber had urged the board to approve the restart, citing its 
economic impact for the Shoals.
 
Gene Tackett, president of the Shoals Area Central Labor Council, 
also asked the board to approve the restart because of the jobs 
it will provide for northwest Alabama residents.
 
Ike Zeringue, TVA president and chief operating officer, said it 
would be about a year before the construction phase begins and 
hiring starts in earnest. The employees will be hired by the 
contractors selected for the project.
 
Much of the work will be replacing electrical cables and pipes, 
he said. Engineering work on the project will begin within weeks.
 
Once back in operation, the reactor will produce enough 
electricity to power more than 500,000 homes. Zeringue said the 
reactor would help future TVA electricity needs in the Valley.
 
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, 
D-Ala., both issued news releases after the vote supporting the 
board's decision.
 
While there was strong support for the project from north Alabama 
residents and elected officials, a contingent of 
environmentalists from east Tennessee opposed the plan.
 
Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for 
Clean Energy in Knoxville, Tenn., urged the board to not be 
pressured by elected officials into making a hasty decision.
 
While government leaders want the project because it will create 
jobs for their constituents, Smith told TVA board members they 
might endanger the health of all Valley residents if they do not 
give a lot of thought to their decision.
 
After the meeting, Smith said he was not surprised the board went 
ahead and voted. "It's obvious they had made this decision before 
the meeting even started."
 
Director Skila Harris said the board spent a lot of time 
researching the advantages and disadvantages of the restart.
 
"I feel very confident about my personal diligence," Harris said. 
"I did not limit myself to just listening to TVA or the people 
TVA brought into us from the outside."
 
Chris Irwin of Knoxville predicted environmentalists would picket 
at Browns Ferry to express their opposition. He said the project 
is too costly.
 
Board Chairman Glenn McCullough said TVA is searching for private 
investors to help pay for the project. Director Bill Baxter added 
that he is confident an investor will be found.
 
McCullough said if investors are not found, TVA can afford to pay 
for the work out of its annual revenue without increasing its 
debt. He offered no details.
 
The federal utility is under pressure from Congress to reduce its 
$25 million debt.
 
Smith also expressed concern about the board's decision to ask 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the operating 
licenses for the Browns Ferry reactors for 20 years. He said the 
reactors were only designed to operate for 40 years. Units 2 and 
3 were also shut down in 1985. Unit 2 was restarted in 1991 and 
Unit 3 in 1995 after major renovations. 

TVA officials said an environmental study showed operating the 
reactors an additional 20 years is not dangerous.
 
Charles Boyd of Florence told the board he has worked at Browns 
Ferry and considers it safe.
 
"I have no problems raising my family 40 miles from Browns 
Ferry," he said.
 
Dennis Sherer can be reached at 740-5746 or 
dennis.sherer@timesdaily.com [dennis.sherer@timesdaily.com] .
 
 Copyright Š 2002 TimesDaily 
*****************************************************************
 6 TVA Plans Reactivation Of Nuclear Plant in Ala.

(washingtonpost.com)
 
Washington Post, May 16, 2002) 
  
By Dan Morgan
 Washington Post Staff Writer
 Friday, May 17, 2002; Page A12 

The government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority decided yesterday 
to spend at least $1.7 billion over the next five years to 
restart a nuclear reactor in Alabama that has been shut down for 
17 years.
 
Board members, who met in Huntsville, Ala., called it a good 
business decision that will provide needed power in the agency's 
seven-state service area without creating air pollution.
 
TVA Chairman Glenn L. McCullough Jr. said the move advances the 
Bush administration's national energy policy, "which calls for 
the safe expansion of nuclear energy."
 
A TVA official said engineering studies showed that Browns Ferry 
Unit 1 "can be returned to safe operation in a well-controlled 
recovery effort."
 
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) called the action "good news."
 
"If we are ever going to achieve the standards that have been set 
for clean air in our country, we will have to make a larger 
investment into emissions-free clean power," he said.
 
White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. this week 
urged TVA to delay a decision until it had drawn up a revised 
business plan.
 
The agency's debt, much of which resulted from its nuclear 
construction program of the 1970s-1980s, is $25.2 billion. But 
TVA concluded it could continue to reduce the debt "at a slower 
pace" and still finance the cost of bringing the reactor back on 
line.
 
In 1985, TVA voluntarily shut down all three units at Browns 
Ferry in Decatur, Ala., amid questions about their design. Units 
2 and 3 were subsequently restarted. TVA announced yesterday that 
it will ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the 
operating licenses of all three reactors for 20 years.
 

               Š 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 7 Nuclear plant shutdown planned over weekend
                                
  [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ]   
   [http://www.tampabay.com/]           
 
The closing is to find and fix the source of an oil loss, which
has made the plant less efficient. 

By ALEX LEARY, Times Staff Writer
 Š St. Petersburg Times
published May 17, 2002 

CRYSTAL RIVER -- Florida Power plans to shut down its nuclear 
plant over the weekend to work on a pump that circulates hot 
water through steam generators. 

The lubrication system for the pump is not working properly, 
resulting in the loss of about 2 ounces of oil per day. "The 
source of the loss and exact nature of the loss we won't know 
until we get in there," Florida Power spokesman Mac Harris said. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Florida Power officials said 
the problem is one of economics, not safety, because the loss of 
a pump would cut the plant's ability to generate electricity by 
about 20 percent. 

Reactor coolant pumps, as they are called, feed hot water into 
thousands of small tubes that run through cylindrical steam 
generators. 

Cooler water from another source runs over these tubes and turns 
to steam, which spins a turbine that produces electricity. Harris 
said the decision to make the repair was made about a month ago 
and could have been put off, but it is more economical to do the 
work now. 

During a shutdown, Florida Power may purchase power from another 
provider. Waiting until the summer, when electricity is in more 
demand, could result in a more expensive tab for the utility, a 
subsidiary of Progress Energy. 

"It's not a major event," Harris said of the shutdown. "We're not 
forced to do anything. We made the decision we needed to do the 
work to make sure the unit is in shape to operate over the 
summer." 

*****************************************************************
 8 Board Votes to Restart Nuclear Reactor in Alabama

Home > News > NY Times  

May 17, 2002  

By DAVID FIRESTONE

ATLANTA, May 16  The board of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
voted today to spend $1.7 billion to restart a troubled nuclear 
reactor at its Browns Ferry plant in northern Alabama, a decision 
that could produce the first substantial increase in the nation's 
nuclear-generating capacity in more than a decade.

The three reactors at Browns Ferry, on the Tennessee River near 
Athens, Ala., were shut down in 1985 after engineers discovered 
that they did not precisely match their blueprints. Even before 
then, the plant had a history of operating problems caused by a 
fire in 1975. After corrections were made, the authority 
restarted the second and third reactor units in 1991 and 1996.

The first reactor was left idle because its capacity was not 
needed, but board members said today that with electricity demand 
growing, they needed a generator that would not add to the 
region's air quality problems.

"We must balance the responsibility to provide power to meet 
future needs with our objectives of protecting the environment 
and continuing the trend of debt reduction," said Skila Harris, 
one of the authority's three board members, who was an assistant 
to former Vice President Al Gore. "Restarting Unit 1 will provide 
needed generating capacity without increasing air emissions."

The unanimous vote came over the objections of several area 
residents, who said the plant was insufficiently protected 
against a terrorist attack, and from environmental groups 
expressing concern about the reactor's design.

"They're taking an old nuclear reactor that has not operated for 
17 years, and they're going to run it longer and harder than it 
was designed for," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the 
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Knoxville, Tenn. "It 
originally had a design life of 40 years, which they want to 
extend for 20 years, and they want to force it to produce 1,300 
megawatts when it was designed for 1,000. It's a prescription for 
a serious problem."

There has been no new construction of a nuclear plant since the 
Three Mile Island accident in 1979; the last nuclear plant to 
begin operation was the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 
reactor in eastern Tennessee, which began full operation in 1996. 
The Bush administration, however, has expressed renewed interest 
in pursuing the technology, as have some large utilities.

An operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would 
be required before the reactor could be restarted. No other 
approval is needed for the authority to prepare the plant for 
reopening. T.V.A. officials said they hoped to pay for the work 
from the annual revenues of the authority's system.

When the Browns Ferry plant was completed in 1977, it was the 
largest nuclear power plant in the world, the first to generate 
more than a billion watts of electricity. It uses boiling-water 
reactors, an older technology than the pressurized-water reactors 
that are in newer nuclear plants. 

The T.V.A. is not planning to change the fundamental design of 
the plant, leading some critics to suggest that it is spending 
too much money on antiquated technology.

"For the same amount of money, they could build a brand-new 
reactor that's safer and has a longer life," said David Lochbaum, 
a nuclear-safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
a group often opposed to nuclear-plant expansion. 

"It's like trying to dust off an eight-track tape player rather 
than buying a DVD system  they're not getting good value for 
their money."

No nuclear plant has ever been restarted after such a long period 
in mothballs, Mr. Lochbaum added.

Authority officials disagreed with that analysis. Gil Francis, a 
T.V.A. spokesman, said the authority had looked at every option 
available for meeting power demands by 2010 and concluded that it 
was less expensive and cleaner to restart the reactor than to 
build one, or to add to the authority's battery of coal, gas and 
hydroelectric plants.

"Every option had its pros and cons," Mr. Francis said. "Coal 
plants have emission issues and high capital costs; gas-fired 
plants have the volatility in the price of fuel. But considering 
the economies of scale of having the existing reactors nearby, we 
think restarting this reactor will return its investment in eight 
years of operation."

The upgraded plant, which would be ready for operation by 2006, 
would add the latest technology to the reactor, Mr. Francis said. 

Most elected officials in the region support the T.V.A.'s action, 
which would create 2,400 jobs, and several union leaders gave 
their enthusiastic approval to the plan at today's hearing. 
Representative Zach Wamp, a Republican who represents the 
Chattanooga area, said it was hypocritical of environmental 
groups to oppose a generating technology that does not add to air 
pollution.

"There's a great debate in the Tennessee Valley over the degraded 
air quality in the Smokies and around the valley, and how much 
the T.V.A. plants contribute to it," Mr. Wamp said. "Well, 
clearly if you want cleaner air, the development of more nuclear 
reactors is the way to go, and Browns Ferry 1 is the logical 
place to start. You can't have it both ways."

Environmental leaders, however, said the problem of nuclear waste 
disposal had still not been resolved and suggested that the 
authority would be better off spending the $1.7 billion cleaning 
up the fossil-fuel plants that are now operating.

The T.V.A. is the nation's largest public producer of 
electricity, serving about 8.3 million people in seven states. 

About two-thirds of its power comes from 11 fossil-fuel plants, 
while most of the rest comes from three nuclear plants and 29 
hydroelectric dams.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | 


The Decatur Daily, via Associated Press The Tennessee Valley 
Authority has just voted to restart the last idle nuclear reactor 
at the Browns Ferry plant near Athens, Ala.
*****************************************************************
 9 Flooding of Soviet uranium mines threatens millions 

New Scientist 
                 
17:55 16 May 02
             
NewScientist.com news service
             
Huge dumps of toxic waste from old Soviet uranium mines are 
threatening to contaminate the water supplies of millions of 
people in Central Asia. Up to 23 dumps along the Mailuu-Suu river 
in southern Kyrgyzstan are at risk of leaking because of 
landslides and flooding in recent weeks.

Over two million tonnes of uranium wastes were left behind by a 
mining and milling complex which fuelled the Soviet nuclear 
programme between 1945 and 1968. Tipped into piles or dropped 
into holes, it has long been "an accident waiting to happen", 
according to experts from the World Health Organization.

Kubanychbek Monolbaev, a Kyrgyz environmental health scientist 
with the WHO in Bonn, says that the area is prone to earthquakes, 
as well as landslides and floods. Downstream is the Fergana 
Valley, home to over six million people from three countries, as 
well as major rice and cotton plantations.

Recent reports from Kyrgyzstan suggest that, following six weeks 
of rain, a large landslide on Sunday blocked the Mailuu-Suu river 
and caused widespread flooding. "This is dangerous", says 
Monolbaev, who inspected the region in 1995, because none of the 
dumps have any engineered defences.

Chemically toxic 

They contain uranium tailings, which are radioactive and 
chemically toxic, as well as arsenic and perhaps other heavy 
metals. Gerhard Schmidt, a German researcher who has studied the 
area's mining legacy, warns that leaks from some of the waste 
dumps could make water in the Fergana Valley unfit to drink.

There are two dumps near the river which contain "relatively 
high" levels of uranium decay products, he says. These include 
thorium 230, radium 226 and lead 210, which have the potential to 
cause serious long term pollution.

After visiting the area in 1998, Schmidt, who is based at the Oko 
Institute in Darmstadt, called for these two dumps to be moved to 
a safer place. The government of Kyrgyzstan has been appealing 
for financial help from other countries to help tackle the 
problem.

Earlier this week, the Kyrgyz deputy prime minister, Nikolai 
Tanaeyev, said that landslides around the Mailuu-Suu river were 
potentially very hazardous. If the uranium dumps were washed 
away, he pointed out, "it would represent an ecological 
catastrophe for the whole region". 
 
Rob Edwards


This story is from NewScientist.com's news service - for more 

*****************************************************************
 10  Las Vegas SUN: Photo: A model of what a nuke accident would do
                            to bridge
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          Las Vegas SUN
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2002 
[PHOTO] ALEX Ozuna, 15, and his classmates at Mohave Accelerated
Learning Center Public Charter School in Bullhead City, AZ,
created this model of what a nuclear waste shipment accident
would do to the bridge linking Bullhead to Laughlin. 
COURTESY PHOTO 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas SUN main page
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
               Questions or problems? Click here.

 
         All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
                                 

*****************************************************************
 11 IAAP panel gets a lesson in radiation detection 

The Hawk Eye Newspaper
 	
   [http://www.thehawkeye.com]     

Friday, May 17, 2002 
  
[http://www.thehawkeye.com/banner_ads/adinfo2.html?SinglesMatch] 

Impediments could limit effectiveness of aerial survey of plant. 

By Dennis J. Carroll 

The Hawk Eye 

Comments from a radiation safety expert suggested Thursday that 
an aerial survey alone likely would not be enough to determine 
whether there are hidden areas of radioactive contamination at 
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. 

"We may have to use a combination (of methods) or risk missing 
areas or having false data," said Richard Johnson, newly elected 
chairman of the plant's citizen advisory panel. 

Johnson's remarks came after a twohourplus presentation on 
radiation and detection methods by Kenneth Kerns, radiation 
safety officer at Iowa State University. 

Kerns was invited by the Army to address the Restoration Advisory 
Board, which monitors the Superfund environmental cleanup of the 
19,000 acre Army installation. 

State regulators and officials, including Gov. Tom Vilsack and 
U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin have called on the 
Army to survey the entire plant compound for possible radioactive 
contamination left over from 25 years of nuclear bomb production. 

From the late 1940s until the mid1970s, the Atomic Energy 
Commission built, disassembled and in later years test fired 
components of nuclear weapons at the Middletown facility. 

