***************************************************************** 04/18/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.98 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Finland: Fifth reactor appears to be gaining support in Parliament 2 UK: Lambert in anti-nuclear call 3 Estonia must build nuclear power plant because of EU directive 4 SA: PEBBLE BED controversy 5 Bulgarian minister says 1,100 workers needed to prepare N-plant 6 Plutonium shipment poses security threat to world cup 7 US: Entergy considering new nuclear plant in Mississippi 8 US: Enercon Selected By Entergy on New Nuclear Power Plant Early Sit 9 AU: Illegal immigrant employment clause questioned (Lucas Heights) 10 US bank takeover of HDW raises technology issues NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 US: Speakers at meeting question safety at San Onofre 12 US: Flyover shows Indian Point's a sitting duck 13 US: Misssouri: More radiation cleanup to cost SEMO $292,000 14 US: NRC Report On Reactor Corrosion Could Come This Week 15 US: NRC Report On Reactor Corrosion Could Come This Week NUCLEAR SAFETY 16 NZ: Radioactive body prompts alert 17 Science Today: Don't belittle radiation risks - Nuala Ahern 18 US: Gibbons seeks funds for Fallon leukemia cluster study 19 US: NRC: Ohio workers carried radioactive particles to S.C. 20 Greenpeace says nuclear shipment may endanger World Cup 21 US: Gibbons Requests Funding for USGS Leukemia Cluster Study NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 22 US: U.S.: Lawmakers Grapple With Nuclear Waste Storage 23 US: EPA meeting is called a raid 24 N-waste leak at Sellafield 25 US: AU: Uranium mine on hold 26 US: Gov't, Idaho Agree on Waste Cleanup 27 US: Energy Secretary defends Yucca Mountain to congressional panel 28 US: Energy Secretary defends Yucca Mountain to congressional panel 29 US: Spratt can't likely block plutonium 30 US: Hodges renews discussions about plutonium shipments 31 US: Yucca: Other people's money 32 US: Budget deficit won't stop city from fighting Yucca 33 US: Yucca: Transportation hearings to wait 34 US: Op: Nuclear Freedom 35 US: Yucca ads focus on a handful of states 36 US: Goodman eyes Utah meeting in Yucca fight 37 US: Editorial: County hits home run, city whiffs 38 US: Congress opens Yucca Mountain debate 39 Campaigners aim to raise N-plant heat 40 US: Tainted water transfer to get public hearing 41 US: Our military is the country's largest and least accountable poll 42 US: The Unsound Science of Yucca Mountain 43 US: Yucca Letter opposing Wyoming position 44 US: Statement of Kenny C. Guinn Governor of The State of Nevada 45 'No Risk' To Health BNFL Tell Europe 46 BNFL Workers Go Back 47 US: Opinions:Yucca Mtn. proved safe for N-waste 48 US: Yucca: How safe is safe? 49 US: Two object to nuclear waste storage site NUCLEAR WEAPONS 50 Go like a bomb 51 Russian nuclear submarine Yekaterinburg ready to return to service 52 US: Defense Department says nuclear interceptors not an option 53 Iraq asks UNSC to avoid selectivity in applying nuclear 54 Critics of US say nuclear bunker-buster would not be clean bomb US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 Watchdog group urges review of Livermore Lab contamination 56 East Bay DOE office seeks to improve nuclear monitoring 57 Some Oak Ridge employees go back to work after radioactivity found 58 TIME - Leon Jaroff - At the DOE, Dowsing for Dollars 59 DOE repaid legal costs, GAO finds 60 DOE wants to trim Hanford jobs 61 Hanford's unfinished business OTHER NUCLEAR 62 Government owns more vehicles than Hertz; 63 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.16 | 10-16 April 2002 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Finland: Fifth reactor appears to be gaining support in Parliament Thu Apr 18, 4:39 AM ET HELSINKI, Finland - A month before Parliament votes on the construction of what would be Finland's fifth commercial nuclear reactor, a survey released Thursday indicates lawmakers may narrowly approve the controversial measure. In the 200-member Parliament, 94 legislators said they agree, while 88 were against and 18 were undecided, according to a poll by YLE radio news. In 1993, lawmakers rejected a similar measure by a vote of 107-90. The national broadcaster did not give a margin of error or say when the survey was conducted. The five-party government approved an application for the construction of a new reactor in January, but the decision requires Parliament's approval. A vote is set for next month. Finland has two atomic power stations, each with two reactors, which produce about a third of the country's electricity. One is at Olkiluoto, 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest of the capital, the other at Loviisa, 90 kilometers (55 miles) east of Helsinki. The site of a fifth reactor has not been decided, but it likely would be constructed at one of the two existing sites. Since the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. targets, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority has renewed security requirements for nuclear plants demanding protection against strikes by commercial and military aircraft. (mhh-ewm) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 2 UK: Lambert in anti-nuclear call Walthamstow: London's Green Euro MP Jean Lambert has called for an immediate end to the re-processing of nuclear waste in the UK. Ms Lambert, who lives in Walthamstow, also wants to see an end to the nuclear power industry in Britain. The call comes as more than a million concerned Irish citizens prepare to blitz Tony Blair with postcard protests against the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant on April 26, the 16th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. At the same time, citizens from all over Europe have this week been participating in a European Parliament hearing to discuss a controversial report on the health risks of nuclear waste reprocessing. The report says that 90 per cent of Britain's toxic nuclear waste emissions come from the re-processing of nuclear waste. Commenting on the report, Ms Lambert said: "Even taking into account the margin of error, this is an unacceptable level of risk. We have a moral obligation to end the pollution and risks to health brought about by nuclear power. "I will be writing to the Government adding my concerns to those already raised by members of the British public. In all this talk about energy futures, has Mr Blair thought about the waste implications of the nuclear options?" 10:45 Wednesday 17th April 2002 © Copyright 2002 Newsquest Media Group - A Gannett Company ***************************************************************** 3 Estonia must build nuclear power plant because of EU directive - newspaper BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 18, 2002 In five years' time, Estonian Energy [Eesti Energia] will no longer be able to satisfy Estonian energy needs and for this reason Estonia must start to plan for a nuclear power station as early as this year. Otherwise, we will lose independent electricity supply from 2015. The building of a nuclear power station in Estonia is inevitable, politicians, scientists and heads of enterprises say today. The voice of opponents of nuclear power is as yet uncertain, since this course of events is seen as incredible. Because of the EU environmental directive 2001/80/EN of last October, Narva power plants will not be able to meet the capacity required for domestic electricity consumption as soon as in 2008 and after. With the [energy] blocks that fail to meet the environmental requirements we will be able to produce a limited quantity of electricity only until the end of 2015, Valdur Lahtvee, the environmental affairs manager at Estonian Energy, says. Estonian Energy's current investment plan envisages the renovation of two power blocks in Narva and so the average annual production of Narva power stations would be 2,300 GWh from 2015. Over the past financial year, Estonian Energy's sales amounted to 5,948 GWh... In addition to the forthcoming renovation of the two power blocks in Narva, the renovation of another 10 power blocks might cost nearly 25bn kroons and would ensure independent electricity supply for Estonia. However, the EU is progressing along the path of constraining the use of combustion technologies and pessimistic assessments suggest that Estonian oil-shale resources will continue for only 25 years. With the present use, Estonia would have enough oil shale for at least 100 years, Alo Adamson, director of the mining institute at Tallinn Technical University, says. Surprisingly, however, Adamson recognizes the inevitability of nuclear energy. "Changeover to nuclear energy is a reality and it is high time we acknowledged this in Estonia," Adamson says. "We need not wait until the oil shale runs out to build a nuclear plant." "I can see no alternative for Estonia but nuclear energy," Andres Lipstok, chairman of the Economic Affairs Commission in the Riigikogu [parliament] says... "Nuclear energy is the least dangerous while being environmentally friendly," Mati Jostov, director-general of the Estonian Oil Shale joint stock company and a member of the Centre Party, says. "We have oil-shale resources for 50 years, which is a sufficient period of time to clarify our need for a nuclear station."... Estonia should wait another 30 years, which is a likely period for some completely new and safe source of energy to be devised, Einari Kisel, head of the energy section at the Ministry of Economics, says... Source: Aripaev web site, Tallinn, in Estonian 18 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 4 SA: PEBBLE BED controversy Business Day If technology does become part of SA energy mix, it will have done so the hard way MANY South African executives would sell their souls for a favourable, double page spread in USbased magazine Newsweek on one of their company's products. Exactly this was achieved with apparent ease only weeks ago by SA's pebble bed modular reactor, which is rapidly gaining an unprecedented level of recognition on the international stage. It is the only energy product to be mentioned in both the US and UK energy reviews, and the US energy department has set up a special team to oversee any future development of the mini-nuclear reactors on the continent. It doesn't get much better than that. And it was achieved largely through the international partnerships which the PBMR company, led by Dave Nicholls, has forged on the mini-nuclear project. US electricity heavyweight Exelon, together with UK's British Nuclear Fuels, has played a vital role in raising the profile of the pebble bed in the US and the UK at a time when nuclear power is coming back into fashion. As such, this week's decision by Exelon to withdraw from its 12,5% stake in the pebble bed project at the end of the feasibility stage, expected this year, is a blow for the scheme. Not only has the move unsettled the other partners, it also sends confusing signals to the US government and the players in the US nuclear industry. This is sure to make it harder to find a new US partner for the project, but the net for a new investor has been widened to include Japan, China and a few European nations. Key selling points will be that the reactor is inherently safe, small and inexpensive when compared with a six-pack power station. But given the controversial nature of the experimental technology, Exelon's move does not help SA's sales pitch. To understand why Exelon withdrew, one needs to consider the politics at play in the company. Exelon was born two years ago out of the merger of two large power companies Philadelphia's Peco Energy and the Unicom Corporation. It was agreed that Peco's Corbin McNeill would be chairman and joint CEO for two years, after which he would switch roles with John Rowe of Unicom. McNeill is a former US navy man, having been the commanding officer of the Naval Nuclear Power School. He has been deeply involved in driving nuclear power since leaving the navy in 1981, advising the US energy department on a range of nuclear-related issues. He has been captivated by SA's pebble bed reactor, convinced it has potential to help meet US energy shortages. McNeill was talking of Exelon buying up to 40 of the reactors, pending results of a feasibility study. His joint CEO, John Rowe, appears not to be as convinced. When the time came for the switchover with Rowe, McNeill demurred. US newspapers reported this week his expected early retirement was the result of a feud with Rowe over the company's nuclear strategy. Rowe, it seems, believes Exelon should stick to the basics and focus on developing the core, traditional, electricity business rather than developing nuclear projects. PBMR's Nicholls is adamant that Exelon's decision to withdraw from the scheme is due to a shift of focus by the US firm rather than concerns about the commercial viability of the pebble bed reactor. "If there were concerns about viability, Exelon would not have left its staff with the project, and they would not be staying until the feasibility is completed," he says. The feasibility study is the scheme's next big hurdle. Minerals and Energy Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka set up an international task team to consider the study on the reactor. The key objective was to decide the validity of the study's finding that the reactor was broadly viable. The team is also understood to have considered whether the scheme which entails building an initial demonstration plant of 110MW to 120MW can be justified economically, and if it has the potential, as claimed, to bring SA billions of rands in export earnings through offshore sales. The team has apparently completed its work, but has yet to release its findings. Those close to the issue say its recommendations are largely favourable. If so, it is sure to raise the ire of the dedicated group of environmentalists, such as Earthlife, which are vehemently opposed to the new technology. They argue it is untested, unviable, unsafe and could do irreparable harm to the development of the country. The withdrawal of Exelon is sure to lead to a new round of debate on whether SA should be moving ahead with the pebble bed reactor, or should rather be seeking new ways to make renewable energy such as solar and wind power more affordable. South Africans can take comfort in the considerable lengths Mlambo-Ngcuka and her cabinet colleagues have gone to to ensure the technology is safe and viable. Apart from robust internal debate, countless public hearings, audits and several fact-finding missions abroad, the global task team (which included experts who were openly antinuclear) has been vigorous in appraisal of the technology. It is by no means a given at this point, but if the pebble bed finds its way into SA's energy mix, it will deserve to be there. The challenge then, in terms of offshore sales, will be to ensure its current high profile is not dissipated in the wake of the Exelon withdrawal. Chalmers is Associate Editor. Apr 18 2002 12:00:00:000AM Robyn Chalmers Business Day 1st Edition BDFM