Kerns took the board to school on radiation, conducting what 
amounted to a timecompressed course on Radiation 101  from the 
components of the atom and the omnipresence of radiation to the 
differences between isotopes and a demonstration of the equipment 
used to detect them. 

Of most interest to the board was Kern's discussion of the 
advantages and disadvantages of the various radiation "scoping" 
methods used to detect radiation. 

Kerns, who has conducted such operations for nuclear plants and 
atomic weapons facilities, noted he was not familiar with the 
IAAP plant and was not making specific recommendations. 

He outlined the benefits and disadvantages of such methods as a 
literal walkover with handheld detection equipment, which he 
said provides 100 percent coverage with good sensitivity, but 
would be impractical on the sprawling, multiterrained IAAP 
grounds. 

Equipment mounted on a truck would be faster and could cover 
larger areas, Kerns said, but ground vehicles would have trouble 
on rough terrain and be unusable over water. 

An aerial survey by lowflying helicopters or winged aircraft 
could cover large areas fairly rapidly but detection would be 
restricted by buildings, towers, trees and other large 
impediments, Kerns said. 

Board member Larry Orr concurred with Johnson and Rodger Allison, 
the plant's environmental specialist and the Army's 
representative on the RAB, that if a scoping operation is 
conducted, it likely would need to involve several types of 
detection methods. 

"We want to make sure we find all the nasty stuff," Orr said.   
  
                                
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
Front Desk ˇ 319-754-6824 FAX ˇ 1-800-397-1708
*****************************************************************
 12 Sick workers pursue broader coverage 

The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News --

05/17/02
 
  H.L. Woodard, 78, discusses his problems with the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. He had to
hold himself up at times with a 'protest sign.' 
                 -- Staff photo by Marie Moffitt
  
by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

At times, H.L. Woodard used a "protest sign" to hold himself up 
Thursday morning.

 The 78-year-old Clinton resident admitted he felt weak. However, 
he said that it was important for him to participate with about 
50 other people in a peaceful demonstration to draw attention to 
changes that need to be made in a compensation program for 
job-sickened nuclear workers.

 Woodard, who used to be a machinist at what's now known as the 
Y-12 National Security Complex, said he has bone and prostate 
cancer. He said he has applied for compensation under a federal 
program, but has yet to be approved for any financial or medical 
restitution.

 Likewise, Jerry Tudor is also trying to get approved for the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The 
55-year-old former Y-12 worker also has prostate cancer.
 
  More than 50 people attended a peaceful demonstration Thursday 
morning to draw attention to changes they think need to be made 
in a compensation program for job-sickened nuclear workers. 
                                
Tudor said his case calls for a dose reconstruction, using 
available worker and/or workplace monitoring information, to 
basically characterize the occupational radiation environment to 
which he was exposed.

 "I don't believe I will live to see compensation," said Tudor, 
who is part of a new group called United Sick Oppressed Laborers.

 Tudor helped organize the demonstration that was held in the 
parking lot of the compensation program's Oak Ridge field office, 
located at 800 Oak Ridge Turnpike. He said the program fails to 
meet the needs of the sick workers.

 The compensation program, which officially began July 31, 2001, 
provides medical care and a payment of $150,000 to sick workers 
or their survivors, if the workers were exposed to cancer-causing 
radiation or to silica or beryllium, which are linked to lung 
diseases. The program is administered by the Labor Department.

 During the demonstration, Tudor read a lengthy list of problems 
associated with the compensation program. Those included the 
amount of time it takes to work through the program, the number 
of illnesses not covered and the fact that workers at each of the 
Department of Energy sites in Oak Ridge are treated differently 
under the plan.

 The United Sick Oppressed Laborers, the Coalition for a Healthy 
Environment and several other groups are calling for the 
Tennessee congressional delegation to hold a meeting in Oak Ridge 
to understand the compensation program's weaknesses.
 

Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or 
[pparson@oakridger.com] .

All Contents ŠCopyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 13 Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on Terrorist Warnings 
 
News Briefs from U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
  
[McKinney - News Briefs] 

May 16, 2002
 
Several weeks ago, I called for a congressional investigation
into what warnings the Bush Administration received before the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the
White House, right wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the
military-industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist. Even my
patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that
Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into
the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history.
Georgia Senator Zell Miller even went so far as to characterize
my call for hearings as "dangerous, loony and irresponsible." 
Today's revelations that the administration, and President Bush,
were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a
distinct possibility points out the critical need for a full and
complete congressional investigation. 

It now becomes clear why the Bush Administration has been
vigorously opposing congressional hearings. The Bush
Administration has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence. If
committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for
disclosure today's revelations would have been hidden by the
White House. 

Because I love my country, because I am a patriot, and because
the American people deserve the truth, I believe it would be
dangerous, loony and irresponsible not to hold full
congressional hearings on any warnings the Bush Administration
had before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those who have
been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and
shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't
shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before
the American people. 
                                
                               ###
           
4th District [http://www.house.gov/mckinney/d4/index.htm]   
*****************************************************************
 14 Neighbors of nuclear plants line up for free medication
Pills could protect people exposed to heavy radiation 

sunspot.net - maryland news 

By Lane Harvey Brown and Maria Blackburn
Sun Staff
Originally published May 17, 2002

STREET - Linda Billings didn't know how close her family lived to 
Pennsylvania's Peach Bottom nuclear power plant until she 
received an e-mail recently informing her that they were within 
the 10-mile emergency zone and could receive free medication to 
help protect them if an accident happened there. 

So yesterday, she stood in line with more than 330 people at the 
Highland community center in this tiny Harford County village to 
pick up doses of potassium iodide for herself, her husband and 
their two teen-age children. 

"It's a little nerve-wracking really," said Billings, 46. "I 
definitely think I need to be prepared." 

The pills she got are an over-the-counter medication that 
protects people exposed to high doses of radiation from 
developing thyroid cancer. Free doses of the medication are being 
made available to about 80,000 people in Maryland living within 
10 miles of Exelon Corp.'s Peach Bottom nuclear plant in York 
County, Pa., or the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Lusby, 
in Calvert County, which provides electricity to Baltimore Gas 
and Electric Co. customers. 

It's the culmination of a program begun by the federal Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission in December 2000. 

Since Sept. 11 - and with this week's reports that a nuclear 
facility could be targeted on July 4 - nuclear plant neighbors 
are showing high interest in obtaining the pills. 

Sarah Ayres, 81, who has lived in Pylesville for 17 years, said, 
"It's scary. It makes me feel like they know something I don't." 
Dark humor and nervous laughter rippled down the line yesterday 
as it snaked through a second-floor sitting room and out the 
door. Renee Hecht, 35, said, "I'm not really sure what the pill 
is going to do. My hair's going to fall out; my skin's going to 
rot away - but my thyroid is going to be OK." 

Affected communities near the Peach Bottom plant are in portions 
of Cecil and Harford counties. Communities in the vicinity of the 
Calvert Cliffs plant are in portions of Calvert, Dorchester and 
St. Mary's counties. Maryland is one of 13 states to have 
requested or received potassium iodide tablets from the 
regulatory commission. Potassium iodide protects the thyroid from 
radioactive iodine but does not protect against radiation 
exposure. Taken in proper doses at the proper time, it will 
saturate the thyroid gland so that it cannot absorb harmful 
radioactive iodines. 

Michael J. Sharon, chief of the emergency response division at 
the Maryland Department of the Environment, said, "Evacuation 
still is and will always be the preferable measure to protect the 
public in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident." 

About 14,000 Harford County residents live near the Peach Bottom 
plant. Radio broadcasts this week linking U.S. intelligence 
reports that a nuclear plant might be the target of terrorists 
July 4 and the planned distribution of potassium iodide to area 
schools were erroneous but nevertheless prompted a flurry of 
calls to the county. 

On Wednesday, the county Health Department and schools teamed up 
to send information home to worried parents setting the record 
straight, said Doug Richmond, Harford's emergency planner. 

County health departments have been charged with distributing 
Maryland's allotment of 160,000 potassium iodide pills to 
residents, employers, day care centers and schools. 

In Calvert County, where distribution of potassium iodide pills 
began April 20, about 13 percent of the 36,000 people living 
within 10 miles of the Calvert Cliffs plant have received pills. 
In Cecil County, about 1,600 people out of an eligible 8,000 have 
received pills from the health department. 

In Dorchester County, where an estimated 300 people in the 
Taylor's Island area are eligible to receive pills, distribution 
is scheduled at the health department in Cambridge and at the 
Taylor's Island firehouse this month. 

In St. Mary's, county health department officials have 
distributed the pills since late last month to 1,000 of the 
county's 9,000 eligible people. 

In Harford, more than 660 residents have stopped in at 
distribution centers. Tomorrow is the last day they can pick up 
pills, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Darlington Fire Company, 2600 
Castleton Road, in Darlington. 

Residents within 10 miles of the Peach Bottom or Calvert Cliffs 
plants who did not receive the potassium iodide pills are urged 
to contact their local health department. For more information, 
go to: http://www.mde.state.md.us and click on "News." 

Copyright Š 2002, The Baltimore Sun 

      SunSpot.net is Copyright Š 2002 by The Baltimore Sun. 
*****************************************************************
 15 Difficult to detect authentic threat

      ApartmentsAutosHomesItemsJobsPersonals

today's EDITORIAL
             
May 17, 2002

Our position: Congressional hindsight is wonderfully accurate in 
identifying terrorist threats after the fact. Pick out the real 
threat to the United States last year: 
 
A. Terrorists may attack the White House and other landmarks on 
July 4.

B. Terrorists may blow up bridges in California. C. Terrorists 
connected to Osama bin Laden may hijack American airplanes.

D. Terrorists may target nuclear power plants.

E. Terrorists may use a small nuclear device to devastate an 
American city.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, it's easy to see that "C" was the 
answer that should have demanded the government's greatest 
attention. 

But what of the days and months leading up to Sept. 11? All of 
the above warnings, plus dozens of others, were received by 
federal authorities in the past year. How to decide which was 
authentic and which were grounded in rumor, conjecture or 
deliberate deception? Congressional Democrats are trying to stir 
up as much trouble as possible over the revelation that President 
Bush was briefed on possible terrorist hijackings a month before 
Sept. 11. While none has been so bold as to say it plainly, 
they've insinuated that Bush was either too dense or too slow to 
take appropriate precautions. Let's be fair.

The information passed on to the president was not specific on 
dates, targets or methods. Nothing appears to have distinguished 
this warning from scores of others collected in the past decade. 

Therein lies the problem in fighting a defensive war against 
terrorism. Failure to identify the one legitimate threat out of a 
hundred received can lead to thousands of deaths. Even 
intercepting some terrorists before they attack, as has occurred 
in the United States at least twice in the past two years, 
doesn't thwart others searching for opportunities to kill in a 
large, free society.

Even tiny Israel, with security forces constantly on the prowl, 
can't stop all of the suicide bombers targeting civilians.

Do we wish that Bush would have somehow known that the threat of 
hijackings was real and deserving of the government's undivided 
attention? Of course. But we elect politicians, not seers.


Copyright 2001-2002 The Indianapolis Star | Questions, comments? 
*****************************************************************
 16 Energy secretary admits space limitations at Yucca site
       
            By Doug Abrahms
      RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
      5/16/2002 11:28 pm 

WASHINGTON  Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham conceded Thursday 
the proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump could not 
handle the amount of nuclear trash already stored and expected to 
be generated over the next 30 years.

Pressured by Nevadas two senators, Abraham said Yucca Mountain 
would allow only a number of closed power plants and federal 
facilities to get rid of their waste. Without it, power companies 
will look to store the waste elsewhere, increasing the number of 
sites that house nuclear material, he said.

I am willing to subject the decision weve made to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commissions objective, neutral experts, Abraham said 
at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., asserted that building the Yucca 
Mountain facility would not allow the consolidation of all 
nuclear waste into one place, despite the Energy Departments 
claims.

By 2010, the United States will be storing about 65,000 tons of 
nuclear waste at sites around the country and producing an 
additional 2,000 tons annually. Only 3,000 tons would be shipped 
to Yucca Mountain each year, so much of the waste would remain at 
active nuclear power plants.

The bottom line is were not just going to have one site, 
Ensign said. There still will be nuclear waste all over the 
country for many, many decades to come.

After the hearing, Abraham told the Associated Press there is a 
possibility that the Yucca Mountain facility eventually might be 
expanded. Congress has limited its initial design to 77,000 tons 
of waste, but Abraham said a future energy secretary after 2007 
can consider expansion. Abraham also acknowledged theres no Plan 
B for storing nuclear waste if the Senate votes down plans to 
send it to Yucca Mountain.

As far as having a backup plan, Congress has not authorized us 
to do so, he said.

Under a 1987 law, the Energy Department cannot consider any other 
site. So, a decision not to move forward on Yucca Mountain ends 
the process entirely, he said. 

It leaves the waste where its at, with Congress retaining its 
responsibilities to deal with the waste but without a plan to do 
so, he said.

The hearing was the first of three the committee will hold on the 
Bush administrations proposal to build a long-term nuclear waste 
dump in Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 
The House has approved the measure, and the Senate is expected to 
vote on the bill in late June or July.

Moving 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country by truck 
and rail remains a top concern for Congress.

Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., questioned the safety of 
shipping nuclear waste across Interstate 70 in Colorado and 
Energy Department rules that dont let governors veto 
transportation routes in their states. More than a dozen truck 
wrecks occur each year on I-70 along Glenwood Canyon, he said.

Theres no question that trucks are crashing there all the 
time, Campbell said. The main east-west route in Colorado is 
I-70, right through downtown Denver, which has about 2 million 
people in the metropolitan area and a governor who cant veto 
that (route).

But Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said a bigger risk than 
transporting nuclear waste across the country is leaving it 
scattered at more than 100 sites nationwide, including three 
nuclear plants in or near Louisiana. A terrorist could just as 
well attack a nuclear power plant as a truck, she said.

Im very sensitive to the environmental considerations, but 
there are compelling national security reasons as well as energy 
security reasons why we should move this process forward, she 
said. I would say that it is in our security to try to move it 
to a very secure place  and the faster we get about doing it, 
the better.

Nevadas two senators also tried to push Abraham off his stance 
that building the waste dump at Yucca Mountain is the safest and 
best method to dispose of nuclear waste.

A group of scientists said that one truckload of nuclear waste 
would have 240 times the radioactivity of the bomb that was 
dropped in Hiroshima, said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. We know a 
shoulder-fired weapon will pierce one of those (nuclear-fuel 
casks).

Š Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. 
Use of 
*****************************************************************
 17 AU: SA Government Moves Against Canberra's Radioactive Dump Plans 

Too Good to Waste - 


Australian Conservation Foundation - 

Protecting, Restoring and Sustaining the Environment

Site 

09 May 2002

ACF has welcomed the introduction of legislation to the SA 
Parliament today which will outlaw the creation of any national 
radioactive waste dumps in South Australia.

The move follows a clear election commitment by the Rann Labor 
Government and reflects the deep community concern and opposition 
over the Federal Government's push for radioactive waste burial 
near Woomera and it's refusal to rule out SA as the site of a 
future above ground store for waste from the controversial Sydney 
reactor.

"The State Government's action is good news for the South 
Australian community, the environment and our democratic 
process," said ACF nuclear campaigner David Noonan. "Imposing 
radioactive dumps on unwilling communities is no solution and the 
Federal Government must accept that SA is not prepared to be the 
dump state."

The Federal Government is expected to release an Environmental 
Impact Statement into the radioactive waste burial plan in the 
Woomera region by mid June and to announce a short list of sites 
for an above ground store later this year. 

Canberra is committed to both plans and radioactive waste issues 
are emerging as a major test of State rights and the Federal 
Government's environmental credibility.

Both radioactive dump plans have generated strong opposition from 
local residents, Aboriginal traditional owners, environment 
groups and the wider community. Many tens of thousands of South 
Australian's have acted to send a message of opposition to 
Canberra's plan and the issue featured prominently in the recent 
state election.

The new legislation will extend an existing state ban on medium 
and high level radioactive waste dumping to cover lower level 
wastes, ban the transport of such wastes in SA and provide for a 
state referendum to be triggered should the Federal Government 
attempt to override state legislation and impose an above ground 
store.

"The Federal Government's dump plans are closely linked with it's 
support for the construction of a nuclear reactor in Sydney," 
said ACF national nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. "In both cases 
it is failing to respect community concern and in SA it is 
heading for a direct showdown with both the community and the 
Government." 

"The SA Government is to be congratulated for this initiative and 
the Federal Government must now halt it's radioactive dump plans 
and quit playing politics with a major environmental threat." 


For more information on this article please contact: David Noonan 
- Anti-Nuclear Campaigner Dave Sweeney - Anti-Nuclear Coordinator 

If you care about this issue find out what else you can do to 
help. Please note: Whilst all attempts have been made to ensure 
that information within this document was correct at time of 
publishing, it may have gone out of date subsequently. 


Subscribe to ACF's monthly newsletter. 
           
Copyright Š 2001, Australian Conservation Foundation. All rights 
*****************************************************************
 18 Uncertainty over Yucca

Denver Post.com

[http://www.denverpost.com/]  			   	 			   			 									 

penelope purdy

 Denver Post Columnist

Friday, May 17, 2002 - Three years ago, a figurative bomb hit 
Yucca Mountain, the U.S. government's proposed nuclear-waste 
storage site 90 miles north of Las Vegas. 

Project proponents say the volcanic ridge can safely store atomic 
garbage because radioactive particles won't contaminate nearby 
groundwater. But in 1999, researchers found that plutonium, an 
element common in nuclear wastes, can infiltrate groundwater, 
letting contamination travel fast and far. The U.S. Department of 
Energy dissed the report, saying that such contamination wouldn't 
affect Yucca Mountain's groundwater for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
 
But the DOE also told Washington state that radioactive wastes 
seeping from its Hanford facility would take thousands of years 
to reach the Columbia River's aquifer. Instead, radionuclides 
appeared in the groundwater in less than a decade.
 
Now Congress will decide if the DOE should bury defense wastes 
and spent commercial fuel rods at Yucca Mountain. Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham proclaimed that "science" has proven 
the site is safe. Baloney. Good scientists don't overstate what 
they know. But at Yucca Mountain, the DOE exaggerates what's 
known and glosses over concerns.
 
The project's critics say potential groundwater contamination is 
the biggest worry, because it's the most likely way human health 
could be harmed. But it's not the only issue.
 
When I toured the project last summer, a DOE staffer said that 
volcanic activity wasn't a worry because the kind of volcano 
likely to surface here wouldn't explode like Mount St. Helens. 
The implication: The DOE thinks volcanoes could reawaken at Yucca 
Mountain even while the atomic wastes would be still hazardous.
 
I thought about the tremors that accompany volcanic eruptions as 
we traveled through the research tunnels, whose ceilings and 
walls in places consist of fractured rock held in place by 
fine-wire mesh. In the 1990s, an earthquake damaged a federal 
building within eyesight of Yucca Mountain.
 
Why doesn't DOE want the public to understand the uncertainties 
surrounding its project? The answer involves the government's 
need for a politically expedient solution to the nasty matter of 
how to safely store wastes that stay dangerous for eons.
 
In real science, researchers consider several possibilities and 
examine the merits and faults of each. But in the mid-1980s, 
Congress decreed that the only place Uncle Sam would consider for 
permanent nuclear-waste disposal was Yucca Mountain. So the DOE 
shifted from asking if Yucca Mountain would be safe to trying to 
make the site work no matter what. Now when critics raise 
concerns, advocates cry there is no alternative.
 
Other countries that depend far more on nuclear energy than the 
United States haven't made such an irreversible commitment. The 
French are studying several alternatives, including reusing 
wastes as fuel. France has faith that its excellent scientific 
and engineering institutions can invent better technologies than 
exist today. We don't, apparently.
 
Two reasons for the rush melt under scrutiny. One is reducing 
terrorism risks. Yet those dangers will linger so long as 
commercial reactors operate, because their very fuel might be 
released in an attack. (Thankfully, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission says there have been no credible terrorism threats 
against American reactors.)
 
The second is the desire of 34 states to rid themselves of 
nuclear wastes now safely stored in above-ground concrete tombs. 
(Of all wastes slated for Yucca Mountain, 90 percent will come 
from commercial reactors and 10 percent from federal facilities.) 
But reactors will have to store a great deal of nuclear wastes 
even if Yucca Mountain opens. Under the most optimistic scenario, 
Yucca Mountain won't be ready to accept any wastes for years; 
meanwhile, the power plants will have to keep them. In any case, 
Yucca Mountain won't be big enough to handle all the nuclear 
garbage that now exists, much less what the nation's 103 
operating reactors will continue creating.
 
Most worrisome about claims that "science" proves Yucca Mountain 
is safe is the pressure exerted on researchers to not publish any 
findings to the contrary. I once tried to interview a scientist 
about groundwater-contamination issues, but his superiors said he 
couldn't talk publicly because that would be "a conflict of 
interest." How is it a conflict of interest for a public employee 
to tell taxpayers about his scientific concerns on a $58 billion 
public works project?
 
Indeed, any time a scientist or journalist questions the Yucca 
Mountain project, nuclear spin-masters unleash a propaganda ploy: 
Deflect attention from the merits of a statement by flaying the 
critic's credibility.
 
Nuclear power advocates say after 13 years and billions of 
dollars in public and utility customers' money, it's time to just 
build the Yucca Mountain storage site. What they don't admit is 
that the years of study produced uncertainty, not definitive 
answers, and that pursuing the project might just throw good 
money after bad. 

Penelope Purdy (ppurdy@denverpost.com) [ppurdy@denverpost.com] ) 
is a member of the Post editorial board. 

All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post 
*****************************************************************
 19 S.C. asks court to halt plutonium

Rocky Mountain News: Nation
 		 		
If granted, injunction could delay deadline for Flats cleanup
By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer

May 17, 2002

South Carolina on Thursday requested an injunction to halt 
shipments of plutonium from Rocky Flats to the U.S. Department of 
Energy's Savannah River site. 

The motion comes as part of a suit filed May 1 against the energy 
department by South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges. Judge Cameron 
McGowan Currie of U.S. District Court in Aiken, S.C., will hear 
the motion June 13. 

If she rejects the injunction, plutonium can begin rolling after 
June 15. 

But if the injunction is granted, the case could go to trial on 
the merits of Hodges' contention that the shipments violate 
federal environmental laws. That could jeopardize plans to close 
Rocky Flats by Dec. 15, 2006. 

"It's really going to be important," said William Want, Hodges's 
attorney, of Currie's decision. 

Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said he was not surprised 
by Hodges's motion. 

He said the case is "built on assumptions and misrepresentations 
of the facts, and that is not surprising." 

Want said federal lawyers told him in pre-trial discussions that 
they will ask Currie to dismiss the suit. They could also seek a 
restraining order against Hodges, who has threatened to block 
plutonium shipments into the state. 

Want said he will advise Hodges not to violate such a restraining 
order. But if Currie does not issue an injunction, Hodges could 
look at other legal steps to block the shipments, Want said. 

Also Thursday, the Energy Department announced it will not send 
weapons parts to South Carolina in a container that had not been 
submitted to a crush test. Instead, the parts will be dismantled 
and put in other containers. 

The decision affects only a small part of the shipments to South 
Carolina. Most of the material going to the Palmetto State is 
pure plutonium and plutonium oxide. It is shipped in containers 
that have passed all tests. 
  
2002 Š The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 20 AU: Lewis supports N-dumps 

news.com.au - 

[17may02]

By State Political Reporter GREG KELTON 
 				 				 				
SPEAKER Peter Lewis remains at odds with the Labor Government on 
the issue of nuclear dumps.

He has reaffirmed his support for a nuclear repository in outback 
South Australia.

 Mr Lewis said he believed the repository should be in SA if it 
could be proven it was the safest place in Australia.

 His view was contrary to that of the Labor Party but he believed 
it was shared and strongly held by very large numbers of people 
in Hammond, he said.

 "The NIMBY (not in my backyard), henny penny syndrome, however 
popular, ought not to prevail," Mr Lewis said. "Just because it 
sounds good and feels good doesn't make it good."

 The Rann Government has introduced legislation aimed at banning 
the location of any Federal Government low-level nuclear waste 
dump in the Far North of SA.

 It has also threatened to hold a referendum on nuclear dumps 
during the last week of a federal election campaign should the 
Howard Government try to proceed with the plan. But Labor is 
unlikely to need Mr Lewis's vote if the Opposition voted against 
it.

 Deputy Speaker Bob Such is likely to vote for the waste dump 
ban, giving Labor the necessary 24 votes on the floor of the 
Assembly.

 Three sites in SA are being considered for the waste repository.

 During debate last year on preventing nuclear dumps in SA, Mr 
Lewis described a push for a referendum on the issue as 
"feel-good crap".

 In his latest statement, Mr Lewis says it is in the interests of 
all South Australians that the safest possible site in Australia 
be used to locate the nuclear waste repository.

 "It follows that if it is in Australia and located in a site 
that is less safe than it could have been, then South Australians 
(as well as the rest of Australia) is at some greater risk as a 
consequence," he said. "That is not good science and therefore, 
very bad policy."

 Environment Minister John Hill, who introduced anti-dump 
legislation, including the referendum move in Parliament last 
week, said yesterday that Mr Lewis and Labor obviously had 
differing views on the issue.

 "He (Mr Lewis) has been consistent in those views all along, 
unlike his former Liberal colleagues who have acted one way and 
voted another," Mr Hill said.                           

[http://news.com.au
*****************************************************************
 21 S.C. Gov. Seeks End to Plutonium
 
         Las Vegas SUN: 

May 16, 2002 

COLUMBIA, S.C.- The U.S. Department of Energy has broken promises 
on how plutonium shipments to South Carolina will be processed 
and when the nuclear material will leave the state, Gov. Jim 
Hodges said, asking a judge to stop the shipments. 

Hodges' lawyer, William Want, filed for an injunction Thursday 
related to the lawsuit the governor filed May 1 against the 
department and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The department a 
week later postponed shipments to the Savannah River Site near 
Aiken until a judge hears arguments June 13. 

Want said the department told Hodges the plutonium would be 
processed into nuclear reactor fuel or into glass rods for 
permanent storage elsewhere. 

But Want said the agency officially canceled one of two 
processing options last month that it had promised South Carolina 
in 1998. The process would have stabilized some of the plutonium 
for storage elsewhere. 

Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the plutonium won't 
stay in South Carolina. 

"And all the plutonium that would come into the state will have a 
pathway out of the state," he said. 

The weapons-grade plutonium was to be shipped from the former 
Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado to the Savannah 
River Site, converted and then shipped out of state. 

Hodges is concerned the conversion program won't be funded and 
the Bush administration will back away from the commitment. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 22 Abraham: Yucca Not Enough for Waste
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
May 17, 2002 

WASHINGTON- Plans for a nuclear dump deep inside a Nevada 
mountain are still on the drawing board, but the Energy 
Department is already acknowledging the facility will be too 
small to accommodate the nation's radioactive waste. 

The Bush administration has argued repeatedly that the proposed 
Nevada repository should be built so that radioactive waste now 
at commercial power reactors and federal sites in 39 states can 
be consolidated and better protected at a single location. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, under intense questioning from 
Nevada's two senators, conceded Thursday that the Yucca Mountain 
repository as currently envisioned could handle only a fraction 
of the waste expected to be generated by commercial power plants 
and the government in the coming decade and may have to be 
expanded. 

Thousands of tons of "this stuff is still going to be (stored) 
around the country," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told Abraham, who 
acknowledged that probably would be the case. 

About 45,000 tons of radioactive waste currently are kept around 
the country. Another 20,000 tons are expected to be generated by 
power reactors before Yucca Mountain can be opened, Abraham said. 

If a federal license is obtained, the Yucca facility would be 
scheduled to accept its first waste shipments in 2010. Abraham 
said it would receive a minimum 3,000 tons of waste a year for 23 
years. The industry has estimated that reactors produce about 
2,000 tons of new waste annually. 

Ensign and his Nevada colleague, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, said 
those figures debunk the administration's national security 
argument, since thousands of tons of waste will remain without a 
central repository even after Yucca Mountain becomes filled to 
capacity. 

Still, insisted Abraham, any waste taken to Yucca Mountain would 
be waste no longer kept in less-safe temporary facilities 
including some near highly populated or environmentally sensitive 
areas. 

After the hearing, Abraham opened the possibility that the Yucca 
Mountain facility eventually might be expanded. Congress has 
limited its initial design to 77,000 tons of waste, but Abraham 
said a future energy secretary after 2007 can consider expansion. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain: http://www.ymp.gov/ 
[http://www.ymp.gov/] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 23 Energy secretary admits space limitations at Yucca site 

  By Doug Abrahms [online@rgj.com]   

RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
5/16/2002 11:28 pm 
	
WASHINGTON  Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham conceded Thursday 
the proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump could not 
handle the amount of nuclear trash already stored and expected to 
be generated over the next 30 years.

Pressured by Nevadas two senators, Abraham said Yucca Mountain 
would allow only a number of closed power plants and federal 
facilities to get rid of their waste. Without it, power companies 
will look to store the waste elsewhere, increasing the number of 
sites that house nuclear material, he said.

I am willing to subject the decision weve made to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commissions objective, neutral experts, Abraham said 
at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., asserted that building the Yucca 
Mountain facility would not allow the consolidation of all 
nuclear waste into one place, despite the Energy Departments 
claims.

By 2010, the United States will be storing about 65,000 tons of 
nuclear waste at sites around the country and producing an 
additional 2,000 tons annually. Only 3,000 tons would be shipped 
to Yucca Mountain each year, so much of the waste would remain at 
active nuclear power plants.

The bottom line is were not just going to have one site, 
Ensign said. There still will be nuclear waste all over the 
country for many, many decades to come.

After the hearing, Abraham told the Associated Press there is a 
possibility that the Yucca Mountain facility eventually might be 
expanded. Congress has limited its initial design to 77,000 tons 
of waste, but Abraham said a future energy secretary after 2007 
can consider expansion.