Publishers 2002 ***************************************************************** 5 Bulgarian minister says 1,100 workers needed to prepare N-plant decommissioning BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 17, 2002 Albena, Dobrich District, 17 April: A total of 1,100 workers will be engaged in the preparatory work for decommissioning of power units one and two of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, Deputy Prime Minister and Labour and Social Policy Minister Lydia Shuleva told a news conference in this Black Sea resort on Wednesday [17 April]. The resort hosted a working meeting of the joint consultative committee EU-Bulgaria which discussed the social implications of the decommissioning of the two reactors. Eight hundred people work now in the N-plant's power units one and two. Some of them will be relocated to the other reactors in Kozloduy and also to the plant processing radioactive waste. Others will work in the conservation activities in the two units but more people will be hired in the process of the closure of the reactors, Shuleva said. She said that the decommissioning will not cause closure of firms which provide accompanying goods and services to the N-plant. A project has been prepared for regional economic development of Kozloduy which envisages opening of small businesses. Shuleva said that the negative effects of the decommissioning of the two power units will be increase of electricity prices and reduction of sales proceeds. Shuleva recalled the measures the cabinet has already publicized to offset difficulties relating to the hike of electricity prices. Source: BTA web site, Sofia, in English 17 Apr 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 6 Plutonium shipment poses security threat to world cup Greenpeace warns FIFA and JAWOC [Nuclear Press Releases] 17 April 2002 Tokyo, Japan - Greenpeace has alerted the international football authorities (FIFA) and the Japanese committee organising the World Cup (JAWOC) to a major security threat during the matches in Japan in June (1). Enough plutonium to build 50 nuclear weapons will be loaded onto a British Nuclear Fuels ship at the Takahama nuclear power plant during June while the World Cup matches are in full swing (2). The 255 kilograms of plutonium, in the form of mixed oxide plutonium fuel, are being returned to the UK after British Nuclear Fuels Ltd admitted it had falsified safety data during its production. In an open letter to the football authorities, Greenpeace warns that the nuclear industry’s plans to load the ship in June will divert significant security resources from the World Cup, because the shipments are themselves potential terrorist targets. The clash with the World Cup is a particular concern because security around the games has become a top priority for the Japanese authorities since the devastating terrorist attacks on September 11th. “Those responsible for this nuclear shipment must be aware that the Japanese authorities have prioritized security for the World Cup, yet they are willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of millions of innocent people for the sake of a transport and industry that has no justification. This is completely irresponsible; all plans for this shipment must be scrapped immediately,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. The plutonium shipment departure from Takahama could see the ship sailing directly off the coast of Niigata, where matches involving the teams of Ireland, Sweden, Mexico, Croatia and Cameroon will be played between June 1-15th. In the letter, Greenpeace also details the threat posed by other plutonium stored in Japan. The security of Japan’s stockpiles, located at four sites around the country, is lower than that of equivalent nuclear sites in Europe and the United States. These sites are also in regions that are either hosting national soccer teams and/or actual matches during the 2002 FIFA World Cup(3). Plutonium is an extremely hazardous radioactive material; in the event of an accident or terrorist attack very large amounts of nuclear material would be dispersed into the environment and the consequences for the public in the vicinity would be catastrophic. Even with a diversion of security forces from the World Cup, the security arrangements for the plutonium ships Pacific Teal and Pacific Pintail during their global transit from Japan to Britain have been described as "totally inadequate" by the prestigious Jane's Foreign Report(4). A U.S. Government study produced by Sandia National Laboratories concluded that armed terrorists could access a nuclear cargo on a ship, and use explosive charges to access the plutonium inside the transport casks (5). Dr Frank Barnaby, a former scientist with the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, and a specialist on nuclear terrorism, believes that Japan’s plutonium stocks and the MOX shipment pose attractive and highly vulnerable targets for international terrorist groups. "Apart from stealing the material, another more likely scenario would be for terrorists to create a radiological weapon or ‘dirty bomb’ either by firing a missile into the MOX shipment or setting off an explosive charge around the cask. The explosion and resultant fire would lead to the dispersal of a significant fraction of the plutonium and uranium oxides over a wide area. In any of these circumstances the consequences would be severe. There are major questions over the security arrangements for this shipment as well as at Japanese sites holding stocks of plutonium,” said Dr Barnaby. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Shaun Burnie – Greenpeace International +81 90 2253 7306 (mobile in Japan), or Shaun.Burnie@ams.greenpeace.org Dr Frank Barnaby – Oxford Research Group +44 1264 860 423 Kazue Suzuki – Greenpeace Japan +81 35 338 9800 Mhairi Dunlop – Greenpeace International Nuclear Press Co-ordinator, Amsterdam +31 20 523 6608 1 - Greenpeace has sent letters to Mr. Yasuhiko Endoh, General Secretary of JAWOC, (Japan Organizing Committee for the FIFA World Cup), Joseph S. Blatter President of FIFA and Lennart Johansson as chairman of the World Cup Organising Committee, as well as Akira Odajima, Public Relations Director FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan Organizing Committee. 2 - Plutonium MOX fuel is weapons-usable. For terrorists to convert plutonium oxide into a nuclear weapon would require approximately 35 kilograms of plutonium; if the oxide were to converted into a metal, then only 7kg would be required to fashion a bomb. However, an advanced industrialized nation, such as Japan could make one sophisticated nuclear weapon with 5kg or less. Senior Japanese politician Ichiro Ozawa stated April 6th that Japan could use its plutonium stocks to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Greenpeace estimates the number at around 7,000 bombs. 3 - More than 5000 kilograms of plutonium and MOX fuel are stored at nuclear sites in Ibaraki, Fukushima, Niigata and Fukui Prefectures. The shipment, depending upon the route chosen, could sail just dozens of miles from the training grounds of the following teams: Ireland (Shimane Prefecture), Equador (Tottori), Mexico (Fukui), and Italy (Sendai). In addition to those training grounds and soccer stadiums most vulnerable to immediate impact of an attack on either plutonium and MOX stores or the MOX shipment, other venues remain within the range where significant nuclear fallout could occur from an explosion and or fire. The Saitama Stadium, Shizuoka Stadium, the International Stadium Yokohama, as well as Osaka’s Nagai Stadium, and Kobe Wing Stadium are all well within range of significant fallout from a plutonium accident or act of sabotage. 4 - see Jane’s Foreign Report May 13th 1999. 5 – The United States Sandia national Laboratories, in conjunction with Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, completed a report (“Proliferation Vulnerability Red Team Report”, October 1996), which included a theft scenario in which terrorists intercept a military cargo of radioactive waste in transit and quickly gain access to a shipping cask of canisters containing glass logs and embedded plutonium. ***************************************************************** 7 Entergy considering new nuclear plant in Mississippi - 4/18/2002 - ENN.com Thursday, April 18, 2002 By Associated Press NEW ORLEANS — Entergy Corp. has notified the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it is considering building a nuclear power plant in Port Gibson, Miss. Entergy officials said the company will take at least three years to decide whether to build the plant. Entergy Nuclear, a subsidiary of the New Orleans#150based utility, this week became the third company to notify the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of plans to seek an "early site permit" for a new nuclear plant. President Bush last year called on energy companies to resurrect the nuclear power plant construction business, which has been dormant since the mid-1980s after the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. The company said nuclear energy is an alternative to natural gas, which fuels most of the country's newest power plants. "Having (the nuclear) option available is in the best interest of our power consumers, Entergy, and the nation's energy independence," the company said. Entergy officials began considering building a nuclear plant a year ago after a severe shortage of natural gas sent the price of natural-gas-generated electricity soaring. Entergy officials have said a new nuclear plant becomes economically viable when the price of natural gas consistently tops $5 per million British thermal units. Although prices in south Louisiana topped $10 per BTU last year during the shortage, they fell back after supplies strengthened. In recent weeks, natural gas has been trading around $3 per million BTU. Economic conditions of the power market will be the main factor in deciding whether to build the plant, the company said. Entergy spent the past nine months studying seven of its existing nuclear plant sites, including Waterford III near Hahnville and River Bend near St. Francisville, to determine which site had the best conditions for building a new reactor, Entergy Nuclear spokesman Carl Crawford said. Entergy already has one nuclear plant at Port Gibson. Transmission lines linking that plant to the region's power grid have enough capacity to handle another reactor because original plans called for two units at the site, Crawford said. The second unit was started but later abandoned. The application will take about a year to prepare and cost the nuclear subsidiary about $9 million, including a $5.4 million application fee from the NRC, Crawford said. The federal Department of Energy has offered to pay for as much as 50 percent of the application cost, he said. The rest will be covered by Entergy Nuclear. Customers of the parent company's regulated electricity utilities, which include Entergy New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana, will not pay for any of the application charges. Exelon, a Chicago-based power utility and the nation's biggest nuclear plant operator, became the first company to start the early site permit application process on March 20. Dominion Resources, based in Richmond, Va., followed two weeks later. Copyright 2002, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 8 Enercon Selected By Entergy on New Nuclear Power Plant Early Site Permit; Nuclear Services Specialist to Lead New Site Evaluation Team [PR Newswire] Thursday April 18, 7:07 am Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Enercon Services Inc. TULSA, Okla., April 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Enercon Services Inc., a nuclear services firm, has been selected by Entergy Nuclear Potomac Company to be part of its team to prepare an Early Site Permit at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station site near Port Gibson, Miss. for a potential new nuclear power plant. Under the contract, Enercon will conduct extensive engineering and environmental studies of the potential impact of a new plant on the site including evaluations of hydrology, meteorology and ecology of the site using current data as well as data from nearly 20 years of operation. ``Though there is no decision to build a new power plant, Enercon is pleased to be a part of Entergy's team to evaluate the location,'' said John Richardson, chief operating officer for Enercon. ``Enercon has worked closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on numerous projects over the past 20 years and will bring that experience to bear on this project.'' Entergy Nuclear's Senior Vice President of Business Development Randy Hutchinson said he is pleased to be working with Enercon on this project. ``We have teamed together on other projects and are pleased to join with Enercon on a project such as this which holds such significance for our nation. Enercon's expertise in nuclear licensing and its knowledge of the Grand Gulf Site makes it well suited to participate in this project.'' The preparation of the Early Site Permit application will take approximately a year and includes evaluating suitability of the site based on population, transportation routes and potential environmental effects from construction and operation of a new plant. The application will be submitted to the NRC in June 2003. The NRC will review it for at least two years. Enercon Manager of Projects Al Schneider added, ``The project is a unique opportunity for Enercon to draw on its substantial strengths in nuclear safety analysis, nuclear licensing, environmental permitting and regulatory compliance.'' Entergy Corporation, the parent of Entergy Nuclear and a global energy company based in New Orleans, is the third largest domestic power generator, with more than 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity, about $10 billion in revenue and over 2.6 million customers. Entergy Nuclear is headquartered in Jackson, Miss. Entergy's nuclear businesses operate five regulated power reactors in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana under regulatory jurisdictions, and four unregulated power reactors at three sites in Massachusetts and New York. Entergy Nuclear also furnishes license renewal, decommissioning services, and decommissioning site characterization support to the U.S. nuclear industry. Headquartered in Tulsa, Okla., Enercon is one of the nation's leading engineering and consulting firms serving the nuclear industry. In addition to Nuclear Services, Enercon has Environmental and Industrial Services and Government Services divisions. Together, the divisions provide design, engineering, regulatory compliance, environmental management, hazardous waste remediation and cleanup, decontamination and decommissioning, process and plant operations support, maintenance, training, information management, and management services to private and government clients throughout the United States. The company also maintains offices in