Abraham also acknowledged theres no Plan B for storing nuclear 
waste if the Senate votes down plans to send it to Yucca 
Mountain.

As far as having a backup plan, Congress has not authorized us 
to do so, he said.

Under a 1987 law, the Energy Department cannot consider any other 
site. So, a decision not to move forward on Yucca Mountain ends 
the process entirely, he said. 

It leaves the waste where its at, with Congress retaining its 
responsibilities to deal with the waste but without a plan to do 
so, he said.

The hearing was the first of three the committee will hold on the 
Bush administrations proposal to build a long-term nuclear waste 
dump in Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 
The House has approved the measure, and the Senate is expected to 
vote on the bill in late June or July.

Moving 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country by truck 
and rail remains a top concern for Congress.

Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., questioned the safety of 
shipping nuclear waste across Interstate 70 in Colorado and 
Energy Department rules that dont let governors veto 
transportation routes in their states. More than a dozen truck 
wrecks occur each year on I-70 along Glenwood Canyon, he said.

Theres no question that trucks are crashing there all the 
time, Campbell said. The main east-west route in Colorado is 
I-70, right through downtown Denver, which has about 2 million 
people in the metropolitan area and a governor who cant veto 
that (route).

But Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said a bigger risk than 
transporting nuclear waste across the country is leaving it 
scattered at more than 100 sites nationwide, including three 
nuclear plants in or near Louisiana. A terrorist could just as 
well attack a nuclear power plant as a truck, she said.

Im very sensitive to the environmental considerations, but 
there are compelling national security reasons as well as energy 
security reasons why we should move this process forward, she 
said. I would say that it is in our security to try to move it 
to a very secure place  and the faster we get about doing it, 
the better.

Nevadas two senators also tried to push Abraham off his stance 
that building the waste dump at Yucca Mountain is the safest and 
best method to dispose of nuclear waste.

A group of scientists said that one truckload of nuclear waste 
would have 240 times the radioactivity of the bomb that was 
dropped in Hiroshima, said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. We know a 
shoulder-fired weapon will pierce one of those (nuclear-fuel 
casks).
 		   		   				
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 24 Nevada senators spar with Abraham during Yucca hearing

With an inert nuclear fuel cell assembly in the foreground, Sen.
John Ensign, R-Nev., listens Thursday to testimony during a
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.
AP Photo

Friday, May 17, 2002
 Copyright Š Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
Energy secretary advocates advance of nuclear waste project at
committee session 
By STEVE TETREAULT 
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators threw pointed questions at Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham Thursday, their first chance to 
challenge him publicly on President Bush's selection of Yucca 
Mountain as a burial site for nuclear waste. 

Abraham appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee to explain Bush's decision to designate the Nevada site 
to be the nation's repository for spent nuclear fuel. 

He urged senators to support a resolution that would finalize the 
designation over the veto of Gov. Kenny Guinn. 

But he found Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., 
among his questioners after committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, 
D-N.M., permitted them to participate. 

Near the end of a two-hour hearing, the Nevadans initiated testy 
exchanges with Abraham. Ensign said the Energy Department has 
"tunnel-visioned" on Yucca Mountain. Reid suggested Abraham was 
using his Harvard Law School education to evade senators. 

"You don't answer the questions," Reid said. 

Abraham gave back, telling Ensign he was willing to have the 
independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission judge the Energy 
Department's repository work, "and if you believe you are right, 
you should be willing to do that as well." 

The exchanges highlighted the first of three hearings the 
committee has scheduled before it votes June 5 on the resolution 
confirming Bush's selection of Yucca Mountain, 100 miles 
northwest of Las Vegas, for storage of 77,000 tons of nuclear 
waste from commercial power plants and government facilities. 

Guinn has been invited to participate in a Wednesday hearing, 
while the committee has scheduled a third hearing May 23 to hear 
from scientists and environmental regulators. 

Abraham told senators that nuclear waste would remain contained 
safely within Yucca Mountain even after figuring for the effects 
of possible volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and "human intrusion" 
thousands of years in the future. 

"I am convinced of the scientific soundness of the recommendation 
I have made," he said. "The soundness of this project has been 
established, and we should move ahead." 

Abraham picked up support from several Republicans and from 
Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Eight of 23 committee 
members showed up, although under a fast-track process the Yucca 
Mountain resolution will move to the Senate floor even if the 
committee votes it down. 

Reid and Ensign restated Nevada's position against the Yucca 
Mountain Project. They questioned whether it is necessary to move 
forward now and whether nuclear waste can be shipped safely 
across the country by truck and train. 

"There are scientists who say leave (waste) where it is," Reid 
said. "That would certainly be safer than trying to move it 
around." 

The Nevadans were supported by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 
R-Colo. He pointed out there will be no way for nuclear waste 
shipments to avoid Glenwood Canyon west of Denver, where there 
were 126 truck wrecks between 1993 and 2000. 

"There's no question trucks are crashing all the time," Campbell 
said. 

But Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., criticized such concerns, saying, 
"We don't live in a risk-free society." 

Campbell, who so far appears to be the only Republican aside from 
Ensign who plans to vote against the Yucca Mountain Project, said 
it is "morally wrong" to generate nuclear waste elsewhere and 
dump it in Nevada. He compared it to someone who builds a house 
and tries to install its septic tank on a neighbor's property. 

Reid took exception to an Abraham statement that nuclear waste 
can be transported safely based on the government's record of 
managing 300 million shipments of hazardous waste. 

"It's Harvard logic, but we're here to sort right though that," 
Reid said. 

Reid said materials classified as "hazardous waste" include 
lightly contaminated items such as medical tools and hospital 
gowns. 

"You add all those together, and it wouldn't pack the punch of 
one truckload of nuclear waste," Reid said. 

Ensign questioned how Yucca Mountain would solve the country's 
nuclear waste problems when it appears power plants will be 
generating 2,000 tons of new nuclear waste almost as fast as 
3,000 tons of old materials would be sent to Nevada each year. 
Already, 45,000 tons of waste are waiting to be relocated. 

Applying that math, he said, Yucca Mountain will be full within 
decades, with thousands of tons of nuclear waste still stored 
around the country. 

"This stuff is still going to be around," Ensign said. 

Abraham acknowledged that waste would remain at some power 
plants, but not at plants already decommissioned and not at 
government facilities. And, he said, the repository will relieve 
a storage space crunch at many plants. 

Afterward, Abraham said a Yucca Mountain dump could be expanded 
in the future, a point Las Vegas project managers freely discuss. 
The mountain could support storage of up to 120,000 tons of waste 
in the long run, they say.
 

Copyright Š Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002
*****************************************************************
 25 Repubs split of Hodges opposition to Denver 

        The State | 05/15/2002 | -- 

WHERE DO THEY STAND?
 
      Posted on Wed, May. 15, 2002     [story:PUB_DESC]       
    
  -- WHERE DO THEY STAND?

 Republican gubernatorial candidates are split on how Gov. Jim
Hodges should handle a potential shipment of plutonium to the
Savannah River nuclear site.
 
 Attorney General Charlie Condon: Backs Hodges but says he is 
disappointed in him. Says he will work with Hodges to ensure the 
state has a legally enforceable agreement on how long plutonium 
can be stored and when it must be shipped out. But says Hodges 
only wants the issue for himself and is spurning his help;
 
 Secretary of State Jim Miles: Backs Hodges. Says the state 
should not be the "dumping ground" for the world's nuclear waste;
 
 Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler: Says Hodges is grandstanding. Argues the 
Bush administration has been patient with the state and already 
has offered a written agreement and a revised agreement, per 
Hodges' request. Says Hodges has moved the bar on what he wants;
 
 Former congressman Mark Sanford: Says Hodges is grandstanding. 
Favors U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham's plan for a congressional 
agreement on schedules for shipments and penalties if deadlines 
are not met. Does not think a court order is necessary. Fears 
losing a court case could force S.C. to accept plutonium with no 
assurances on when it might leave;
 
 Scientist and educator Reb Sutherland: Says shipments should 
come here, the sooner the better. Says Hodges should be pushing 
for the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in 
Nevada;
 
 Columbia attorney Ken Wingate: Says Hodges is grandstanding. 
Wants economic boost and jobs from processing plutonium, but also 
a binding agreement on when plutonium arrives and leaves. Favors 
Graham's idea of a congressional agreement;
 
 State Sen. Bill Branton, R-Dorchester: Backs Hodges. Says we 
should resist the plutonium shipment "by all available means" 
until the state gets a permanent date for when plutonium will be 
removed. Favors a higher cap on penalties$150 million rather than 
$100 million.
   
        The State 

[http://www.thestate.com]       
    

*****************************************************************
 26 Ensign, Reid grill Abraham on Yucca
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
May 16, 2002 
 
By Benjamin Grove 
< [grove@lasvegassun.com] >

 WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators faced off against Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham this morning in a Senate hearing, 
peppering the Cabinet member with questions about the need to 
move forward on a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

 As a courtesy, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., allowed Sens. Harry Reid and John 
Ensign to sit with the panel and confront Abraham after he 
testified.

 Ensign, R-Nev., began by challenging Abraham's notion that 
shipping waste to Yucca Mountain will create a single national 
dump and rid waste from 131 storage sites nationwide. Nevada 
leaders assert that waste will always be spread across the 
country in temporary storage at reactor sites s long as power 
plants produce energy -- and waste.

 "We're not going to have just one site," Ensign said. "And 
that's what you have led people to believe."

 Abraham said it was important to at least decrease the amount of 
waste at the reactors. He stressed that the shipments would clean 
up closed power plant sites where waste is still stored.

 Abraham countered Nevada's claims that the Yucca site and 
transportation of waste are unsafe. At one point he assured 
Ensign that it was not as if "garbage cans" would be used to haul 
the material across the country.

 But Ensign said more study of shipping waste must be done, 
adding that it can be safely stored for 100 years at current 
locations.

 "Why move forward when we haven't studied these things?" Ensign 
said.

 Ensign also alleged the Energy Department has been biased 
throughout Yucca development because the federal government has 
never had a back-up plan.

 "The DOE has said we're putting all our eggs in one basket," 
Ensign said. "That proves to me that the DOE is tunnel-visioned 
toward Yucca Mountain."

 Abraham said that characterization was unfair:

 "We've been fair and objective."

 The two got into several testy exchange, with each interrupting 
the other.

 Ensign also said the nation should spend more money on 
alternatives such as reprocessing and recycling, which could at 
least decrease the amount of time waste would be radioactive.

 "The potential is there," he said. "That's our point. We don't 
need to hurry with this thing."

 Reid, D-Nev., also fired off questions, at one point suggesting 
Abraham was applying his Harvard Law School education to evade 
the questions.

 Abraham testified that waste transportation has been proven to 
be safe, in part because there are 300 million hazardous waste 
shipments nationwide each year.

 Reid, the majority whip, said that point wasn't valid because 
high-level nuclear waste is far more deadly and not comparable to 
average waste shipments.

 "This is some of your Harvard logic, but we have to sort right 
through that," Reid said.

 In his testimony, Abraham restated his well-known case for 
Yucca, saying that scientists had considered the potential 
effects that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, water flows through 
the mountain, or even a glacial age would have on the waste.

 Even under those conditions, waste would remain safely isolated, 
he said.

 Abraham said he had reached those conclusions after studying the 
evidence, talking to scientists and visiting Yucca.

 "I did so with great concern for the people in the area, people 
in Nevada," Abraham said.

 He also argued that Yucca was needed to secure the future of 
nuclear power in America. Waste from U.S. submarines was piling 
up in a temporary site in Idaho, he added.

 "The decision to move forward with this is a very important one, 
and the correct one," Abraham assured senators.

 Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., made some of his most 
candid comments in opposition to a Yucca repository. He was 
worried about nuclear waste being shipped through Colorado on its 
way to Nevada, he said.

 Campbell, so far Ensign's only Republican colleague to oppose 
Yucca, said there had been 126 large truck wrecks in the Rocky 
Mountains since 1993. "There's no question trucks are crashing 
all the time."

 Campbell also likened Yucca Mountain to someone building a nice 
house and then trying to build a septic tank on the neighbor's 
property.

 "I just think that's morally wrong," he said. "I'm not at all 
sure we ought to be dumping it in Nevada."

 Campbell smiled as he suggested the waste should instead be 
shipped to Michigan, Abraham's home state. Abraham did not 
answer.

 "There's no response to that," Bingaman said with a smile.

 "I noticed," Campbell responded.

 Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she supports Yucca Mountain 
because her state has three sites with nuclear waste and she has 
concerns about terrorist attacks on those sites.

 "This material is all over the nation," Landrieu said. "The 
faster we get about doing it, the better."

 She asked Abraham about the 293 unresolved scientific issues in
a General Accounting Office report last year.

 Abraham said 41 already have been resolved, and the remaining
252 will be addressed by the time the Energy Department submits
its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
December 2004.

 "Some have tried to characterize these as defects, they're
not," Abraham said. "These aren't show stoppers. These are
technical steps that need to be taken before licensing."

 Abraham recommended the project in January, which President
Bush approved. Abraham has since urged lawmakers to stamp their
approval on the project that proposes to bury 77,000 tons of the
nation's radioactive waste at the site 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas.

 Last week the House gave Yucca its final approval with a
306-117 vote.

 The Senate committee is expected to hold two more hearings on
Yucca next week, in which Nevada officials, then scientific
experts, will testify. The panel is likely to send Yucca to the
full Senate on June 5. The full Senate is expected to vote on
Yucca in July.

 Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a leading advocate of Yucca,
stressed to fellow panel members that the upcoming vote was
critical. If the Senate rejects Yucca, the nation will be left
searching for a new waste plan, he said.

 "This is a one-shot deal," Craig said. "Congress gets one bite
at this apple."
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 27 Yucca Editorial: When good friends are hard to find

  Las Vegas SUN: 

May 17, 2002 
 
The governor says the Bush administration views the state as a 
dumping ground. There is talk of deploying highway troopers to 
block any radioactive shipments. There is a ring of familiarity, 
but the governor isn't Kenny Guinn and the state isn't Nevada. 
The scene is being played out in South Carolina.

 The plight facing the two states is similar, but South Carolina 
Gov. Jim Hodges' objection to having plutonium stored temporarily 
in South Carolina is laced with hypocrisy. Hodges, the same man 
who fears the federal government will renege on its deal to 
eventually move the waste out of his state to Nevada, has 
endorsed Yucca Mountain as the nation's permanent nuclear waste 
dump. And there is a huge difference between permanently burying 
77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada versus 
temporarily storing 34 tons of plutonium in South Carolina.

 Hodges would be taken more seriously if he supported other 
states unfairly targeted as dumping grounds by the federal 
government. For instance, Nevada has lent its support to Utah, 
which has battled plans to build a temporary nuclear waste dump 
there. But even in Utah, with the exception of Rep. Jim Matheson, 
the state hasn't backed Nevada's fight against the Yucca Mountain 
project.

 Nevada is finding out that some likely allies -- states dumped 
on literally and figuratively -- only care about their own hides. 
But other states one day might kick themselves for not standing 
with Nevada on principle, especially if the federal government 
gets away with sending nuclear waste to Nevada despite the 
well-known dangers of shipping nuclear waste and burying it in a 
seismically active earthquake zone. Those states ultimately could 
be on the federal government's chopping block -- and in need of 
friends -- when Yucca Mountain runs out of room to hold all of 
the waste generated by nuclear power plants.
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 28 Students paint nuke disaster picture

 Photos: A model of what a nuke accident would do to bridge |
Alex Ozuna 

Las Vegas SUN
 
May 17, 2002 
 
By Ed Koch 
<koch@lasvegassun.com [koch@lasvegassun.com] >

 With the U.S. government poised to approve Yucca Mountain as the 
site of the nation's nuclear waste repository, a ninth grade 
class at an Arizona school near the Colorado River undertook 
research into what could happen if a truck carrying waste crashed 
on a major local bridge.

 "Our research found that the water would be contaminated for a 
42-mile radius and fish in the area would die instantly," said 
Alex Ozuna, 15.

 Ozuna was one of 15 students at Mohave Accelerated Learning 
Center Public Charter School in Bullhead City who built a model 
depicting theoretical results of a tractor-trailer carrying four 
tons of nuclear waste crashing on the Laughlin Bridge.

 "We studied what Nevada officials have been saying and what the 
Department of Energy has said. What the Nevada officials said 
seems more accurate, based on our research," Ozuna said.

 The U.S. Senate is now debating whether to designate Yucca 
Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. The plan calls 
for transporting and burying 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear 
waste at the ridge, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Senate 
is expected to vote by July.

 Nevada officials have argued that the transportation of nuclear 
waste is unsafe and in danger of terrorist attack. Officials 
would take waste from across the country on barge, truck and 
train to Yucca Mountain. Nuclear industry leaders argue that the 
transport is safe and say storage casks have survived everything 
from simple accidents to major train collisions in field tests.

 In the students' study, the bridge would not collapse because of 
a single tractor-trailer accident, Ozuna said, but should the 
casks carrying the waste be breached, the radioactive contents 
would leak into the river that flows by the gambling boomtown of 
Laughlin across the river from Bullhead City.

 Ozuna is trying to raise money to take the model made in teacher 
Hannah Hazen's class to Washington to show lawmakers who will be 
voting on Yucca Mountain. He wants to try to convince the 
lawmakers that the transportation of nuclear waste from 31 states 
and military sites is fraught with peril.

 "We have a small hazardous waste team here, but to clean up a 
disaster of this size, we would need to wait for crews from Las 
Vegas and Phoenix to get here," Ozuna said.

 Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, all tractor-trailers in 
the Colorado River towns have been rerouted from the Davis Dam 
Bridge to the Laughlin Bridge, the main thoroughfare linking the 
two communities.

 "It is highly subject to sabotage," Ozuna said, noting that 
Yucca Mountain is not just a Nevada issue, but rather one that 
can affect many cities along transportation routes.

 The school will pay for one-half of Ozuna's airfare and a 
three-night stay in Washington. Donations can be made to the 
Mohave Accelerated Learning Center for Alex Ozuna. Donors are 
asked to mark all donations to the attention of Michelle Dyer, 
P.O. Box 21288, Bullhead City, AZ 86442.

 All donations above the sum needed for Ozuna's plane ticket, 
hotel room and reasonable daily expenses will be donated to the 
Nevada Protection Fund to aid Nevada's legal battle and education 
efforts to stop the dump.
 
Photos: A model of what a nuke accident would do to bridge | Alex 
Ozuna 
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 29 Energy secretary admits that nuclear waste will pile up even
after Yucca Mountain opens - 5/17/2002 - ENN.com
 
 Friday, May 17, 2002 By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press 

WASHINGTON  Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham acknowledged on 
Thursday that a proposed Nevada waste dump will be too small to 
accommodate all the nation's nuclear waste and might have to be 
expanded. 

Under intense questioning from Nevada's two senators, Abraham 
conceded that the Yucca Mountain repository as currently 
envisioned could handle only a fraction of the waste expected to 
be generated by commercial power plants and the government in the 
coming decade. 

Thousands of tons of "this stuff is still going to be (stored) 
around the country," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told Abraham, who 
acknowledged that probably would be the case. 

The Bush administration has argued repeatedly that the proposed 
Nevada repository should be built so that radioactive waste now 
at commercial power reactors and federal sites in 39 states can 
be consolidated and better protected at a single location. 

About 45,000 tons of radioactive waste currently are kept around 
the country. Another 20,000 tons are expected to be generated by 
power reactors before Yucca Mountain can be opened, Abraham said. 

If a federal license is obtained, the Yucca facility would be 
scheduled to accept its first waste shipments in 2010. Abraham 
said it would receive a minimum 3,000 tons of waste a year for 23 
years. The industry has estimated that reactors produce about 
2,000 tons of new waste annually. 

Ensign and his Nevada colleague, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, said 
those figures debunk the administration's national security 
argument, since thousands of tons of waste will remain without a 
central repository even after Yucca Mountain becomes filled to 
capacity. 

Still, insisted Abraham, any waste taken to Yucca Mountain would 
be waste no longer kept in less-safe temporary facilities, 
including some near highly populated or environmentally sensitive 
areas. 

After the hearing, Abraham opened the possibility that the Yucca 
Mountain facility eventually might be expanded. Congress has 
limited its initial design to 77,000 tons of waste, but Abraham 
said a future energy secretary after 2007 can consider expansion. 
Abraham said the Nevada site has room for more than the initial 
77,000 tons. It was unclear how such a move would affect the 
project's licensing or the likelihood of further legal challenges 
by Nevada. 

President Bush designated the Nevada site as the country's 
central nuclear waste repository and said he would seek a federal 
license for it. As was its right under a 1982 nuclear waste law, 
Nevada filed a formal objection. That can be overridden only by 
majority vote of both chambers of Congress. 

The House already has overridden the Nevada veto. The Senate must 
vote before July 26, or the Nevada objection will stand. The 
Nevadans are waging a difficult fight. A survey in this week's 
National Journal magazine showed that 48 senators already planned 
to vote against Nevada, with 32 undecided. 

Abraham reiterated his conviction that the Yucca Mountain site, 
which has been studied for two decades, is geologically safe to 
hold the waste, which will remain highly radioactive for 
thousands of years. 

Nevada's senators have long argued that even if Yucca Mountain 
were built, thousands of tons of used reactor fuel would still be 
kept at reactors around the country. They also have argued that 
shipping wastes through 43 states would pose greater risks than 
leaving the caches where they are. 

Abraham rejected the claims that the waste would pose a 
transportation hazard. The government and nuclear industry has 
had "30 years of safe shipment of spent nuclear fuel ... without 
any harmful radiation release," said Abraham. 

Copyright 2002, Associated Press

Network Inc. Copyright Š 2001 Environmental News Network Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 30 Yucca: Senator Harry Reid Statement for Energy and Natural Resources

Committee Hearing Thursday, 

May 16, 2002
 
 Thursday, May 16, 2002
 
I want to thank you Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for 
allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing  and 
for understanding the importance of this issue to me and to my 
state, and really to almost every state.
 
The resolution this committee is considering refers to the 
Presidents recommendation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site 
for disposal of high-level radioactive waste.
 
But this limited description fails to take into account the full 
implications of developing a repository there (or anywhere else) 
 namely, that before dumping the nations nuclear waste on 
Nevada, it has to be shipped through 43 states  including the 
states most members of this committee represent.
 
So while there are many fundamental problems with the site itself 
and concerns about the process that led to the Presidents 
recommendation of the site, I want to first address the dangers 
of transporting massive amounts of deadly nuclear waste along the 
nations major highways, railroad tracks and waterways.
 
Bush plan for moving 77,000 tons of deadly high-level radioactive 
waste requires 100,000 shipments by truck, 20,000 by train and 
perhaps thousands more by barge
 
This idea would be risky at any time, but after Septermber 11, 
2001 it is just unthinkable.
 
The long term radiation contained in each shipment is 240 times 
radiation released by the Hiroshima bomb
 
Shipments will pass by homes, schools, parks, churches, offices
 
Shipments jeopardize the safety, health, environment and the 
lives of many people who live in cities and towns all over the 
country
 
We know there will be hundreds of accidents involving shipments 
of nuclear waste. 

Its not a question of if, but when and where and how severe will 
these accidents be. And an accident involving a container of 
deadly nuclear waste is no routine fender-bender. A collision or 
fire involving a 25-ton payload of nuclear waste could kill 
thousands.
 
Yet the Department of Energy despite knowing there will be 
accidents recommended this plan without developing a plan for the 
shipments. 

In addition, DOE has failed to provide the millions of people who 
live near the proposed routes the information they need to 
understand the risk their families face. 

Deadly accidents are not the only concern. Shipping nuclear waste 
across the country increases our vulnerability to terrorist 
attack, by adding hundreds of thousands of targets for terrorists 
to attack with a missile or to hijack or to sabotage. 

So transporting deadly nuclear waste is dangerous  and its a 
risk our country shouldnt take.
 
The nuclear power industry and some of its backers suggest it 
would be better to have nuclear waste at a single site instead of 
scattered around the country. But this is a false promise, 
because the nations nuclear waste will never be consolidated at 
a single site.
 
It will continue to be at every one of the operating reactor 
sites. Spent nuclear fuel rods are so hot and radioactive that 
they have to be stored at the nuclear reactor site in a cooling 
pond for 5 years before they can be moved. So developing Yucca 
Mtn would add to the number of sites with nuclear waste, not 
reduce it.
 
There are also risks about Yucca Mountain itself and hundreds of 
unanswered questions about whether it can be a safe storage 
facility.
 
Independent federal experts agree that the science done on Yucca 
Mountain is incomplete. 

The General Accounting Office, a credible independent agency, 
chastised the Secretary of Energy for making a decision on Yucca 
Mountain when almost 300 important scientific tests remain 
incomplete. 

The experts at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, another 
independent agency, concluded that the technical basis for Yucca 
Mountain is weak to moderate. 

The Inspector General at the Department of Energy found the that 
law firm they hired was working for the nuclear power industry at 
the same time.
 
There is an alternative. We can safely leave the waste on site, 
where it will be any way as new waste is added to the existing 
waste. It will be safe there while we develop the technology for 
reprocessing or safe disposal without shipping 100,000 nuclear 
dirty bombs through your states.
 
Again I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this 
important issue.
*****************************************************************
 31 Goshutes: Wild Idea 

The Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah's Statewide Newspaper
 
Friday, May 17, 2002   

    Rep. Jim Hansen, environmentalist. Doesn't quite ring true.
Lest anyone get the mistaken impression that Hansen has switched
over, his attempt to block nuclear waste from Skull Valley by
surrounding it with a wilderness area would make few
environmentalists proud, though it does get points for
creativity. 

    The proposed wilderness area would include the Utah Test and
Training Range. Since the Air Force uses the area for purposes
which are incompatible with wilderness, it is no surprise that
the federal legislation contains numerous exceptions to the
Wilderness Act. A visitor to the new wilderness would be
subjected to military aircraft flying at levels "down to and
including 10 feet above ground level." Nothing like a close
encounter with an F-16 to enhance the natural solitude. 

    The wilderness buff could also expect to be removed or
prohibited from the area whenever "national security or public
safety" is at issue. Meanwhile, grazing could continue, as could
military forays into the area to build or maintain
communications equipment. In fact, current use would be
unchanged. What would change is the ability of Private Fuel
Storage to build a road through the area, stymieing its efforts
to transport nuclear waste onto the Goshutes' land at Skull
Valley. That in turn leaves the Goshutes with unusable acreage.
Hansen has graciously granted the Goshutes the option of selling
or exchanging their land to escape the blockade, though its fair
market value without the nuclear waste repository and closed
access is far less than it would be with the PFS contracts and
unimpeded access to the land. 

    The other effect of the bill would be to change the rules of
wilderness management. The many exceptions to the Wilderness Act
would be necessary to achieve Hansen's intent of preventing the
nuclear waste dump in Skull Valley, but those exceptions would
amount to the area being nothing like a wilderness. Putting
drastic changes in wilderness management on the table, even in a
provision that is likely to fail, does little to help resolve
the ever looming issue of wilderness designation in Utah. 

    Hansen is credited for his novel approach to the Skull
Valley debate, but his manipulations of the Wilderness Act erode
any common ground that existed over the management requirements
for wilderness areas. While tweaking environmentalists may just
be a perk of the bill to Hansen, adding another wrench in the
debate over so much of Utah's land is not the best tactic. 
    
  Š Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune
*****************************************************************
 32 Weapons Grade Plutonium: Not In My Backyard. 

News Briefs from U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
  
May 6, 2002
 
(Decatur, Georgia) - The cold war between the former USSR and the 
United States held the world in nuclear fear for decades as both 
sides continued to arm themselves with nuclear weapons that had 
the potential to destroy the world many times over. In fact, by 
1990 the United States and Russia had more than 10,000 strategic 
nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Those who advocated the 
arms race eventually cost both countries trillions of dollars, 
and we are still paying the tab for their nuclear folly. Today 
our most difficult challenge is to answer the question that 
should have been posed long ago: what do we do with the nuclear 
arsenal now that it is no longer needed? Not much thought was put 
into the concept that weapons grade plutonium could not be stored 
in nuclear warheads indefinitely. Once produced, weapons grade 
plutonium will remain dangerous for approximately 24,360 years. 
Now we are left with the nuclear relics of a world gone mad and 
the truth is we have no idea what to do with them. 

In September of 2000, both the United States and Russia signed 
the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement that committed 
each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons 
grade plutonium. While the commitment was applauded, the method 
was uncertain. The Clinton Administration endorsed a dual track 
approach to dispose of the plutonium using two different methods. 

The first method is called MOX, which stands for mixed oxide. MOX 
is the product of mixing plutonium and uranium to make a reactor 
fuel to power commercial nuclear power plants. 

The second method of disposal is immobilization. Immobilization 
is an approach that mixes plutonium with a non-radioactive 
material and puts the mixture into a ceramic form. It is then 
transferred into a steel cylinder and molten glass is then poured 
around it. It is near impossible to steal and extremely dangerous 
to extract the plutonium from the glass logs, therefore 
eliminating attempts to re-use the plutonium for weapons of mass 
destruction. 

Neither of these two methods is ideal, and a safe and efficient 
disposal technology has yet to be discovered to eliminate the 
threat of plutonium. The only thing that we can be sure of is 
that the problem of disposal will be with us for a very long 
time. 

Many prominent environmental groups including the Sierra Club, 
Greenpeace, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Nuclear Control 
Institute, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Natural 
Resources Defense Council have publicly denounced the MOX option 
as fatally flawed. They believe, as do many, that this dangerous 
option could lead to the widespread commercial use of plutonium 
fuel, thereby eliminating the degree of difficulty to obtain 
plutonium by a terrorist state. 

Not only has the MOX option been declared a threat to security, 
but also there are still many doubts as to the safety of using 
weapons grade plutonium as a fuel. A recent study by the Nuclear 
Control Institute predicts that a severe accident at a reactor 
fueled with MOX could cause twice as many fatal cancers as an 
identical accident at a uranium reactor. 