Albuquerque, N. M., Atlanta, Ga., Dallas, Houston, and Midland, Texas, Oklahoma City, Okla., Pittsburgh, Pa., Raleigh and Wilmington, N.C., Oakland, Calif., Washington, D.C., Mt. Arlington, N.J. and Richland, Wash. Further information is available on the Web site: www.enercon.com [http://www.enercon.com] . Contact Peggy Striegel Striegel & Associates 800 663 1136 ps@striegela.com [ps@striegela.com] SOURCE: Enercon Services Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 AU: Illegal immigrant employment clause questioned (Lucas Heights) ABC Politics - 19/04/02 : [Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online] The Federal Government is being asked to explain why it rejected a clause in an employment agreement for the Lucas Heights replacement nuclear reactor in Sydney, which would have prevented the hiring of illegal immigrants. The clause was negotiated by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) as part of its continuing campaign against the use of illegal workers in the building industry. CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson says the clause has been an accepted part of hundreds of state and federal enterprise bargaining agreements, but this time the Office of the Employment Advocate rejected it. "It shows a major inconsistency and, in fact, when we initially drafted this clause, several years ago, it was done with officers of the Department of Immigration," he said. "We've been congratulated by compliance officers helping to deal with illegals on building sites, to clean it up, get the unemployed back on building sites. "Yet Tony Abbott seems to have a different agenda. "We know he's an anti-union zealot but this is going too far." The Office of the Employment Advocate says it is not commenting at this stage. © 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 10 US bank takeover of HDW raises technology issues - Jane's Defence News 15 March 2002 By JDW staff reporters A US bank's surprise purchase of a controlling share in Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) shipyard, the world's premier exporter of conventional submarines, will have far-reaching implications for the US nuclear submarine industry and the export of diesel-electric submarines. One Equity Partners bought a 75% share of HDW from various German companies. Speculation is rampant that the deal is a cover for a US shipyard to acquire HDW's diesel-electric submarine technology. This would potentially allow the US to supply diesel-electric submarines to Taiwan. US officials also said the deal could renew debate over US Navy insistence on an all-nuclear submarine fleet. OEP has said it is committed to maintaining HDW as an independent shipyard building both naval and commercial vessels. Pictured is a U212 submarine under construction at HDW's shipyard in Germany ***************************************************************** 11 Speakers at meeting question safety at San Onofre SignOnSanDiego.com > News > North County -- By Dana Littlefield UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER April 17, 2002 SAN CLEMENTE  After a meeting here on safety at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, several speakers last night raised questions about the effectiveness of emergency drills, storage of waste and inspections of reactor lids in light of the Sept. 11 attacks. Audience members heard from a panel of federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and representatives of Southern California Edison, which runs the plant. Some in the audience said they were left unsatisfied. "I'm not impressed," Vista resident Patricia Borchmann said outside the meeting. "I think it trivialized serious issues, and I think it's a sugarcoated version of reality." She said the inspections of reactor lids were too infrequent, especially considering small radiation leaks that were found at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio. Stephanie Dorey, a San Clemente resident and City Council member, said, "I'm worried about the significant events that were not addressed, such as the (potential for) terrorism and being on an active (earthquake) fault." Dorey raised questions about the availability of potassium iodide to residents in the event of a radiation leak and where dry waste could be stored. Potassium iodide is used to fight the effects of radiation poisoning. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members concluded in the written assessment of plant operations from April 1 to Dec. 31, 2001, that overall, the plant "operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety," despite two security breaches that occurred after Sept. 11. They reiterated those findings during last night's annual plant safety meeting at the San Clemente Inn. On Oct. 9, NRC inspectors found two visitors trying to enter a control room by using a visitor's badge on an automatic security device. The visitors told inspectors they had gotten separated from their escort, and the inspectors stayed with them until the escort returned. About three weeks later, inspectors said, a guard failed to adequately search a plant firetruck that was about to enter a restricted area for a fire drill. The guard, who had patted down a duffel bag, was instructed by inspectors to perform a more complete search of the truck. Federal reports classified the incidents as minor under a formula the NRC uses. San Onofre officials said they regretted the mistakes but added that plant employees inspect hundreds of vehicles each month with few problems. "I can assure you, (the security staffers) are motivated to protect San Onofre against any threat that might be thrown at them," said Dwight Nunn, vice president of engineering and technical service for Edison. Dana Littlefield: (760) 476-8233; dana.littlefield@uniontrib.com © Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 12 Flyover shows Indian Point's a sitting duck NYPOST.COM Regional News: By MARSHA KRANES April 18, 2002 A TV newsman spent 20 minutes flying over the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester to throw cold water on industry claims that power plants are not vulnerable to terrorist air attacks. Fox News Channel reporter Douglas Kennedy rented a four-seat Cessna and headed up the Hudson River to Buchanan - 33 miles north of Times Square. He had the pilot make three long passes over the Indian Point plant - going directly over its reactor domes at 2,000 feet. "So how difficult would it be just to steer this plane right down and smash into that plant?" Kennedy asked the pilot in a report aired last night. "It wouldn't be too hard at all. You're not that high and they probably wouldn't be expecting it. It would probably be easy," the pilot replied. Asked if at any point the plane was ordered to leave the area, Kennedy told The Post, "No attempt was made to stop us, and there was no inquiry at all." The Federal Aviation Administration recently lifted a ban on flying over nuclear plants in the United States that had been put into effect after Sept. 11, but requires planes to maintain altitudes of at least 2,000 feet when passing directly over a plant. Informed of the flyover, Steve Floyd, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, told Kennedy that a small plane - even one packed with explosives - couldn't cause significant damage to the plant because it couldn't penetrate the 12- to 15-feet of concrete and steel that protects the radioactive fuel in the reactor. But anti-nuke activist Edwin Lyman of the Nuclear Control Institute claimed terrorists could easily target the plant's spent fuel pool, releasing massive amounts of radioactivity that would threaten the metropolitan area. Industry critics contend that a pool fire, if not stopped in time, could be more devastating than the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl that killed an estimated 8,000 people. Kennedy's report is part of a three-part expose on Indian Point. Parts II and III will be aired tonight and tomorrow at 5 p.m. Part II looks at the evacuation chaos that's likely to result if there's an accident or attack on the plant. Part III examines just who's guarding Indian Point. Fox News Channel is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Post. Copyright 2002 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Misssouri: More radiation cleanup to cost SEMO $292,000 Daily Statesman 04/17/02 Mark Bliss SEMO News Service CAPE GIRARDEAU - Southeast Missouri State University discovered more radioactive contamination in its science buildings and will have to spend $292,000 on testing and cleanup work, school officials said Tuesday. The latest contamination comes two years after the university spent more than $1 million to clean up areas in Magill Hall, contaminated when radioactive americium-241 was spilled several years ago. School officials believe the Magill spill occurred sometime between 1994 and 1996 when a safe containing the chemical was moved into a basement storage room. The spilled chemical leaked out around the safe door. Contamination also was found in a chemistry lab where the radioactive material had been used more than 20 years ago. During a January study of the sewer system serving Magill and Rhodes halls by the university's environmental contractor, Science Applications International Organization, small amounts of radioactive materials turned up in acid dilution pits. The pits were designed to dilute any concentrated acids being flushed down drains. Last month, the university's radiation safety officer, biology professor Walt Lilly, found radioactive contamination on a chemistry table being stored in nearby Johnson Hall, school officials disclosed Tuesday. SAIC was called in and the room was closed off pending cleanup work. Not public areas The sewer pits aren't in public areas, and contamination in them is unrelated to the Magill spill, said Dr. Chris McGowan, dean of the College of Science and Mathematics. It likely happened in the 1970s when lab users cleaned contaminated equipment. No health problems surfaced two years ago, and school officials say there's no serious health risks now. McGowan said, "It's not a major issue health-wise for us unless somebody was licking the table." The contaminated areas have been closed off from public access. Last year, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Southeast $11,000 for failing to take radiation surveys to determine the hazards, for failing to control activities to avoid overexposure, and for possessing radioactive material that wasn't authorized in the school's NRC license. McGowan said school officials weren't surprised to find further contamination. "Contamination was so widespread we expected to find contaminated equipment," McGowan said. The chemistry table probably came out of the same Magill Hall lab where radioactive contamination was found two years ago. But the bulk of the contamination at that time was in the basement of Magill Hall. McGowan said that was far worse than the current radiation problem. Small amount McGowan said only a small amount of americium radiation was found in the acid pits connected to the sewer drains serving Magill and Rhodes halls. Americium hasn't been used in university chemistry labs for more than two decades, officials have said. Still, the latest contamination is enough of a concern that the university, in consultation with the NRC, plans to spend $292,000 to inspect and clean up the sewers serving Rhodes and Magill halls, inspect all campus buildings for equipment, fixtures or furniture that might have once been used in Magill Hall and study the health risk including probably testing of some university employees. Dr. Ivy Locke, vice president of business and finance at Southeast, said the university plans to pay the expenses with money from a contingency fund. The fund was set up with $472,000 in insurance claim money that the university received as reimbursement for the previous radiation cleanup work, she said. Most of the work will be done by Science Applications International Organization, which did the testing and cleanup work at Magill Hall two years ago. The inspection of other campus buildings is expected to cost $12,000, with about half of that money going to pay about 20 graduate science students who will be recruited to do the work. Consulting fees will take up the rest of the cost, McGowan said. University officials hope to do the visual inspection within the next couple of weeks to see if there are chemistry lab tables or other items from Magill Hall that are now in other campus buildings. Any such items then will be checked with radiation-detecting equipment. University officials hope to have an environmental waste hauler remove all the contaminated objects by the end of June. McGowan said the university is waiting on final approval from the NRC before proceeding with the testing and cleanup work. NRC officials couldn't be reached for comment on Tuesday. mbliss@semissourian.com 335-6611, extension 123 [http://www.mywebpal.com ***************************************************************** 14 NRC Report On Reactor Corrosion Could Come This Week Wed Apr 17, 4:35 PM ET By: Jon Kamp, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials could make public a report as early as this week summarizing the agency's review of corrosion damage possibilities at nuclear power plants, a spokesman said Wednesday. Utilities sent 69 reports to the NRC earlier this month detailing efforts to check for corrosion damage on their plant's reactor vessel heads, a problem that turned up last month at FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=fe&d=t] - news) 's (FE) Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio . Thus far the reports haven't turned up problems to NRC staff, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said. "They have seen nothing yet that would raise any concerns," he said. NRC staff will produce a report summarizing their findings soon, and it will be posted on the NRC's Web site, Dricks said. Wholesale energy marketers and utility analysts have been watching the NRC's plant review process closely, as the agency could order inspections at other plants if it believes the unusual corrosion found at Davis-Besse is a more widespread problem. But thus far, companies that have recently done full vessel head inspections say they haven't found corrosion, and others say they can still rule out such damage. During a scheduled refueling and inspection outage started in February, workers at Akron , Ohio -based FirstEnergy discovered a 6.5-inch cavity in Davis- Besse's reactor vessel head, or the lid that covers the reactor core. The corrosion was caused by boric acid from the plant's cooling system that leaked through a cracked control rod drive mechanism tube. About 40 pounds of carbon steel were eaten away. The NRC hasn't deemed the problem a safety concern, but has made broad efforts to investigate the damage at Davis-Besse and to determine if similar problems could be occurring elsewhere. Startup Target Unchanged, But Repair Report Delayed FirstEnergy wants to fix the damaged vessel head by carving