Most nuclear power plants are not equipped to handle the shear 
force of weapons plutonium. In order for this to work, new 
plants, reengineered and refitted, would have to be constructed 
with the American people once again picking up the tab. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) has declared that it would abandon 
the immobilization approach because of recent budget constraints. 
It seems odd, that the DOE would make this decision despite the 
many scientific predictions that MOX is actually slower and more 
expensive than immobilization. In fact, it could require billions 
of dollars in taxpayer's subsidies to electrical utility 
companies. 

Not only is the current administration making dangerous decisions 
that will adversely affect us all, they are doing so at the 
expense of the health and safety of the American public.

The DOE has gone too far with their mandates of nuclear folly. 
Not only are they ignoring the opinion of the world as to what to 
do with our weapons grade plutonium, they are infringing upon the 
rights of individual states that are wise enough to realize that 
they want no part of this nightmare. 

In fact, despite South Carolina's Governor Jim Hodges's 
objections to bringing weapons grade plutonium into his state to 
be processed into MOX fuel, the DOE has effectively told the 
people of South Carolina that they have no choice in the matter. 
The situation has recently escalated to the point of potential 
conflict. Governor Hodges's has gone so far as to threaten the 
DOE that if weapons grade plutonium attempts to cross the state 
line, he will be waiting with state troopers to intercept the 
trucks and send them back to where they came from, and I will be 
there with him, at least in spirit. 

As Georgians we must applaud Governor Hodges' convictions. We 
must stand up for our rights and demand that we not be exposed to 
the threat of nuclear contamination any longer. Those nuclear 
shipments, which may eventually end up being processed at the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, will most likely come 
through metro Atlanta before they reach their final destination.

The potential to contaminate Georgia's waterways from activities 
at the Savannah River Site has already been shown. Groundwater in 
Burke County, Georgia has already been contaminated with tritium 
as a result of DOE's activities at the Savannah River Site. Just 
imagine the contamination risks associated if the DOE has its way 
and weapons grade plutonium is sent to South Carolina to be 
reprocessed into MOX fuel. 

The variables are too great, and I believe that we must stand 
with Governor Hodges. The threat of nuclear exposure could very 
well become a reality and the consequences for DOE's actions are 
unacceptable. It is time the DOE realized that the special 
interests that convinced them it pursue this reckless task are 
not answerable to the American people, but Spencer-Abraham and 
his boss, President Bush, most definitely are. 
                                
                               ###
           
4th District [http://www.house.gov/mckinney/d4/index.htm]   
*****************************************************************
 33 AU: Clash looms over low-level nuclear waste repository at Woomera
 
 Radio Australia News - 

Clash looms over low-level nuclear waste repository at Woomera An 
environmental lobby group is warning of a looming clash between 
Australia's federal government and the South Australian State 
government, over the planned establishment of a national 
low-level nuclear waste repository.

The Australian Conservation Foundation says the storage site is 
proposed near Woomera, in the far north of South Australia.

However, within weeks, the state's Parliament is expected to pass 
laws, making the transport of the waste illegal. 

The ACF's Campaign Officer, David Noonan claims the Australian 
Government may respond by excising part of South Australia, 
bringing the Woomera repository under federal control...
 
"It's that act of excising part of South Australia using the Land 
Acquisition Act which will trigger the clash between the state 
and the Commonwealth legislation which potentially could go to 
the High Court. And we really need to have people understand that 
it's a choice the Commonwealth are making. They're seeking to 
over-ride South Australian community and Parliament and it does 
not have to go that way."
 
17/05/2002 14:02:21 | ABC Radio Australia News
*****************************************************************
 34 S.C. governor asks federal court to stop plutonium shipments 

The Oak Ridger Online -- State News --

12:51 p.m. on Friday, May 17, 2002

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Energy has broken 
promises on how plutonium shipments to South Carolina will be 
processed and when the nuclear material will leave the state, 
Gov. Jim Hodges said, asking a judge to stop the shipments.

 Hodges' lawyer, William Want, filed for an injunction Thursday 
related to the lawsuit the governor filed May 1 against the 
department and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The department a 
week later postponed shipments to the Savannah River Site near 
Aiken until a judge hears arguments June 13.

 Want said the department told Hodges the plutonium would be 
processed into nuclear reactor fuel or into glass rods for 
permanent storage elsewhere.

 But Want said the agency officially canceled one of two 
processing options last month that it had promised South Carolina 
in 1998. The process would have stabilized some of the plutonium 
for storage elsewhere.

 Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the plutonium won't 
stay in South Carolina.

 "And all the plutonium that would come into the state will have 
a pathway out of the state," he said.

 The weapons-grade plutonium was to be shipped from the former 
Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado to the Savannah 
River Site, converted and then shipped out of state.

 Hodges is concerned the conversion program won't be funded and 
the Bush administration will back away from the commitment.

All Contents ŠCopyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 35 Hodges' asks court to stop plutonium

Augusta Georgia: Technology:

Web posted Friday, May 17, 2002
 
By Jacob Jordan 
 [http://wire.ap.org/] 

COLUMBIA - Gov. Jim Hodges asked a federal judge Thursday to stop 
plutonium shipments to South Carolina, saying the U.S. Department 
of Energy breaks promises on how the nuclear material will be 
processed and when it will leave the state.

 Mr. Hodges' attorney, William Want, filed for an injunction, 
making the first move since the governor sued the DOE and Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham on May 1. The department postponed 
shipments to Savannah River Site about a week later so a judge 
could hear arguments June 13.

 Mr. Want said the department had told Mr. Hodges the plutonium 
would be processed at SRS into nuclear reactor fuel or into glass 
rods for permanent storage elsewhere.

 But Mr. Want said the agency officially canceled one of the two 
plutonium disposition options last month it had promised South 
Carolina in 1998.

 In a formal Record of Decision, published April 19 in the 
Federal Register, the Energy Department also said the second 
plutonium disposition option promised to South Carolina, 
conversion to mixed-oxide fuel for commercial nuclear reactors, 
remains under review.

 "The Department of Energy's longstanding policy had been to 
store plutonium only short-term prior to processing it for 
disposal," Mr. Want said. "DOE decided on April 19 to make 
storage long-term and independent of when or whether plutonium 
would ever be processed for disposition and removal."

 "This decision directly contradicts the commitments Secretary of 
Energy Abraham made to Governor Hodges," Mr. Want said.

 Mr. Want said this changes the government's plutonium 
disposition program so that no action can be taken until DOE has 
done a required environmental review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act.

 Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the plutonium won't 
stay in South Carolina.

 "We are going to build the MOX facilities in South Carolina, 
assuming that the governor wants them built there, he says that 
he does," Mr. Davis said. "And all the plutonium that would come 
into the state will have a pathway out of the state."
 
[http://augusta.com] . 			

*****************************************************************
 36 Hunters PointP: Playground from hell no place for children

The San Francisco Examiner

Publication date: 05/16/2002

By Michael Stoll
Of The Examiner Staff

    Neighborhood boys and girls, unaware that their playground 
could make them sick, regularly sneak into the heavily polluted 
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard through gaping holes in the 
perimeter fence.

    The children say rarely does anyone try to stop them from 
entering. They have been playing there for years, even as workers 
in moon suits continued to remove truckloads of soil soaked in a 
witch's brew of industrial solvents, heavy metals, petroleum 
products and radioactive waste.

    The kids catch lizards and ride their dirt bikes on a grassy 
field overlying a toxic waste dump so contaminated it was 
declared a national Superfund site in 1989. They play in 
abandoned military research storehouses containing munitions and 
barrels of unidentified chemicals.

    At two spots near the most-polluted part of the shipyard, 
glow-in-the-dark radium dials can be found buried just under the 
surface, awaiting Navy cleanup. Environmental scientist Christine 
Shirley said she worries that a child who picks up a dial and 
brings it home as a trinket will receive prolonged low-level 
radioactive exposure.

    The base's neighbors, especially children, remain in the dark 
about the health risks. 

    Day'shon Hunter, 11, who like many Hunters Point children has 
asthma, said teachers at Rooftop Elementary School told him that 
playing at the naval base would make his breathing problems 
worse.

    Navy officials blame parents for letting their children run 
wild. But parents say the Navy has never explained to them just 
how dangerous the base can be. Meanwhile, it lets the fences 
deteriorate -- tacitly allowing children unfettered access to the 
area.

    A recent tour of the shipyard's property line turned up no 
fewer than six holes in the fence, all big enough for an adult to 
squeeze through. Some were big enough to accommodate a 
motorcycle. No guards were visible anywhere.

    Dangers abound. The Navy recently announced that methane gas 
has been detected low to the ground at the north edge of the 
toxic-waste dump at the abandoned base's southern edge. Shirley, 
who works for the activist group ARC Ecology, said it is possible 
a spark or open flame -- say, teenagers smoking cigarettes -- 
could cause a gas explosion.

    Throughout the base, trace amounts of toxic chemicals can be 
found. Cleanup workers wear protective clothing and scrub down 
thoroughly when they finish a workday. Children take no such 
precautions.

    "It's not just the kids who are exposed that way," Shirley 
said. "They're bringing it home and sharing it. They come home 
with dirty shoes and tromp all over the carpet and give whatever 
they're exposed to to the entire family, even really little 
kids."

    In an editorial board meeting with The Examiner, Navy 
officials said adults with wire cutters occasionally snip the 
chain-link fence to do mischief. But officials insisted the holes 
are patched up immediately and that 24-hour security stops and 
warns anyone who enters.

    "We're telling people, 'You're violating the law by 
trespassing on federal property,' " said Lee Saunders, a 
spokesman for the Navy's regional environmental cleanup team. 
Saunders said the Navy arrested and jailed several adults, and 
chased away -- but never caught -- children.

    Hunters Point resident Theresa Coleman, the mother of three 
kids and guardian of four others, said she poked around on the 
base until two years ago, when she heard a presentation from the 
Navy about the pollution and started organizing neighbors around 
the hazards there.

    She said that of the 305 homes in her city-owned Westbrook 
Hunters Point rental development, only she and a neighbor get a 
newsletter from the Navy.

    "We apologize for the kids who have limited parental 
guidance, but most of those parents know not how dangerous it 
is," Coleman said. "Come on now, stop trying to flip the blame 
off on us."

    Inside the base, one fence surrounding a cleanup area sags 
just two feet off the ground, easy enough for a child to hop. 
Several gates have fallen off their hinges. One is held together 
by a bungee cord.

    One gate bears the warning: "Caution: multiple environmental 
and health hazards present. Authorized personnel only." Another 
reads: "Danger -- keep out. Superfund site cleanup. Soil 
contamination could be hazardous to your health." 

    But some children who have the run of the base are as young 
as 6 years old. The signs don't mean much to them.

    Children and adults say some holes have been there for years.

    "It's easy to just rip the gates because they're halfway 
rusted," said Kajay Dunkerson, 11, who three or four times a week 
pops through a foot-wide hole in the fence between shipyard 
property and the hopscotch court of the Hunters Point Boys' and 
Girls' Club. "You can just pull them apart and they break."

    Kajay said the last time he took the 600-yard trek south to 
the water's edge -- a walk across the polluted industrial 
landfill -- he saw crabs on the shore. 

    "They looked like they were dying," he said.

    Sometimes their ramblings take them east, toward the old 
Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. The main lab building is 
sealed, but several smaller buildings are an adventurer's 
paradise.

    Curious findings

    James Mays, 13, and his 10-year-old brother Donte recently 
discovered a "cave," apparently a dugout storage bunker. The 
metal door was wide open. Inside, the boys found barrels covered 
with a mysterious white powder. There was no light further 
inside, so the boys played their own version of "Fear Factor," 
feeling their way around until they emerged, through an 
underground loop, back at the entrance.

    Most of the time, boys and girls in groups of five to 15 roam 
the hillsides looking for salamanders, "crocodile lizards" or 
garter snakes. 

    "There's hecka snakes down there!" Kajay said, pointing to 
the toxic dump from the ledge.

    Boys in the neighborhood still dream that someday someone 
will build a safe pleasure palace in their back yard.

    "We think they should put a zoo in there, or movies," Kajay 
said.

    "Or a go-cart track!" James said.

    Human rights

    Abandoned by the Navy in 1974, the shipyard is in the midst 
of a decadeslong, $50 million a year environmental cleanup 
officials hope to finish by 2005. 

    Though home to some light industry and artists' studios, the 
base is mostly still shuttered. The Navy says the portion closest 
to the low-income housing projects on the hilltop is safe and 
ready for transfer to The City.

    The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has ambitious plans to 
fill the 550-acre base with more housing, a community center, an 
African market, retail shops and open space. But cleanup delays 
and community suspicion that the Navy is holding back key 
findings on contamination threaten The City's construction 
timetable.

    High asthma and cancer rates in the neighborhood have led 
environmental groups to organize scores of protests over the 
years. They told the Navy more than once that security is lax 
around cleanup operations.

    Community organizers are most concerned about reports that 
children are playing and riding dirt bikes on the toxic waste 
dump by the Bay. 

    The landfill has been the source of continual frustration in 
the community since a mysterious August 2000 fire, which 
smoldered for two weeks before the Navy bothered to inform 
neighbors of the source of their respiratory ailments. The 
federal Environmental Protection Agency fined the Navy $25,000 
for the incident.

    To this day, neighbors complain the Navy rarely reaches out 
to inform them of dangers at the base.

    "It's really a human rights issue, especially since the 
neighbors are low-income people of color," said Dana Lanza, who 
started Literacy for Environmental Justice after seeing children 
crawling through the fence four years ago. "It's absolutely 
unconscionable that the federal government can't repair holes in 
the fence."

    E-mail: mstoll@sfexaminer.com
*****************************************************************
 37 July 4, 1999: Clinton, Nawaz, Vajpayee and a N-war
           
Analysis Friday, May 17, 2002  

Bruce Riedel, a director on the Bill Clinton administration's 
National Security Council, described July 4, 99, as the day the 
former US President performed one of the most sensitive 
diplomatic high wire acts of any administration. Clintons feat: 
persuading then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull 
back Pakistani backed fighters from Kargil and preventing a 
nuclear confrontation with India. 

Riedel rewound to those nerve racking days in a paper titled 
American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House, 
prepared for the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the 
University of Pennsylvania. Exclusive excerpts, in two parts. 
July 4th, 1999 was probably the most unusual July 4th in American 
diplomatic history, certainly among the most eventful. President 
Clinton engaged in one of the most sensitive diplomatic high wire 
acts of any administration, successfully persuading Pakistani 
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull back Pakistani backed 
fighters from a confrontation with India that could threaten to 
escalate into a nuclear war between the worlds two newest 
nuclear powers. 

As the Presidents Special Assistant for Near Eastern and South 
Asia Affairs at the National Security Council I had the honor of 
a unique seat at the table and the privilege of being a key 
adviser for the days events. 

Kargil and Kashmir 

For fifty years Pakistan and India have quarreled over the fate 
of Kashmir. Since the early 1990s it has been particularly 
violent with almost daily firefights along the Line of Control 
(LOC) that divides the state and within the valley between the 
Indian security forces and the Muslim insurgency. 

In the spring of 1999 the Pakistanis sought to gain a strategic 
advantage in the northern front of the LOC in Kargil. 
Traditionally the Indian and Pakistani armies had withdrawn each 
fall from their most advanced positions in the mountains to avoid 
the difficulties of manning them during the winter and then 
returned to them in the spring. The two armies respected each 
others deployment pattern and did not try to take advantage of 
this seasonal change. 

In the winter of 1999, however, Pakistani backed Kashmir 
militants and regular army units moved early into evacuated 
positions of the Indians, cheating on the tradition. The 
Pakistani backed forces thus gained a significant tactical 
advantage over the only ground supply route Indian forces can use 
to bring in supplies to the most remote eastern third of Kashmir. 

What was all the more alarming for Prime Minister Atal Behari 
Vajpayees hard-line Bharatiya Janata Party government was that 
the Pakistani military incursion came after the Prime Minister 
had made a bold effort in early 1999 at reconciliation with 
Pakistan by traveling by bus to the Pakistani city of Lahore for 
a summit with Sharif. 

The spirit of Lahore was intended to be the mechanism for 
breaking the two giants of south Asia out of their half century 
of violence and fear. Instead, the Indians felt betrayed, 
deceived and misled by Sharif and were determined to recover 
their lost territory. 

By late May and early June 1999 a serious military conflict was 
underway along a 150-kilometer front in the mountains above 
Kargil, including furious artillery clashes, air battles and 
costly infantry assaults by Indian troops against well dug in 
Pakistani forces. 

Pakistan denied its troops were involved, claiming that only 
Kashmiri militants were doing the fighting  a claim not taken 
seriously anywhere. 

The situation was further clouded because it was not altogether 
clear who was calling the shots in Islamabad. Prime Minister 
Sharif had seemed genuinely interested in pursuing the Lahore 
process when he met with Vajpayee and he had argued eloquently 
with a series of American guests, including U.S.UN Ambassador 
Bill Richardson, that he wanted an end to the fifty year old 
quarrel with India. 

His military chief, General Pervez Musharraf, seemed to be in a 
different mold. He was said to be a hardliner on Kashmir, a man 
some feared was determined to humble India once and for all. We 
will probably never know for sure the exact calculus of decision 
making in Islamabad. What is clear is that the civil-military 
dynamic between Sharif in Islamabad and Musharraf in Rawalpindi 
was confused and tense. 

The United States was alarmed from the beginning of the conflict 
because of its potential for escalation. We could all too easily 
imagine the two parties beginning to mobilize for war, seeking 
third party support (Pakistan from China and the Arabs, India 
from Russia and Israel) and a deadly descent into full scale 
conflict with a danger of nuclear cataclysm. 

Since the surprise Indian tests in May 1998 the danger of a 
nuclear exchange had dominated American nightmares about South 
Asia. Clinton had spent days trying to argue Sharif out of 
testing in response and had offered him everything from a State 
dinner to billions in new U.S. assistance. Deputy Secretary of 
State Strobe Talbott, Central 

Command chief General Tony Zinni, Assistant Secretary for South 
Asia Rick Inderfurth and I had traveled to Islamabad to try to 
persuade him, but all to no avail. Sharif had gone forward with 
his own tests citing as a flimsy excuse an alleged Israel plot to 
destroy Pakistans nuclear facilities in collusion with India. (I 
had the Israeli Chief of Staff deny categorically to the 
Pakistani Ambassador in Washington any such plan the night before 
the tests but that fact mattered little to Islamabad). 

Given these consequences, the U.S. was quick to make known our 
view that Pakistan should withdraw its forces back behind the 
Line of Control immediately. At first Rick Inderfurth and 
Undersecretary Thomas Pickering conveyed this view privately to 
the Pakistani and Indian ambassadors in Washington in late May. 
Secretary Albright then called Sharif two days later and General 
Tony Zinni, who had a very close relationship with his Pakistani 
counterparts, also called Chief of Army Staff General Musharraf. 

These messages did not work. So we went public and called upon 
Pakistan to respect the LOC. I laid out our position in an on the 
record interview at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. The 
President then called both leaders in mid-June and sent letters 
to each pressing for a Pakistani withdrawal and Indian restraint. 

The Pakistanis and Indians were both surprised by the U.S. 
position: Pakistan because Islamabad assumed the US. would always 
back them against India and India because they could not believe 
the U.S. would judge the crisis on its merits, rather than side 
automatically with its long time Pakistani ally. Both 
protagonists were rooted in the history of their conflict and 
astounded that the U.S. was not bound by the past. 

Nawaz calls for help 

By late June the situation was deteriorating fast. The two 
parties were engaged in an intense conflict along the Kargil 
front. The danger was that the Indians would grow weary of 
attacking uphill into well dug in Pakistani positions. New Delhi 
could easily decide to open another front along the LOC to ease 
its burden and force the Pakistanis to fight on territory 
favorable to India. 

Sharif became increasingly desperate as he saw how isolated 
Pakistan was in the world. He urgently requested American 
intervention to stop the Indian counterattack. Washington was 
clear  the solution required a Pakistani withdrawal behind the 
LOC, nothing else would do. In the last days of June Sharif began 
to ask to see President Clinton directly to plead his case. 
Sharif had met the President several times earlier, in New York 
and Washington and at the funeral of King Hussein in Amman. 

They had also spoken extensively in the spring of 1998 when the 
President had pleaded with Sharif not to follow Indias example 
and test its nuclear weapons. Although that effort failed, the 
two leaders had developed a genuine personal bond and felt 
comfortable talking to each other. 

On the 2nd of July the Prime Minister put in a call to the 
President. 

He appealed for American intervention immediately to stop the 
fighting and to resolve the Kashmir issue. The President was very 
clear  he would help only if Pakistan withdrew to the LOC. The 
President consulted with Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee on the 
phone. The Indians were adamant  withdrawal to the LOC was 
essential, Vajpayee would not negotiate under the threat of 
aggression. 

The President sought to reassure Vajpayee that we would not 
countenance Pakistani aggression, not reward them for violating 
the LOC and that we stood by our commitment to the Lahore 
process, i.e. direct talks between India and Pakistan were the 
only solution to Kashmir, not third party intervention. 

On the 3rd, Sharif was more desperate and told the President he 
was ready to come immediately to Washington. The President 
repeated his caution  come only if you are ready to withdraw, I 
cant help you if you are not ready to pull back. He urged Sharif 
to consider carefully the wisdom of a trip to Washington. Sharif 
said he would be there on the 4th. 

The White House and State Department spent much of the rest of 
the 3rd preparing. Logistics were one problem. Blair House had to 
be made available for the Pakistanis and the Secret Service 
needed to secure Pennsylvania Avenue. A small group also prepared 
for the substance of the encounter. I led the effort at the NSC 
to prepare the President, National Security Advisor Samuel R. 
(Sandy) Berger and Chief of Staff John Podesta. The State effort 
was led by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the senior 
point man on South Asian issues in the Department and Karl (Rick) 
Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs at State. 

Strobe, Rick and I had already logged many hours traveling to 
South Asia to work to advance the Presidents agenda of improving 
our relations with this too long neglected part of the world. The 
product of this work was two pieces of paper. The first was a 
draft statement the President would issue if Sharif agreed to 
pulling back his forces to the LOC, the second a statement which 
would be used if Sharif refused. The latter would make clear that 
the blame for the crisis in South Asia lay solely with Pakistan. 

More information developed about the escalating situation  
disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their 
nuclear arsenals for possible deployment. Sharifs intentions 
also became clearer. He was bringing his wife and children with 
him to Washington, a possible indication that he was afraid he 
might not be able to go home if the summit failed or that the 
military was telling him to leave. 

Sharif would be met at Dulles Airport, where his commercial PIA 
flight was being diverted to from JFK, by the Saudi Ambassador 
Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar had a long history of helping 
assist key American diplomatic initiatives and also had worked 
with Pakistan extensively in the past during the Afghan war 
against the Soviets. Bandar promised to weigh in forcefully with 
Sharif on the ride from Dulles to Blair House, and he secured 
Crown Prince Abdallahs support for our position. British Prime 
Minister Blair also contacted Sharif to weigh in as well on the 
need for withdrawal. Other governments, including Pakistans ally 
China, shared these concerns as well and we asked Beijing to 
weigh in with Islamabad. 

Tomorrow: Clinton loses his cool 

(Courtesy the Center for the Advanced Study of India) 
 
Š 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights 
reserved 
*****************************************************************
 38 N-accord unlikely to make world safer 

-DAWN - International; 17 May, 2002
 
By Ann Scott Tyson 

WASHINGTON: While politically important, this week's US-Russian 
accord to remove thousands of nuclear warheads from operational 
deployment is unlikely to make the world a markedly safer place. 

Experts say that the Bush administration deserves credit for 
simply achieving an agreement to scale back offensive nuclear 
weapons, while also moving ahead with missile defence - breaking 
the inertia over US-Russian strategic arms reductions under 
Clinton's presidency. "We did get there in a way that is a little 
more informal, a little more unilateral, but we did it," says a 
nuclear expert affiliated with the Pentagon. 

The treaty, to be signed by President Bush and Russian President 
Vladimir Putin in Moscow next week, also marks a diplomatic 
success. "The significance is not so much in strategic terms, 
it's more in terms of the relationship we are building with 
Russia," says Robert Einhorn, a former US assistant secretary of 
State for nonproliferation. 

Yet many experts agree that the treaty's broad rules and 
open-ended approach make it less meaningful as a curb on a 
possible nuclear catastrophe. "The treaty does not make us more 
secure. But it may make us less secure, because the real risk is 
about diverting and stealing nuclear weapons," says Ivo Daalder, 
a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 

In terms of sheer numbers, experts agree that a marginal gain in 
safety will result if the United States and Russia each lower the 
number of deployed nuclear warheads from about 5,000 to 6,000 to 
between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. "The fewer nuclear 
weapons there are, the less chance of accidents and 
miscalculations," says Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear-proliferation 
expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace here. 

Declining numbers, in turn, "will produce some very modest 
progress with respect to each side's confidence about the 
direction of their cold-war nuclear arsenals," says Darryl 
Kimball, director of Washington's nonprofit Arms Control 
Association. 

Although some experts pointed out that overly deep cuts could 
prove destabilizing - by enabling a missile-defence system to 
effectively neutralize another nation's offensive weapons - 
virtually all concluded that this week's accord is too cautious 
in cutting warheads. 

The Bush administration's insistence on a highly flexible treaty 
limits its strategic impact, experts say. The treaty does not set 
a timetable for cuts or require that the warheads taken out of 
service be destroyed. In fact, it has a 90-day withdrawal clause 
and expires in 10 years, freeing either side to rebuild. 

"The overriding concern we had going in was to find a way to 
record in the treaty the kind of flexibility the administration 
felt was needed," says one US official familiar with the 
negotiations. He acknowledged that originally the administration 
saw no need for a treaty, and the Pentagon was "most skeptical," 
emphasizing the US difficulty in cancelling the Antiballistic 
Missile Treaty. 

Underlying the demand for flexibility are administration concerns 
about the long-term nuclear intentions of Russia, as well as 
deterring China and so-called "rogue" states such as Iraq and 
North Korea, US officials say. "The most dangerous scenario is a 
Russia that suddenly changes course," says the US official, 
adding that China "and other rogues" also pose a plausible, if 
more remote threat. 

US negotiators sought even more leeway in the form of an "opt 
out" clause that would have allowed either side to temporarily 
exceed the warhead limits after giving notice 45 days in advance. 
But Russian officials rejected ed it. 

The flip side of this flexibility to rebuild is that it raises 
potentially dangerous questions about future US and Russian 
nuclear aims, say experts, many of whom are hard put to think of 
situations that would require warheads exceeding treaty limits. 
"The signal we are sending to the world is that we take nuclear 
weapons and their use and employment very seriously. We actually 
think ... we can gain strategic advantage by using them," says 
Daalder. 

Another vital safety area not addressed by the treaty is the need 
for shared early-warning data to lower the risk of an accidental 
launch, a problem "much more dangerous than the (weapons) 
balance-Dawn/LATS Service (c) Christian Science Monitor. 

 The DAWN 
*****************************************************************
 39 Treaty helps 'Westernize' Russia

Friday, May 17, 2002

Deseret News editorial

      Readers of this page who remember the Cold War can scarcely 
believe how much the world has changed in the past 20 years.

      Who could have fathomed then that the world's superpowers 
would mutually agree to reduce their arsenals of strategic 
nuclear warheads? Who could have imagined a high-profile summit 
signing ceremony in St. Petersburg?

      Next week, President Bush and Russian President Vladimir 
Putin will do precisely that. The treaty calls for the United 
States and Russia to reduce their arsenals of strategic nuclear 
warheads from their current levels of roughly 6,000 each to 
between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade. Bush campaigned on 
this number and recommended a like number in a defense review 
last year.

      Americans hope this treaty, coupled with an expanded 
Russian partnership with NATO, portend to further "Westernize" 
the former foe. In the post-Sept. 11 world, Putin and Bush 
acknowledge their respective needs to collaborate on arms control 
and against Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

      While the agreement on nuclear warhead reduction will not 
be formally announced until Bush's visit to Russia, Bush should 
use the opportunity to address Russia's assistance to Iran's 
nuclear-weapons and missile-development programs. Ending this aid 
 principally technology transfers, equipment and components for 
ballistic missiles and nuclear-weapon development  would make it 
much more difficult for Iran to create weapons of mass 
destruction. The development of such weapons threatens the United 
States, Europe and America's friends in the Middle East.

      Obviously, Russia will want incentives to enter such an 
agreement. While Bush cannot acquiesce to every Russian demand, 
the strategic importance of cutting off Iran's defense component 
supply cannot be underestimated.

      Hopefully the new spirit of cooperation between Bush and 
Putin will transcend the new agreement on nuclear weapons. It 
should be understood that the agreement, although significant as 
further progress in pulling down the curtain on the Cold War, is 
limited in scope. No weapons would be destroyed under the pact. 
Instead, they will be placed in storage. While the number of 
active, armed warheads will be significantly reduced under mutual 
agreement, 1,700 and 2,200 nuclear missiles would seem ample 
armament. Either side can opt out with 90 days notice.

      To hear Bush tell it, the treaty ushers in a "new era of 
U.S.-Russian relationships." No one can quarrel with an agreement 
intended to bring about a more predictable and stable 
relationship with Russia. But there must be a recognition that 
this treaty is another step in what is a long journey toward 
normal relations with Russia.
   
Š 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 40 Congressman demands review of DOE legal support 

Tri-Valley Herald

Friday, May 17, 2002 - 2:57:20 AM MST                                           
 			

By Staff Writer: Glenn Roberts Jr.
 			
Questioning Energy Department policies on the payment of legal 
costs amassed by its contractors, including the University of 
California, a congressman has asked for a federal investigation. 

Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., sent a letter this week to the 
General Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of Congress -- 
citing worries that taxpayers' money is being used to support 
"frivolous or unnecessary" legal activities. 

Markey said he is worried that if Energy Department officials 
fail "to adequately assess the merits of the legal cases to which 
its contractors are a party, and reimburses the contractors 
indiscriminately ... contractors will have no incentive to settle 
cases that are either frivolous or in which they are in the 
wrong." 

Jeanne Lopatto, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said Thursday 
that the Energy Department is not alone in its reimbursement 
policies. 

"It's curious as to why Congressman Markey is singling out the 
(department) on this because we have the same reimbursement 
practices as the rest of the government agencies who use outside 
contractors," Lopatto said. 

In his letter to the investigative agency, Markey cited the case 
of Dee Kotla, who was fired from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 
and later filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the UC 
system, which operates the lab for the Energy Department. 

UC also manages Los Alamos Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley 
Laboratory for the department. 

Lab officials have said that Kotla used her office computer and 
telephone for "nonwork purposes," including about $4.30 worth of 
non-work-related local calls. After a jury awarded Kotla $1 
million in March, lab managers in April decided to dispute that 
ruling and asked the judge to take another look at the case. For 
all its Energy Department-related legal cases between 1995 and 
2001, UC received about $55 million in reimbursement, according 
to General Accounting Office data. 

During that same period, the Energy Department paid a total of 
about $290 million to reimburse about 95 percent of all 
contractors' legal costs, while contractors spent about $13 
million in their own defense, the letter states. UC spokesman 
Rick Malaspina and Energy Department spokesman John Belluardo 
said Thursday that they were unable to provide lab-specific 
information on the Energy Department's reimbursement of legal 
costs for cases filed against UC-managed labs. 

A General Accounting Office investigation should focus on whether 
Energy Department contractors are using "prudent business 
judgment" in incurring legal costs, and whether the department is 
consistent in its legal reimbursement practices. 

The office also should investigate whether educational 
institutions that contract with the Energy Department, such as 
UC, should be allowed to assert claims of immunity from lawsuits 
related to their contracts to manage department facilities. 

Š1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
 41 ORNL whistleblower wins appeal

KnoxNews: Local
 		 		
  Racing against the Wind   
 				
By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer
May 17, 2002

 OAK RIDGE - A former radiation safety engineer at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, who claims she was laid off because she 
repeatedly raised safety concerns, has won an appeal in her case 
and may get her job back. 

Janet Westbrook was employed at ORNL from 1989 until December 
2000, when she was laid off as part of a "reduction in force" by 
UT-Battelle - the contractor the manages the lab for the U.S. 
Department of Energy. 

Westbrook protested her layoff through DOE's Contractor Employee 
Protection Program, but her initial whistle-blower complaint was 
denied last year. In a May 9 ruling, however, a DOE appeals 
officer overturned that decision, which he said was "clearly 
erroneous," and ruled in Westbrook's favor. 

George Breznay, the director of DOE's Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, said UT-Battelle failed to support its contention that 
Westbrook would have been laid off regardless of her repeated 
safety disclosures that made her unpopular with some managers. 

Westbrook maintained that she was essentially black-listed from 
certain projects at the lab because she refused to grant waivers 
or overlook safety-related requirements in order to speed up work 
and save money. 

An investigation confirmed that she voiced multiple safety 
concerns to her supervisors in the course of her work. In one 
instance, she questioned the lab's decision to raise the 
allowable radiation dose in an area before a required safety 
review had been conducted. 

UT-Battelle officials reportedly lowered her performance 
evaluation and took other steps to help support their decision to 
lay off the safety engineer. Westbrook said she was more 
experienced and qualified than others kept on the payroll 
following a lab reorganization. 

UT-Battelle said one of the reasons she was selected for the 
workforce reduction was that she was hard to get along with and 
thus couldn't "cultivate customers" within the in-house safety 
review system at ORNL. 

Breznay ruled that Westbrook is entitled to relief under the 
worker protection program and should submit a detailed statement 
of claims within the next month. 

"The relief may include such items as reinstatement, back pay, 
cost and attorney's fees," he wrote. 

UT-Battelle declined comment Thursday on whether the company 
would seek an additional review in the case. Breznay's ruling 
becomes final unless a petition is filed within 30 days. 

Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or 
twig1@knoxnews.infi.net.                                
 				
The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 42 Lawmakers introduce Rocky Flats legislation 

  [www.TheDailyCamera.com]   

By Katy Human 
Camera Staff Writer

Two Colorado members of Congress introduced legislation Wednesday 
that would fine the U.S. Department of Energy $1 million a day 
for any plutonium left at Rocky Flats after late 2003. 

The move by U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Sen. Wayne Allard, 
R-Colo., is the latest in an ongoing dispute that has stranded 
several tons of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium in Colorado. 

Udall spokesman Lawrence Pacheco called the twin bills a way of 
ensuring that the former nuclear weapons plant south of Boulder 
would be cleaned up and closed by 2006, a deadline set by the 
Department of Energy. 

Udall and others have expressed concern that if Rocky Flats isn't 
cleaned up and closed down by 2006, it will be difficult to 
secure funding for continued cleanup. 

Rocky Flats' plutonium was originally supposed to be shipped to 
South Carolina's Savannah River site, where some of it would be 
immobilized in glass and some would be made into fuel for nuclear 
power plants. 

But the Bush administration dropped the immobilization part of 
the plan last year, and South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a 
Democrat, said he would lie in the road to keep the dangerous 
material from being trucked into his state unless there was a 
written plan for its eventual removal. Earlier this month, Hodges 
sued the Energy Department over the issue. 

Last week, the federal government agreed to postpone shipments 
until June 15, two days after a scheduled federal hearing on the 
lawsuit. Shipments were originally scheduled to begin last 
September and will take about a year. 

Udall's bill, introduced Wednesday, would fine the Energy 
Department up to $100 million a year for plutonium remaining at 
Rocky Flats later than November 2003. It also stipulates that if 
plutonium shipments to South Carolina don't begin by July 1, 
2002, the Department of Energy would have to look for alternative 
sites for the waste. 

A plant to convert plutonium into nuclear fuel could employ 
thousands of people and bring more than $3 billion to a state. 
Allard introduced an identical bill in the Senate Wednesday. 
Neither Udall nor Allard have co-sponsors for their bills. Allard 
spokesman Sean Conway said the senator considers finding 
co-sponsors a priority. 

"This is a national security issue," he said. "We need to solve 
the problem." 

The security force needed to guard the weapons-grade material at 
Rocky Flats costs more than $3 million per month. 

Hodges spokeswoman Cortney Owings called the new bills an attempt 
to "force-feed South Carolina plutonium." 

"The people of Colorado would be better served if their elected 
officials pressured the federal government to be honest and keep 
their commitments," she said. 

Contact reporter Katy Human at (303) 473-1364 or 
humank@thedailycamera.com. The Associated Press contributed to 
this report.

May 16, 2002 

Copyright 2002 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any
*****************************************************************
 43 DOE: One year after NEP 

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: May 17, 2002  

Energy Secretary Abraham, Interior Secretary Norton &EPA 
Administrator Whitman Mark One Year Anniversary of National 
Energy Policy (NEP) and Highlight Achievements -->      

WASHINGTON, DC -- At a Department of Energy ceremony to mark the
one-year anniversary of President Bushs National Energy Policy
(NEP), Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham highlighted the
unprecedented advances the Administration has made to strengthen
Americas energy security. 

Abraham, joined by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, toured cutting-edge,
Energy Department sponsored research technologies and made
remarks that charted the energy policy success to date. 

This administration has made remarkable progress in a short
twelve months toward implementing a comprehensive and balanced
energy policy that is both practical and visionary, Secretary
Abraham said. President Bush addressed this need by promoting a
long-term National Energy Policy with specific, action-oriented
recommendations that will promote reliable, affordable and
environmentally sound energy for today and for the future. 

The NEPs recommendations were specifically designed in an
environmentally sensitive fashion to meet the nations growing
energy demand, which includes a 45 percent increase for
electricity over the next 20 years, 50 percent increase in
natural gas demand and 33 percent for oil. The NEP established
specific goals to meet that demand -- while still guaranteeing
Americas continued growth and prosperity -- that include
increasing conservation, diversifying energy supplies, improving
and accelerating environmental protection, modernizing the aging
energy infrastructure, and strengthening Americas energy
security. 

The National Energy Policys first year has been a notable
success, Secretary Abraham said. Weve already seen a very
positive impact. The national energy policys recommendations
have enjoyed broad support in Congress. Of the 22 specific
proposals that required legislative action, 21 have either
already been enacted into law, or are contained in either the
House or the Senate energy bills that are headed to Conference
and we expect that a balanced and comprehensive bill will be
headed to the President for signature this year. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) in the past year has made several
advances in implementing the NEP. Among them: 

	
  + Conducted a comprehensive review of existing energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs and asked Congress for
over $1.2 billion -- the largest budget request in over 20 years
 for these programs; 	
  + Improved funding for research and development and focused on
the cutting-edge technologies that will fuel the 21st century
and beyond; 	
  + Expanded several programs such as Energy Star, which
promotes the purchase of energy efficient appliances and
machines; and, 	
  + Launched a plan to increase the use of energy efficient
Combined Heat and Power generating facilities. 

DOE has implemented several innovative actions to increase and
diversify supply, as well. In the past year, the department
formed a fast track inter-agency task force that is clearing the
way to get Alaskas abundant natural gas resources to the
continental U.S. by speeding construction of an Alaskan Gas
Pipeline. Legislation has been proposed to re-license hydropower
plants, providing increased electricity to the nation, and to
build a central waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada,
a proposal endorsed by over 300 members of the House of
Representatives. 

The Department also sought to increase domestic oil production
and reduce the nations reliance on imported oil by developing
resources in a small section of the remote Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and launched the North American Energy Working
Group with Canada and Mexico to identify ways to improve energy
opportunities to the benefit of each nation. 

In another initiative to increase the nations energy security,
the President ordered that the Energy Department fill the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to capacity for protection against
economic harm in the event of oil supply disruptions. 

The wide-ranging proposals put into effect by the NEP in just
its first year will generate numerous other improvements to our
energy security, Secretary Abraham said. Once Congress
completes its action on the NEP, the President can make it a
reality. 

For more information you can log on to www.energy.gov
[http://www.energy.gov] or visit the White House web site at
www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/] . 

Media Contact:   
Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 
Jill Schroeder, 202/586-4940 
Release No. N-02-085 
	Back to Previous Page>
         



  Send <font color="#000000">Feedback</font>
[http://www.ma.doe.gov/energy/web.html] on This Service to the
Web Development Team     [Back to Top]   
  Health ˇ House ˇ Transportation
 School ˇ Business ˇ Community
 World ˇ Future ˇ Kidz Zone   
  Homepage ˇ About Us
 Career Opportunities
 Contact Us ˇ Press Room   
  Data & Prices ˇ Energy Efficiency
 Energy Sources & Production
 Environmental Quality
 National Security ˇ Science & Technology   
  Free Subscription
 Site Index ˇ National Library   

  


*****************************************************************
 44 More problems for EEOICP - complaints on getting benefits

By Van Rose
 
Pike County News Watchman
 
By Van Rose
 Wednesday, May 15, 2002
 
More problems for EEOICP
 
NW Staff Reports
 
Complications continue to surround the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP), established 
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2000 to compensate sick 
government employees or their family members.
 
U.S. Congressman Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), who helped create the 
EEOICP, believes DOE has erected barriers to nuclear worker 
compensation, specifically under Subtitle D of the program.
 
The department, by law, is required to establish a physician's 
panel to review each employee's work history and medical records 
and estimate their exposure to hazardous conditions. DOE's 
proposed rules and regulations violate Congressional intent, 
according to Strickland, by allowing plant contractors to contest 
the findings of the physician's panel through DOE's Office of 
Hearings and Appeals.
 
"Congress laid out clear and unambiguous guidelines relating to 
this program that DOE simply continues to ignore," said 
Strickland. "Their obstruction does nothing more than deny 
compensation to a group of patriots who served their country 
during the Cold War and are paying a serious price with their 
health - and in many cases, their lives."
 
Other reported problems include:
 
  + Allowance of contractors to be reimbursed for legal costs of 
contesting all issues, except causation
 
  + Requiring physician's panels to apply widely differing 
standards for causation depending on the state where the worker 
was employed, and
 
  + Requiring claimants to bring a medical diagnosis to the 
physician's panel that offers evidence of workplace causation, 
which may not be possible due to DOE's incomplete employee 
exposure records.
 
"The intent was for the burden of proof to be on the employer, 
not the employee," said Mark Lewis, director of the local 
Workers' Health Protection Program. "Now they can contest it. I 
don't know how it got twisted around like this."
 
This is because the EEOICP administrator - the U.S. Department of 
Labor - may be used to causation being placed on the victim 
instead of on the government, said Glenn Bell of Oak Ridge, 
Tenn., a nuclear worker and supporter of an expanded compensation 
program.
 
"I expected a lot of loopholes and a lot of confusion since it is 
a new program," he said.
 
Some workers who fall under a "special cohort," suffering from 
beryllium disease, radiation or chronic silicosis covered by the 
program and not required to prove that it was caused by 
employment at the plant, are having their claims approved more 
quickly and easily.
 
Those not included in the cohort seem to "hit a brick wall" when 
their claims reach Washington D.C., told Bell. But even workers 
in the special cohort are still running into problems.
 
"If we can't get the easy cases through, everyone else is in 
trouble," he said.
 
Congressman Strickland joined four House colleagues last Thursday 
in writing a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
concerning DOE draft regulations related to implementation of the 
program.
 
"The law sought to remove procedural barriers to compensation 
claims by utilizing DOE's power of procurement with its 
contractors to pay legitimate worker compensation claims," said 
the letter. "Under (DOE's proposed) rule, workers will never 
receive the justice that Congress - on a bipartisan basis - had 
intended for diseases and disability incurred while working at 
DOE facilities."
*****************************************************************
 45 Opinions:Still opposes SRS' MOX mission 

Augusta Georgia: 

Web posted Friday, May 17, 2002
 
Letter to the Editor 

Going through my files, I found a letter to The Chronicle dated
June 25, 1997. It described a meeting held June 19 to promote
"...a plutonium mission for the Savannah River Site." The writer
called it "...a noble concept."

 Several hundred people had been bused into Augusta to show
support for the project, which envisioned bringing weapons-grade
plutonium to SRS to make MOX (mixed-oxide nuclear fuel).
 
Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wanted it. Former Gov. David
Beasley, R-S.C., wanted it. Mayors from towns near SRS spoke in
favor of the project.

 The one lone dissenter was mentioned by name. I was that
individual.

 Today, a different South Carolina governor says he'll call out
state troopers to prevent this same plutonium from entering the
state. Apparently, all those individuals who were in favor of
the project in 1997 are now afraid if the plutonium reaches
their state, they'll be stuck with it forever.

 I will repeat the warning I gave in my own letter to The
Chronicle dated June 25: Producing MOX from plutonium will not
destroy the plutonium. On the contrary - it will produce more
plutonium and more radioactive nuclear waste.

 Whether the MOX project is funded and moves ahead or not, once
the plutonium reaches SRS, the state will be stuck with
long-term radioactive contamination and the threat of terrorism
that always accompanies this nasty stuff.

 Joan O. King, Sautee, Ga.
 
The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************