out the area of corrosion and inserting a stainless steel plate weighing 300 to 400 pounds. The company estimates the repair will cost $16 million, and sees the plant back on line by late June if the NRC approves the work. If the NRC requires FirstEnergy to install a new reactor vessel head before restarting the plant, Davis-Besse could be off line until as late as early 2004. The company delivered a preliminary repair report to the NRC last week, and was expected to deliver a final, more detailed report this week. But FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said it's taking longer than originally planned to put that final report together. "It will probably be a couple more weeks" before that report is delivered, Wilkins said. The major repair plans remain the same, but many details are taking a while to work out, Wilkins said. The NRC asked FirstEnergy very specific questions about how it intends to make repairs during a conference last week. Despite the delays in producing the final report, Wilkins said FirstEnergy hasn't officially bumped back the plant's projected startup date. But he also said the late June date remains a loose target - one the company issued before it devised repair plans. "That date was soft to begin with," Wilkins said. Some equities analysts have questioned FirstEnergy's estimates from the start, noting that the NRC must give final approval before the plant restarts. In a research report last week, Merrill Lynch analysts said FirstEnergy's startup target is likely too optimistic, and estimated the plant could be down for the summer. NRC spokesman Dricks said the NRC is awaiting FirstEnergy's final report to make its decision on the repair plan. -By Jon Kamp, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4129; jon.kamp@ [http://dowjones.com] ***************************************************************** 15 NRC Report On Reactor Corrosion Could Come This Week Wed Apr 17, 4:35 PM ET By: Jon Kamp, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials could make public a report as early as this week summarizing the agency's review of corrosion damage possibilities at nuclear power plants, a spokesman said Wednesday. Utilities sent 69 reports to the NRC earlier this month detailing efforts to check for corrosion damage on their plant's reactor vessel heads, a problem that turned up last month at FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE - news) 's (FE) Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio . Thus far the reports haven't turned up problems to NRC staff, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said. "They have seen nothing yet that would raise any concerns," he said. NRC staff will produce a report summarizing their findings soon, and it will be posted on the NRC's Web site, Dricks said. Wholesale energy marketers and utility analysts have been watching the NRC's plant review process closely, as the agency could order inspections at other plants if it believes the unusual corrosion found at Davis-Besse is a more widespread problem. But thus far, companies that have recently done full vessel head inspections say they haven't found corrosion, and others say they can still rule out such damage. During a scheduled refueling and inspection outage started in February, workers at Akron , Ohio -based FirstEnergy discovered a 6.5-inch cavity in Davis- Besse's reactor vessel head, or the lid that covers the reactor core. The corrosion was caused by boric acid from the plant's cooling system that leaked through a cracked control rod drive mechanism tube. About 40 pounds of carbon steel were eaten away. The NRC hasn't deemed the problem a safety concern, but has made broad efforts to investigate the damage at Davis-Besse and to determine if similar problems could be occurring elsewhere. Startup Target Unchanged, But Repair Report Delayed FirstEnergy wants to fix the damaged vessel head by carving out the area of corrosion and inserting a stainless steel plate weighing 300 to 400 pounds. The company estimates the repair will cost $16 million, and sees the plant back on line by late June if the NRC approves the work. If the NRC requires FirstEnergy to install a new reactor vessel head before restarting the plant, Davis-Besse could be off line until as late as early 2004. The company delivered a preliminary repair report to the NRC last week, and was expected to deliver a final, more detailed report this week. But FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said it's taking longer than originally planned to put that final report together. "It will probably be a couple more weeks" before that report is delivered, Wilkins said. The major repair plans remain the same, but many details are taking a while to work out, Wilkins said. The NRC asked FirstEnergy very specific questions about how it intends to make repairs during a conference last week. Despite the delays in producing the final report, Wilkins said FirstEnergy hasn't officially bumped back the plant's projected startup date. But he also said the late June date remains a loose target - one the company issued before it devised repair plans. "That date was soft to begin with," Wilkins said. Some equities analysts have questioned FirstEnergy's estimates from the start, noting that the NRC must give final approval before the plant restarts. In a research report last week, Merrill Lynch analysts said FirstEnergy's startup target is likely too optimistic, and estimated the plant could be down for the summer. NRC spokesman Dricks said the NRC is awaiting FirstEnergy's final report to make its decision on the repair plan. -By Jon Kamp, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4129; jon.kamp@dowjones.com ***************************************************************** 16 NZ: Radioactive body prompts alert © Independent Newspapers Limited 2002. All the material on this page has C A N T E R B U R Y S T O R Y 18 April 2002 By YVONNE MARTIN Christchurch radiation experts have given advice to the country's crematorium workers after a cremated corpse was found to be radioactive. Unbeknown to crematorium staff, the deceased had been injected with Strontium-89, a liquid used to ease the pain of bone cancer. It is absorbed into the bones and remains radioactive in the ashes after cremation. Such cancer patients are supposed to be buried after death. The patient was cremated in Wellington about 18 months ago. Senior scientific adviser Vere Smyth, of the Christchurch-based National Radiation Laboratory, said the problem was discovered before the ash was handled. A physicist visited the crematorium to measure the radiation levels and arranged for the ashes to be stored at Wellington Hospital, which had treated the patient. Dr Smyth said the incident prompted him to write guidelines to help crematoria identify potential hazards. Of 500 to 600 patients treated with radioactive substances a year, a fraction of them die while they are still radioactive. For example, problems can occur with iodine-125 "seeds" – small metal capsules containing radioactive material implanted in the prostate for treating cancer. "The seeds survive cremation, so they are sitting there like hot, little radioactive sources among the ashes," said Dr Smyth. The clinician who administered the treatment was responsible for keeping track of the radioactive material, he said. But it was not always possible to keep track of every patient, so there was a small risk of crematorium staff coming in contact with a radioactive body. Dr Smyth said crematorium staff should use protective gloves and masks as a standard precaution, and routinely handle ashes with implements. Even if they were accidentally exposed to a radioactive body, the dose of radiation would not be dangerous, he said. "We're not talking about radiation sickness or anything like that," said Dr Smyth. "It is more like having more X-rays than necessary, and it could marginally increase your long-term chances of getting cancer from radiation." Special restrictions may apply to where an urn containing radioactive ashes can be kept, said Dr Smyth. But as long as no-one was continuously closer than a metre from the urn, in the first year, and the ashes were not scattered, the risk was negligible. Geoff Jones, of the Canterbury Crematorium in Linwood, said he has re-written his application form for cremation, filled out by funeral directors, to cover the radiation risk. [http://www.knowstuff.co.nz] ***************************************************************** 17 Science Today: Don't belittle radiation risks - Nuala Ahern takes issue with points raised last week in a Science Today article on the risks of nuclear radiation Irish Times; Apr 18, 2002 The title of last Thursday's Science Today article on radiation by Sowby and Turvey was very illuminating. It described radiation as a misunderstood hazard. I agree whole-heartedly that radiation is a hazard. I also agree that it is misunderstood, that is, it is not understood properly by anyone. This is despite, as the authors assert, that more is known about the effects of radiation than about most other carcinogens or toxins. The authors quote the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to demonstrate that the annual dose from Chernobyl is only two microsieverts (a measure of the radioactive dose received by a person) per year, which is less than the five microsieverts per year from nuclear-weapons testing and far less than the annual natural background dose of 2,400 microsieverts. This is disingenuous for two reasons; it does not differentiate between the different types (or qualities) of radiation and it does not adequately reflect the Chernobyl dose. Everyone now accepts that any residual radiation from Chernobyl is negligible. What is still disputed is the effect of an acute dose of radiation contained in a metabolically active compound, a substance that can be taken up by the body. An acute dose, many times normal background level, cannot be compared to a chronic background exposure. Human beings have indeed evolved to live with background radiation as Sowby and Turvey assert, but they have not evolved to live with sudden, relatively large, acute exposure. Yet again, the victims of the Chernobyl accident are having insult added to injury on the anniversary of the accident. They have been told for years by 'experts' that the ill health they are suffering is a 'psychological effect'. As I have said on a number of occasions to the experts, I'd like to put them on a diet of irradiated food and water and see how stressed they get. The fact is that the health effects of Chernobyl arise as part of a potent mix of pollutants that combine industrial chemicals with nuclear radiation. It can now be proven that such a lethal cocktail can certainly produce genetic effects. It is an arguable point that if psychological upset and social unrest are caused by fears of radiation these effects cannot be directly attributable to the radiation. This is analogous to saying that if a pedestrian is hit by a car, the damage is not directly attributable to the driver. The authors say that much of the effect of Chernobyl was due to fear of radiation rather than radiation itself - implying that people's fears are irrational. Following Chernobyl, the authors admit there was an unexpected large increase in thyroid cancer. They also mention that this increase resulted in some deaths. They omit to mention that the thyroid cancers were often more aggressive and less differentiated than the more usual thyroid cancers. They also make it appear that successful treatment of the tumour can be regarded as a cure. In fact, the patients will require continuous monitoring to assess whether the tumour recurs or other tumors develop and will need constant and expensive medication. It was terrible that the children of Chernobyl had to fight for the recognition of these thyroid cancers which arose from Chernobyl. Several years went by before they were treated, and some children probably died as a result - because the radiation authorities were not willing to admit to the increased incidence. This alone is a terrible indictment of the system. At one point in the Science Today article, the authors say 'hereditary illnesses are also theoretically possible but have never been observed in a human population'. Later in the article they assert, 'so far there is no evidence that radiation exposure produced congenital non-malignant disorders in 'Chernobyl children', of the type seen on television'. If hereditary illnesses are theoretically possible, why do the authors not accept, at least as a possibility, that the Chernobyl children might be suffering from radiation effects? They do not seem to be consistent in their own logic. Many radiation scientists would disagree with the 'nothing to worry about' attitude shown by Sowby and Turvey. The UK government recently set up a ministerial committee (CERRIE) to examine whether current risk assessments for ingesting or breathing in radioactive contamination are correct. Over the past 50 years, assumptions about the safety of radiation exposures have continually become more conservative as we learn more about radiation's effects. Comparisons between natural and man-made radiation exposures run the risk of inviting lay readers to infer that apparently low man-made doses, and the practices which produced them, are therefore acceptable. A number of objections can be made against such comparisons. Natural background doses are not without health impact. The UK National Radiological Protection Board estimates that natural background radiation results in about 6,000 to 7,000 cancer deaths a year in the UK. Yet risks from man-made releases are the result of social and political processes; background radiation risks are not. The public has a right to intervene in these social and political processes if they are being exposed to a man-made risk. Nuala Ahern is an MEP for Leinster. She is also a member of the Green Party ***************************************************************** 18 Gibbons seeks funds for Fallon leukemia cluster study April 18, 2002 Associated Press [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — A House panel was asked Wednesday to back a request for $700,000 to help a federal agency complete a study into an epidemic of childhood leukemia cases in the Fallon area. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Reno, said the funds should go to the Nevada state office of the U.S. Geologic Survey, which has been doing a study of water wells in the Fallon area in efforts to pinpoint a cause of the leukemia. Gibbons said he had requested the water study, which resulted in costs and time demands that forced the agency’s Carson City office “to virtually abandon all other projects.” He told the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee the money is needed so the office can complete the cancer cluster study and resume its other projects. The number of young leukemia victims in the farming and military town 50 miles east of Reno has increased to 15. Two have died. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said he has secured nearly $28 million in federal funding for public health projects in Fallon and has helped introduce the Nationwide Health Tracking Act to expand the ability to investigate cancer clusters. Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposed the tracking system to study the link between a person’s health and the environment. Under the Reid-Clinton plan, a national network would be created to track chronic diseases and environmental factors so that any correlation could be identified and monitored. The plan would cost $1 billion over five years. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: Ohio workers carried radioactive particles to S.C. The State | 04/17/2002 | WASHINGTON (AP)  Workers from the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Ohio carried radioactive particles on their clothing to a home, hotel room and nuclear plants in other states, including South Carolina, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The particles, which are too small to see, posed no health risks to the four workers or public, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said. However, "you don't typically see something get out of a site and be picked up like that," said NRC investigator Kenneth Riemer. Last month, three workers left the northwest Ohio plant and traveled to Duke Energy Corp.'s Oconee Nuclear Station in Seneca, where radioactive particles were discovered on their clothing during a routine inspection, Riemer said. Particles also were found on clothing left at a South Carolina hotel and a worker's home in Virginia, he said. A particle was found on the shoe of a fourth worker who left Davis-Besse and traveled to TXU Corp.'s Comanche Peak power plant near Fort Worth, Texas. Federal investigators planned to review safety procedures at the FirstEnergy Corp. plant on Wednesday, Dricks said. "The licensee is supposed to maintain control over radioactive material, and there are indications that they may have been remiss, and that's what we are looking into," he said. FirstEnergy spokesman Richard Wilkins said plant inspectors have tried to determine if the microscopic particles passed by its monitors. "We're not sure it did," Wilkins said. "We don't have any indication that it is necessarily from our plant." Davis-Besse officials were notified March 22 that four workers had carried 13 particles to three states outside of Ohio. The plant notified the NRC on Friday. Wilkins said the plant's procedures for monitoring radioactive material are standard for the industry. Workers typically wear protective clothing while at the nuclear plants, then remove their suits in a safe area where they are screened to make sure radioactive particles do not escape the plants. Finding microscopic particles is not unheard of particularly during refueling, Wilkins said. He said a couple of workers came to Davis-Besse in February and particles were found on their clothing, The plant sent inspectors to the workers' homes and found that there was no danger. A report was then forwarded to the NRC, Wilkins said. Federal inspectors planned to review the screening process at Davis-Besse and the plant's response to the discovery of radioactive particles being found outside the plant, Riemer said. Also last month, inspectors found that longtime leaks had allowed boric acid to eat a 7-inch wide hole almost through the 6-inch thick steel cap that covers the Davis-Besse plant's reactor vessel. "They should have been on the highest alert for safety measures," said Christine Patronik-Holder of Safe Energy Communication Council, a Washington-based watchdog group on nuclear issues. "It certainly says to me that this is a company that is not paying enough attention to the very grave responsibility they have for safety." On the Net: http://www.nrc.gov http://www.firstenergycorp.com ***************************************************************** 20 Greenpeace says nuclear shipment may endanger World Cup The Nando Times: Updated: April 17, 2002 12:48 p.m. ED Agence France-Presse TOKYO (April 17, 2002 10:46 a.m. EDT) - A planned shipment of plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel from Japan to Britain in June poses a potential terrorist target and may endanger World Cup security, environmental group Greenpeace said Wednesday. "The Japanese authorities have prioritized security for the World Cup, yet they are willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of millions of innocent people," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. Security for the shipment, from the Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc. (KEPCO) to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL), was inadequate and would divert resources from the month-long soccer championships, which begin May 31, said the group. "The nuclear industry's plans to load the ship in June will divert significant security resources from the World Cup, because the shipments are themselves potential terrorist targets," Greenpeace said. KEPCO has been in the process of trying to return the 255 kilograms (560 pounds) of fuel - which Greenpeace says is enough for 50 nuclear weapons - after BNFL admitted in late 1999 it falsified the shipment's safety data. A KEPCO spokesman said a date had not been set, but it aimed to return the fuel this year. But Greenpeace said local residents who attended a village assembly held by KEPCO officials in Takahama, some 400 kilometers (250 miles) west of Tokyo, were told the firm aimed to return the MOX fuel - currently stored at a nuclear power plant in the village - in June. Preparations were also underway for two armed ships to depart from Britain to pick up the fuel in April, with arrival scheduled in June, according to Greenpeace. On Monday, KEPCO said it had to make a change to its application to the Japanese government concerning the maximum radioactivity of its cargo, which Burnie called "a significant mistake," and further raised doubts over the safety of the transport. Copyright © 2002 Nando Media ***************************************************************** 21 Gibbons Requests Funding for USGS Leukemia Cluster Study Gibbons (NV02) - Press Release - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 17, 2002 Funding Goes Towards Finding Source of Cancer Cluster Washington, D.C.— Citing the ongoing study being conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) into the leukemia cancer cluster found in Churchill County, Nevada, U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) today requested that the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee provide $700,000 specifically for the USGS State Office in Nevada. “Last year, I requested the USGS undertake a comprehensive and thorough study of the water from wells in Churchill County to assist the State of Nevada in determining a potential source of the leukemia cancer cluster that had been found,” stated Gibbons. “This comprehensive and expensive study has forced the Carson City USGS to virtually abandon all other projects in order to focus on this critically important cancer cluster investigation. Consequently, additional funding for the USGS office in Nevada is necessary to enable it to complete the cancer cluster study and resume its other projects.” The Carson City USGS office, led by District Chief Terry Rees, has been working side-by-side with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Defense, on finding the cause of the leukemia cancer cluster in Churchill County. The Nevada Division of Health Services has also partnered with these agencies, and their studies continue. Gibbons formally requested the $700,000 for the USGS State Office in Nevada in a letter to both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior. A copy of Gibbons’ letter is available upon request. ### ***************************************************************** 22 U.S.: Lawmakers Grapple With Nuclear Waste Storage The Black World Today - Content Articles April 15, 2002 By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON -- For more than 20 years, tens of thousands of metric tons of high-level radioactive waste from commercial nuclear energy plants and government weapons facilities in the United States have been searching for a permanent home. In Washington this week, lawmakers have been arguing over whether the waste stored now in temporary concrete-encased pools at more than 130 nuclear plants and military sites should be sent to Yucca Mountain, a remote and sparsely populated location in the south-western state of Nevada. Similar quandaries confront decision-makers in Russia, South Africa, South Korea and other countries that have proposed the construction of new nuclear power facilities. The nuclear power industry has long supported burying the waste at Yucca Mountain, located 130 km northwest of the gambling city of Las Vegas. In February, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended that 70,000 metric tons of the waste be buried at the proposed site, despite fervent opposition from the state. He argued that storing the waste at one site, rather than throughout the nation, would be safer and more secure. Proponents of the plan -- including the nuclear industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- say the waste would be safely buried, using a combination of natural barriers and hardened steel storage casks, for at least 10,000 years without it leaching into underground water or escaping into the environment. The site is scientifically sound and suitable, said Abraham, whose aim is to open the site in 2010, if it is approved. Lawmakers in Nevada, however, warn that the 58-billion-dollar project would risk the health and safety of people in the state and potentially drive away tourists and lower property values. Critics point to how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently identified 293 unresolved technical issues, ranging from the extent of fracturing of rock over time to the speed with which water can seep through rock and corrode the storage canisters. The Commission must issue a license before the repository can be built. If waste from a storage tank leaks, radiation could be carried by an underground aquifer beneath the mountain to nearby communities, argue critics. Environmentalists also worry that if an earthquake occurs in the area, storage canisters could break or get damaged. The groundwater could also rise, submersing the stored waste, say critics. More than 600 seismic events of a magnitude greater than 2.5 have occurred since 1976 within an 80-mile radius of the site. Last week, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, a Republican, filed a veto against Abraham's decision. Congress had granted Nevada in 1982 an unusual power to challenge any presidential decision about Yucca. Lawmakers must now approve or reject Guinn's veto. The House is expected to back the administration, while the Senate vote remains uncertain. "I am outraged, as are the citizens of Nevada, that this decision would go forward with so many unanswered questions," said Guinn. Opponents of the Yucca dump also argue the proposal threatens the environment and safety of the entire nation because it will involve massive shipments of radioactive waste. Dubbed "Mobile Chernobyl" by environmental activists, the plan to move the waste to Yucca would involve about 100,000 shipments by truck, train and barge that would pass through about 44 states - and within one mile of more than 50 million people - over the next 30 years. Opponents to the Yucca site, instead, advocate storing radioactive waste as close as safely possible to the reactors whence it came. "It's not just a Nevada problem, it's a problem our whole country faces," Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada said at a protest rally here Tuesday. He urged fellow Senators to reject the proposed nuclear dump. The Department of Energy, in an assessment of the Yucca proposal, projects there could be 210 to 354 crashes involving nuclear waste as it travels across country to the Nevada site. "An accident involving a truck transporting massive levels of radiation, and a school bus carrying forty kids is a very real possibility," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, a national environmental organization. Television advertisements against the dump targeted at Republican Senators are expected to start airing soon in Northeast states, he said. Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a national advocacy group founded by consumer advocate turned politician Ralph Nader, said terrorists could also target the shipments. "Nuclear waste transportation casks have not been properly tested to ensure they won't release radiation in a crash," she said. Activists say the administration's energy policy -- which calls for more nuclear power plants -- will only exacerbate the problem by creating more radioactive waste in need of safe storage. "We need an energy policy that doesn't lead to a legacy of waste," said Chris Williams, executive director of Citizen Action Coalition, an advocacy group in the state of Indiana, which recently successfully thwarted plans to construct two nuclear power plants. For more discussion on this article and to see what others have to say click on the link below to go to discussion forums. editors@tbwt.net Copyright © 2002 The Black World Today. ***************************************************************** 23 EPA meeting is called a raid Denver Post.com By Mike Soraghan [msoraghan@denverpost.com] Denver Post Washington Bureau Thursday, April 18, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A New York congressman accused EPA Administrator Christie Whitman of launching an early-morning raid on the files of her in-house watchdog Wednesday to try to get hold of embarrassing documents. But bewildered Environmental Protection Agency staffers said there was no raid - just a routine, cordial meeting about an office transfer. Whatever happened, it represented a further escalation in the bizarre bureaucratic battle between Whitman and the Environmental Protection Agency's national ombudsman, Robert Martin, who helped residents of Denver's Overland Park community get radioactive waste moved out of their neighborhood. Whitman has been trying for months to transfer Martin to the EPA's Inspector General's Office, against his wishes, saying it will make him more independent. Martin lost a court decision last week that gave Whitman a window of several days to get him transferred before he could renew his legal appeals. According to e-mails provided by Martin's assistant, Hugh Kaufman, Whitman jumped into action, demanding that the transfer be complete by Friday. According to Kaufman, that just happens to be the first day that an administrative court could block the transfer. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who has been working with the ombudsman's investigation into the handling of the World Trade Center site, found the bureaucratic haste to be suspicious. "All this needs now is a couple of "plumbers' to come in the middle of the night to break into the office," Nadler said at a hastily called news conference at the Capitol. "What's the rush? . . . The sooner she can control those files and take them out of the hands of the ombudsman, the sooner a coverup of the facts can begin." But Eileen McMahon, spokeswoman for the Inspector General's Office, said there was no confrontation over files. She said she and one of Martin's employees, along with several others, held an informally scheduled meeting at 8 a.m. Wednesday to talk about taking an inventory of the files. "I'm floored to hear this iteration of the meeting," McMahon said. "It was very cooperative and very cordial. It was a very straightforward meeting." Still, the maneuvering has Overland Park residents worried, because they're counting on Martin's help in monitoring the EPA's cleanup of the Superfund site. "We don't want our files destroyed," said neighborhood activist Deb Sanchez. "Given the propensity of EPA to lose, classify, and withhold documents, we are very concerned." All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post ***************************************************************** 24 N-waste leak at Sellafield Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Radioactive contamination found in groundwater Paul Brown, environment correspondent Thursday April 18, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Radioactive contamination has been leaking into groundwater under Sellafield in Cumbria from 50-year-old tanks containing thousands of tonnes of untreated nuclear waste. An urgent investigation is under way to find out the extent of the leaks and how to control them so that radioactivity does not reach the water supply. There has been increasing concern over the state of the tanks and £100m has been spent on a new building to enable them to be emptied. However, this has not yet been completed. Tests are continuing after the nuclear installations inspectorate revealed that technetium 99 was discovered in a borehole on the site as long ago as last November. Technetium 99 is a byproduct of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from two plants which British Nuclear Fuels operates on the site. It remains active for 200,000 years and is known to accumulate in the bodies of shellfish and lobsters. The NII said in a statement to the New Civil Engineer, which reveals the contamination today, that the quantities so far found posed no public risk but investigations were continuing. "The NII has requested BNFL's proposals for control of the radioactive material that has entered the ground and expects to receive this soon," an NII statement said. "BNFL is carrying out further investigations to find out how much technetium 99 is present and if any more substances have leaked into the ground. "There is no immediate cause for concern. BNFL has been working hard to ensure that there is no hazard to the public," the NII spokesman added. The NII said the source of the leak was believed to be sludge storage tanks in building B241, which hold about 3,000 tonnes of waste. "These old tanks have been suspected to be leaking for some years and recent modifications have been made to address this." A November 1998 NII report stated: "The B241 [tanks], constructed in the early 1950s, are considered to be in an unacceptable condition for long term storage. The pre-stressed concrete tanks have shown serious signs of deterioration, including corrosion of reinforcement, cracking of the concrete and seepage." Work on the building which will enable the tanks to be emptied began in 1998. Emptying is due to start this year but is dependant on NII approval. The cleaning up of what BNFL calls "historic wastes" is of increasing concern to the government, and the total nuclear liabilities at the site are now estimated to exceed £34bn. Last November the government conceded that BNFL was technically bankrupt since its liabilities exceeded its assets. The leak will only add to the bill that the taxpayer faces to clean up the wastes, the legacy of the need to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons during the cold war. For years nothing was done about the tanks but the NII, the government's safety watchdog, has become increasingly edgy about the state of some facilities at Sellafield, particularly when they contain dangerous wastes. It will want the contaminated groundwater recovered but this may prove expensive even if it is technically possible. Nuclear consultant John Large said: "These buildings are being used well past their design life to store radioactive waste which has outstayed its welcome. BNFL seem always to be fighting a rearguard action." The environment agency is also investigating the contamination. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 25 AU: Uranium mine on hold news.com.au - [18apr02] MINING at mining giant Rio Tinto's controversial Jabiluka uranium site will remain on hold until the traditional owners of the land endorse the project. Rio Tinto chairman Sir Robert Wilson said the company's position was clear. "We've said unequivocally already there will be no development at Jabiluka without the consent ... of the traditional owners," Sir Robert told Rio Tinto's annual general meeting in Melbourne today. Sir Robert said the company was discussing environmental issues with the traditional owners of the Jabiluka site, the Mirrar people. "There is to the best of my knowledge a discussion going on between the company and the local communities, the traditional owners, about how the Jabiluka site can be best be made safe, in ensuring it doesn't cause any environmental problems," he said. Sir Robert's comments followed demands by shareholder Dave Sweeney, representing the Australian Conservation Foundation, that the company guarantee uranium mining would never be carried out at Jabiluka, in the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park. "It remains unpopular and the Aboriginal traditional owners remain opposed to any development at the site," Mr Sweeney told the meeting. Sir Robert said that a guarantee that the site would never be used for uranium mining could not be given by Rio Tinto. "That's a sovereign question," he said. Earlier, environmental protesters wearing protective jumpsuits had joined angry unionists protesting outside the Rio Tinto meeting. Distributing leaflets with messages from the Mirrar people, the environmentalists called for the mining company to rule out developing or selling the proposed mine and to immediately embark on rehabilitation of the site. After the shareholder meeting, Rio Tinto chief executive Leigh Clifford said the company had no plans to sell the Jabiluka project. Mr Clifford said the company would prefer to concentrate on developing the Ranger uranium mining operations in the Northern Territory. AAP ***************************************************************** 26 Gov't, Idaho Agree on Waste Cleanup Las Vegas SUN April 17, 2002 IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) - The federal government will begin within two years cleaning up buried radioactive waste in south-central Idaho and will pay a series of fines if it misses more deadlines, under an agreement reached Wednesday. The cleanup at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory's Pit 9 has been delayed repeatedly since the late 1990s. The Energy Department and state started talks a few months ago. "This is a major breakthrough toward removing buried waste from Idaho because for the first time we have a commitment tied to on-the-ground performance instead of studies and more paperwork," Gov. Dirk Kempthorne said. The agreement calls for the Energy Department to remove plutonium-contaminated material from one section of Pit 9 between March and October 2004. The 80 to 100 cubic yards of buried waste will be repacked in drums and removed at an estimated cost of $75 million. The results will allow officials to assess how best to finish the project, estimated at $10 billion. The state wants all the waste removed and sent to a federal dump in New Mexico, but the Energy Department contends it still has the option of stabilizing the waste in the ground. The waste was buried in the 1950s and '60s at the site 40 miles northwest of Idaho Falls. It is contaminated with plutonium from the nation's weapons programs. Under the agreement, the Energy Department will pay $800,000 in fines to the state for earlier delays. An additional $5 million will be set aside for possible future payments if deadlines are missed. Kempthorne said the money would fund environmental projects. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Energy Secretary defends Yucca Mountain to congressional panel Las Vegas SUN Today: April 18, 2002 at 6:50:25 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was offering the Bush administration's first public defense Thursday of its choice of Yucca Mountain as the nation's long-term home for radioactive waste. Abraham was testifying at the first congressional hearing to review the Yucca Mountain project since President Bush recommended the Nevada site in February and Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn - under special rules devised by Congress - rejected that recommendation 10 days ago. The House Energy and Air Quality subcommittee was expected to give Abraham a mostly friendly reception. Its chairman is Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leading advocate in the House of Representatives for the Yucca Mountain project. Congress must ratify Bush's decision within 90 days or find a new burial site for high-level nuclear waste, which is now stored at 131 sites around the country. The House is expected to vote for the project by early May. Opponents are focusing on the Senate, where they also face a tough fight. Abraham formally endorsed Yucca Mountain in January, calling it "scientifically sound and suitable" as a repository for as much as 77,000 tons of highly radioactive material generated by commercial nuclear power plants and the government's weapons program. The site is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, at the edge of the Nevada Test Site, where the government tested generations of nuclear weapons. "There are compelling national interests that require us to complete the siting process and move forward with the development of a repository as Congress mandated 20 years ago," Abraham wrote in January. He said increased unease about terrorist attacks makes it even more important that the nation's radioactive waste be consolidated. Opponents, including Nevada's elected officials and environmentalists, argue the site is unsuitable because of lingering questions about the durability of the containers that will hold the radioactive waste and fears that groundwater beneath the facility could be contaminated. Opponents also say transporting the spent nuclear fuel from power plants across the country to Nevada by truck, train and possibly barge presents unacceptable safety risks. A panel of scientists created by Congress and the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, have raised questions about the Nevada site. Representatives of both were testifying Thursday. On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov [http://www.ymp.gov] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 Energy Secretary defends Yucca Mountain to congressional panel April 18, 2002 Associated Press [online@rgj.com] Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was offering the Bush administration's first public defense Thursday of its choice of Yucca Mountain as the nation's long-term home for radioactive waste. Abraham was testifying at the first congressional hearing to review the Yucca Mountain project since President Bush recommended the Nevada site in February and Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn _ under special rules devised by Congress _ rejected that recommendation 10 days ago. The House Energy and Air Quality subcommittee was expected to give Abraham a mostly friendly reception. Its chairman is Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leading advocate in the House of Representatives for the Yucca Mountain project. Congress must ratify Bush's decision within 90 days or find a new burial site for high-level nuclear waste, which is now stored at 131 sites around the country. The House is expected to vote for the project by early May. Opponents are focusing on the Senate, where they also face a tough fight. Abraham formally endorsed Yucca Mountain in January, calling it"scientifically sound and suitable"as a repository for as much as 77,000 tons of highly radioactive material generated by commercial nuclear power plants and the government's weapons program. The site is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, at the edge of the Nevada Test Site, where the government tested generations of nuclear weapons. "There are compelling national interests that require us to complete the siting process and move forward with the development of a repository as Congress mandated 20 years ago,"Abraham wrote in January. He said increased unease about terrorist attacks makes it even more important that the nation's radioactive waste be consolidated. Opponents, including Nevada's elected officials and environmentalists, argue the site is unsuitable because of lingering questions about the durability of the containers that will hold the radioactive waste and fears that groundwater beneath the facility could be contaminated. Opponents also say transporting the spent nuclear fuel from power plants across the country to Nevada by truck, train and possibly barge presents unacceptable safety risks. A panel of scientists created by Congress and the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, have raised questions about the Nevada site. Representatives of both were testifying Thursday. On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Spratt can't likely block plutonium The Herald [http://www.heraldonline.com] Lawrence M. O'Rourke Herald Washington Bureau (Published April 17‚ 2002) WASHINGTON - As Gov. Jim Hodges declared he would assign state troopers to South Carolina's borders to block federal shipments of plutonium, a key U.S. lawmaker conceded there's virtually no chance Congress could intervene in time to halt the first convoy of the highly radioactive material. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said he and Rep. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., are rushing to tack an amendment banning the shipments onto a defense authorization bill scheduled for committee action early next month. But even if the committee and then the full House approve the measure - over Bush administration objections - it's not likely the Senate would act in time to stop the first few shipments, Spratt said. While Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has not scheduled floor action on the defense authorization bill, the Senate's legislative pipeline appears full for several months. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has announced plans to ship weapons-grade plutonium from Rocky Flats, Colo., to the government's Savannah River Site as soon as May 15. Abraham said the federal government intends to transport 34 metric tons of plutonium in 76 trailers to the site near Aiken. In a letter to members of Congress, Abraham said the federal plan calls for nine shipments a month from mid-May to June 2003. The plan, said Abraham, "calls for disposing of 34 metric tons of plutonium by fabricating it into mixed-oxide fuel, thus assuring a pathway out of South Carolina for all plutonium being transported there." Weapons-grade plutonium would be converted into fuel for nuclear reactions for commercial power generation. But Congress has not approved funds for this conversion, Spratt said. Nor is the eventual shipment out of South Carolina certain, members of Congress said, noting that there's not yet a safe and secure place to take it. Spratt said in an interview that he and Graham have explored legislation that would commit the federal government to a $4 billion project with an "immobilization facility." That facility would put the fuel after its commercial use into special secure containers until it could be removed to Yucca Mountain, Nev., or some other site designated by the federal government for permanent storage. The Spratt-Graham legislation could establish a federal "exit strategy" in the event that the federal plan to use and remove the plutonium from South Carolina fails. Spratt said the legislation might include a $1 million a day fine for the federal government to pay South Carolina if the federal government failed to "immobilize" the plutonium and remove it from the state. Spratt said the controversy stems in part from a Bush administration decision to "pare back" a Clinton administration promise to include an "immobilization facility" as part of the South Carolina project. While Spratt conceded there was little Congress could do right now to halt the shipments, he said he was encouraged by "movement on both sides" in negotiations between Abraham and Hodges. Spratt applauded Hodges for "driving a hard bargain" in the negotiations. Hodges said that "until there is a legally enforceable agreement that holds the federal government to its word, I will do everything at my disposal to ensure that plutonium does not enter South Carolina." Hodges' spokesman Jeff Reiff said the governor would use state troopers or seek court orders to stop the shipments into South Carolina. Hodges has also said he will lie down in the road to prevent the plutonium from being delivered. Hodges is on-target in seeking "ironclad assurance" from federal authorities that the plutonium will be removed from the state, Spratt said. Spratt said Abraham was under pressure to act because of a deal between the United States and Russia to destroy plutonium that terrorists could use in attacks against the United States. Preventing nuclear weapons "We want to remove as much loose plutonium as possible so terrorists do not get their hands on it," Spratt said. "One thing the terrorists do not have is nuclear material, the key ingredient in making a nuclear weapon. "It would take only 30 pounds of plutonium to make a nuclear weapon," he added. Abraham noted in a letter to Hodges that it is "essential" to begin the shipments so that he could fulfill a federal plan to close the Rocky Flats weapons facility by 2006. Spratt said he and Graham were discussing legislation that would ratify any deal cut by Hodges and Abraham. Also Tuesday, state Attorney General Charlie Condon announced that as South Carolina's top legal official he has the authority to enter an agreement with the Department of Energy regarding plutonium shipments - with or without Hodges' approval. Condon is a Republican candidate for governor and has sparred with Hodges, a Democrat who is seeking re-election, over several major statewide issues. Condon said it's clear Hodges does not have the legal authority to block the shipments. "The Energy Secretary has full authority under national security law to move plutonium around the country. He doesn't want to do that, he doesn't want to have a confrontation. I don't think anyone in this state does," Condon said. To avoid the showdown, Condon said, there are two options: federal legislation or a legally enforceable agreement called a record of decision. But Abraham will not agree to the consent decree requested by Hodges because it could jeopardize national security, Condon said. The consent decree would allow a federal judge to oversee the process. Abraham rejected the courts' involvement, saying it would amount to "an attempt to conduct ... national security and foreign policy affairs through the judicial process" and "goes beyond what we can do." Copyright © 2002 The Herald, South Carolina ***************************************************************** 30 Hodges renews discussions about plutonium shipments Beaufort Gazette Online Wednesday, April 17, 2002 • Beaufort, South Carolina Published Wed, Apr 17, 2002 By AMY GEIER Associated Press writer COLUMBIA -- Gov. Jim Hodges met with public safety officials Tuesday to renew discussions about how to handle plutonium shipments that could arrive in South Carolina as early as May 15. Hodges had similar talks with state Public Safety Director Boykin Rose and others last August when federal Energy officials first said they were planning to start moving the radioactive material from Rocky Flats in Colorado to the Savannah River Site near Aiken. At the time, Hodges threatened to lie down in the road to block the plutonium-laden trucks from entering the state. "There are a number of public safety concerns," Hodges' spokeswoman Cortney Owings said Tuesday. "Tons of plutonium would be traveling along interstates." The governor has vowed to intercept any shipments unless he gets firm agreement -- subject to federal court enforcement -- that the plutonium will not remain in South Carolina permanently. Hodges received a 30-day notification from Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Monday and raised the stakes by promising to "do everything at my disposal" to prevent the shipments from entering South Carolina without a legally enforceable agreement. "We have federal guidelines that dictate how hazardous material should be shipped," Col. Anna Amos, commander of the State Transportation Police, said Tuesday. "We are É fine-tuning a plan we submitted to the governor earlier." Amos said her officers will be looking at the shipping documents to make sure everything is done by the book as well as inspecting the trucks, drivers and routes for each shipment. "We have a special group that handle the plutonium-type shipments," she said. The hazardous materials unit is made up of 11 officers including the supervisor, Amos said. Also Tuesday, state Attorney General Charlie Condon announced that he has the authority to enter an agreement with the Department of Energy regarding plutonium shipments -- with or without Hodges' approval. Condon is a Republican candidate for governor and has sparred with Hodges, a Democrat who is seeking re-election, over several major statewide issues. Condon said it's clear Hodges does not have the legal authority to block the shipments. "The Energy Secretary has full authority under national security law to move plutonium around the country. He doesn't want to do that, he doesn't want to have a confrontation. I don't think anyone in this state does," Condon said. To avoid the showdown, Condon said, there are two options: federal legislation or a legally enforceable agreement called a record of decision. Copyright © 2002 The Beaufort Gazette ***************************************************************** 31 Yucca: Other people's money Thursday, April 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: Steve Sebelius It would be easy to suggest that some Nevada politicians were being a bit hypocritical, asking Nevada residents to donate to a state fund to fight the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump without giving any money themselves. So very, very easy. And so I will. Before Tuesday, when Las Vegas One reporter Anne Yeager began calling local politicians and asking about their personal contributions to the Nevada Protection Fund, none had given a dime. They're going to now, of course. But from March 27 -- when Gov. Kenny Guinn, U.S. Sens. John Ensign and Harry Reid, Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera and Mayor Oscar Goodman attended a news conference at which Guinn enjoined all Nevadans to donate at least $1 to the fund -- to this week, none of the leaders had reached into his own pocket. (Not many Nevada residents have, either, but those who did gave more than the state's leaders. My friend Andrea Engleman, a longtime Northern Nevada newswoman, gave more than Guinn, Ensign, Reid, Herrera and Goodman combined, up till now. Her donation: $5.) Flacks for the leaders say they had discussions about donations prior to this week, but those plans seemed to crystallize when media types started telephones ringing. Now, we're told, Guinn, Reid and Ensign plan to give $1,000 each to the fund. Herrera will give $250 this month, and $250 next month. (Neither U.S. Reps. Shelley Berkley nor Jim Gibbons attended the news conference, but Berkley has donated $200 and Gibbons hasn't given anything, preferring to wait to see if Congress votes to override Guinn's veto before donating.) Goodman failed to return calls about his contribution, but a spokeswoman says the mayor donated $1,250 two weeks ago to a city-sponsored anti-Yucca account. It was a different story March 27, when Herrera said he'd rather use his campaign war chest to get elected to Congress and fight Yucca Mountain from Washington, D.C. (the votes will be over by then, of course). And last Thursday, when I asked Mayor Oscar Goodman how much he'd personally given, he joked that he didn't know where to send his check. Funny, since the city seemed to know right where to send the $100,000 in taxpayer money that the City Council approved to fight the dump. And Herrera has led the commission in approving $2.5 million in tax money for the protection fund. In the wake of Guinn's news conference, the governor was heard to wonder why no one was giving. Perhaps they were waiting for someone to lead by example. How much more credibility would the politicians' appeal have had if they were the first ones to toss cash into the hat? Instead, until this week, we couldn't help but get the impression that for those with access to other people's money, the word sacrifice is something that applies only to us. • And speaking of stopping nuclear waste in the Senate, it seems James Jeffords, the newly independent senator from Vermont, is planning to vote to send nuclear waste to Nevada. That's a strong commentary, coming as it does from the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Jeffords released a tepid statement Wednesday paying lip service to a "full and open discussion" of the issue, although he acknowledged he's been a dump supporter. Of course, the reason that Jeffords chairs the committee is U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, who happens to be majority whip (the No. 2 man in the Senate) because of Jeffords. Reid was widely credited as the man who gently coaxed Jeffords to leave the Republican Party and caucus with the Democrats, which gave Reid's party a one-vote majority and put Reid into the highest position in Congress ever occupied by a senator from Nevada. Reid has said no quid pro quos were discussed during this gentle coaxing of Jeffords; the chairmanship of the environment committee -- for which Reid was in line -- wasn't offered as an incentive. And nuclear waste was apparently never discussed. Which raises a good question: Why the hell not? Reid, after all, has made fighting the dump his raison d'tre in Congress, and by all accounts, he's done a good job cutting the project's budget and delaying its progress. But there's a party in the White House now that loves nuclear waste like teen-agers love Playboy, and things have changed. Reid is a strategic thinker, and he had to know that nuclear waste was coming to Washington, D.C., with the George W. Bush administration. Why not extract a promise from Jeffords when the time was ripe? Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor says that Nevada-sponsored ads now running in Vermont may give Jeffords political cover: He can say he changed his mind because of an outpouring of opposition from his constituents, and avoid the perception that a deal was made with Reid months ago. "We wouldn't be running these ads if we didn't need to," Naylor says. Then again, Reid wouldn't need to run the ads had he made a pact with Jeffords before the Democrats took control of Congress, and he became the second most powerful man in the club. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 32 Budget deficit won't stop city from fighting Yucca Thursday, April 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal REVIEW-JOURNAL A $10 million budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year probably won't prevent the city of Las Vegas from contributing more money to Nevada's public-relations campaign against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. But the Las Vegas City Council on Wednesday postponed a decision on how much money it would allocate to the Nevada Protection Fund. Mayor Oscar Goodman said he would be in favor of providing additional funds on top of the city's $100,000 contribution to the fund. The fund, which was set up by the state, is being used to finance a public relations campaign against the repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "If there is any way we can participate more than we are, I'd be in favor of that," Goodman said, in comments that were echoed by several other council members. The City Council was responding to a call from Gov. Kenny Guinn for more contributions to the fund as the project faces critical tests in the House and Senate. Both houses of Congress will vote on whether to override Guinn's veto of the project. If a majority of both houses votes to override the veto, then the project will go forward. If either house sustains the veto, then the project is dead. The 2001 Legislature appropriated $4 million for the fund, and Guinn has since raised an additional $2 million. The governor is now seeking $3 million more from the state's Interim Finance Committee and has asked local governments, individuals and businesses to contribute to the fund. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 33 Yucca: Transportation hearings to wait Thursday, April 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Lawmaker says he'll take up issue after Yucca nuke waste dump is approved By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Congress will turn its attention to nuclear waste transportation, but only after lawmakers approve Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the destination for thousands of shipments of highly radioactive material, an energy subcommittee chairman says. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said he will consider bills to address concerns by lawmakers who are learning that trains or trucks bearing highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel might travel through their districts on their way to Nevada if a repository is licensed. Nevada lawmakers have been raising questions about the safety of nuclear waste shipping as they campaign against a resolution that would finalize President Bush's designation of Yucca Mountain for a repository over the veto of Gov. Kenny Guinn. Speaking to reporters this week, Barton said transportation issues invariably are raised when lawmakers discuss nuclear waste, He did not say whether there is a new focus on transportation stemming from the Nevadans' campaign. Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., have been approached by a number of colleagues for more information on the issue since they began stressing shipment safety, aides said. "Obviously, transportation is going to be a big issue," Barton said. "We're going to really work with the local groups to get minimal disruption. No question (nuclear waste) can be transported safely. The routes are something that will have to be worked on." Barton, chairman of the House energy and air quality subcommittee, today will host the first congressional hearing on Yucca Mountain since Guinn delivered his formal a statement of disapproval on April 8. Nevada lawmakers do not expect to win many if any converts at the session, since the 30-member subcommittee is heavily composed of lawmakers who favor the Yucca repository. Barton said he expects the panel to approve a Yucca Mountain bill next week, and to have it reach the full House late this month or early in May. The Senate is expected to take up the legislation later this summer. At today's hearing, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is scheduled to defend his recommendation that national security and "compelling national interests" justify shipping and burying 77,000 tons of radioactive waste 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Jared Cohon, chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that told DOE in January its Yucca Mountain science was "weak to moderate," will testify. Also to speak will be Gary Jones, who heads the branch of the General Accounting Office that issued a report critical of the Yucca program last December. Gibbons, Berkley and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., will represent Nevada. Gibbons will make the state's case that Yucca Mountain is geologically deficient for nuclear waste storage, while Berkley is expected to focus on transportation safety and possible terrorist threats. Ensign is expected to discuss transportation and Yucca alternatives. On the pro-Yucca side, the Nuclear Energy Institute will be represented by its president Joe Colvin. Laura Chapelle, chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission, will speak for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Meanwhile on Wednesday, DOE representatives said the department has not focused on what would happen if Congress votes to uphold Guinn's veto and effectively kill the Yucca Mountain program. At a meeting of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, committee member Milton Levenson asked if DOE has done any work on a "Plan B" in such a case. DOE liaison Carol Hanlon said federal law would require the department to tell Congress what other steps could be taken at that point. "I don't think we've even considered it at this point," added DOE attorney Dwayne London. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 34 Op: Nuclear Freedom NYPOST.COM By WILLIAM TUCKER April 18, 2002 WITHIN 90 days, Congress will vote on whether to proceed with a permanent storage site for nuclear waste on Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The vote became necessary on April 8, when Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn vetoed the project. Congress can override the veto by simple majorities in both houses. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has vowed to defeat the proposal, but all sides agree the vote will be breathlessly close. Although no one has talked about it much, our ability to deal with a free hand in the Middle East is riding on the outcome. In an April 11 editorial entitled "The Missing Energy Strategy," The New York Times lamented the Senate's failure to free us from imported oil by tightening fuel economy standards. On the other hand, the Times celebrated, the Senate did adopt "a 'renewable portfolio standard' that would require utilities to generate between 5 and 10 percent of their power from wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy and hydro, 10 percent." It's this kind of muddleheaded analysis that keeps us running in circles. We get almost none of our electricity from oil, let alone foreign oil. Only 3 percent of our electricity is generated from oil and only 3 percent of our oil goes to generating electricity. Coal carries 50 percent of the burden, nuclear 20 and natural gas 16 percent. We could generate 50 percent of our electricity with windmills and solar panels (not that it would be physically possible) and our oil dependence wouldn't fall one drop. The vast majority of our oil (68 percent) goes into one use - transportation. The other uses (industrial steam, home heating) have ready substitutes. If the Arab states cut off our oil, we'll feel it in one place - at the gas station. Trying to conserve our way out of this dilemma is a fool's errand. In 1975, Congress mandated that the auto companies achieve a fleet average of 27.5 mpg. The automakers met that goal long ago - and it hasn't helped a bit. First, better gas mileage just makes it cheaper to drive. Total miles driven has climbed steadily since 1980 and so has oil consumption. Second, the improved fleet average was achieved by making cars smaller and lighter - and therefore less safe. The National Academy of Sciences estimates between 1,300 to 2,600 additional traffic deaths a year because of CAFE (corporate average fleet economy). The public has responded by switching to SUVs, which are bigger, stronger, and only have to average 20.7 mpg. Last year SUV's outsold standard cars for the first time in history. Trying to tighten the screws on gas mileage won't conserve oil. The only reasonable alternative is to switch large portions of our auto economy to some alternate fuel. Electric and natural-gas cars have been tried. The resulting slow-moving vehicles (basically glorified golf carts) have been adopted for buses and urban delivery trucks. But both have poor acceleration and limited range. The only vehicle that seems truly capable of gasoline-type performance is a car fueled by hydrogen. Last year, the Department of Energy announced it was dropping CAFE and switching its efforts to a hydrogen car. Chrysler, BMW and Toyota have already developed experimental models that perform like gas-powered vehicles. All that's needed to promote their sales is an infrastructure. But that's where the problems begin. What hydrogen-fuel advocates never say too loudly is that hydrogen is not a natural resource. There's no free hydrogen sitting around waiting to be mined or exploited. It's all tied up in methane (CH4) and water (H2O). The most practical way to get large quantities of hydrogen is to extract it from water - using electricity! Switching a large portion of our transportation fleet to hydrogen would mean doubling our electricity-generating capacity. Where could we get this new power? The only practical answer is nuclear. We already use too much coal (400 million more tons a year than in 1980) and burning it has raised concerns - real or imagined - about greenhouse gases. All the good hydroelectric sites are already in use, and natural gas supplies are expensive and unpredictable. At best, solar and wind could add about 10 percent to the grid - as California has accomplished with huge subsidies. The only power generation that can be expanded considerably without massive disruption of the environment is nuclear. In 1973, when the Arabs boycotted the West and set off the first "Oil Crisis," we imported 36 percent of our oil. Today, we import 60 percent, and the figure rises every year. Dependence on foreign oil is our No. 1 military vulnerability. If we are ever going to free our hands to deal with crises around the world, we must reduce our ever-increasing dependency on foreign oil. A fleet of hydrogen-powered cars, run on nuclear energy, is the only reasonable alternative. William Tucker is a contributing editor to The American Spectator. ***************************************************************** 35 Yucca ads focus on a handful of states Las Vegas SUN April 17, 2002 By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- The lobbying campaign on Yucca Mountain in the Senate has become a game of inches in which a handful of senators could decide the fate of the proposed nuclear waste repository. That narrow margin has created daily speculation among Yucca watchers and lobbyists for and against the controversial project: Which senators might be on the fence? It appears Nevada officials may focus on 10 senators in five states where Nevada leaders believe it may be worthwhile to run anti-Yucca television advertisements: Missouri, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming. An ad, which stresses the risks of shipping waste, began running in Vermont on Tuesday. The other states may be next, a state official said. The ads are needed because of the 10 senators, only two -- Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and possibly Jean Carnahan, D-Mo. -- seem to be considering a vote against Yucca Mountain, aides and insiders said Tuesday. Senators are being heavily lobbied by both the nuclear industry, which wants the dump built, and by Nevada lawmakers and lobbyists, who have been trying to keep the dump out of the state for two decades. Congress will decide the issue in the next three months. Millions will be spent during that time trying to influence a few on-the-fence senators. In part because of the intensity of the issue and the high-pressure lobbying efforts, some senators won't say which way they're leaning. "The audience for all of these events is just 100 people," said Dan Geary of the Nevada chapter of National Environmental Trust, which helped organize anti-Yucca events nationwide. "Will they buy the view of the nuclear industry -- more accurately, will the nuclear industry be able to buy their view -- or will they stand up for their constituents and protect the tens of millions of people along the transportation routes?" Yucca supporters are turning up the heat. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has taken a pro-Yucca stance, on Tuesday urged lawmakers not to be swayed by "the barrage of negative spin by Yucca Mountain's detractors." "The scare tactics and fear mongering by Yucca Mountain's opponents may have good shock value, but they don't hide the fact that sound science has deemed the site safe and reliable," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs. Industry lobbyists have been on Capitol Hill in high numbers, anti-Yucca activists say. "We continue to speak with as many members of the House and Senate as we can and will continue to do that into the summer," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Mitch Singer said. NEI has run pro-Yucca advertisements in The Washington Post in recent days and ran an advertisement in Time magazine this week that generally touts the benefits of nuclear power: "Nuclear. The Clean Air Energy." On Tuesday NEI officials held a press conference with other pro-Yucca groups and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leading Yucca advocate. Barton, House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee chairman, plans a Yucca hearing Thursday morning, and hopes to move the pending resolution to the full committee by Tuesday. Barton's strategy is to press for a full House vote by early May to give it momentum going into the Senate, spokeswoman Samantha Jordan said. Meanwhile, Nevada took to the airwaves Tuesday in Burlington, Vt., with the first 30-second anti-Yucca TV commercial running on the NBC and ABC affiliates. Environmental groups helped the state pay for air time. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has consistently favored a Yucca repository. He still does, spokesman David Carle said. So does Vermont's independent Sen. James Jeffords, spokesman Erik Smulson said. Asked if there was a chance Jeffords could change his mind, Smulson said, "No. He's solid." In a statement released Tuesday, Jeffords said Yucca Mountain was the "safest and most viable plan offered to date for disposing of our nation's nuclear waste." Jeffords said his constituents rely on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for one-third of their energy and it has a 29-year-old stockpile of waste. "The alternative to Yucca Mountain would be to store spent nuclear fuel in 'dry casks' on the banks of the Connecticut River, which I believe poses serious and unacceptable environmental and safety risks," he said. Jeffords and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., often are close allies. Reid is credited with having quietly coaxed Jeffords to drop his Republican allegiance, which tipped the balance of the Senate to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and the newly independent Jeffords. Reid downplays his role, but as part of the deal he offered Jeffords the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee, a position he coveted. It's not known how Reid might be using this relationship to influence Jeffords' vote. Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor would not comment, except to say Reid is hopeful the advertisement will have some effect. Naylor added that state officials would not bother to run commercials in states where the senators already were leaning against Yucca Mountain. "If you can get there through private discussions, there is no reason to take to the air," Naylor said. While a number of senators are not yet saying publicly where they will vote on Yucca, some are dropping clear signals. + In Wyoming, where waste would travel on its way to Yucca Mountain, Republican Sen. Craig Thomas has a long record of favoring the repository and has not changed his stance, spokesman Dan Kunsman said. He will continue to listen to arguments made by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who met with Thomas recently, Kunsman said. Republican Sen. Mike Enzi has not taken a public stance on the issue, and likely won't announce it until he casts his vote, spokesman Coy Knobel said. He plans further discussions with both Ensign and Reid. + In Utah, Republican Sen. Robert Bennett has supported Yucca Mountain in the past, but is reviewing some "new science" on the issue, spokeswoman Mary Jane Collipriest said. She could not elaborate. A spokesman for Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch was not available. Hatch has supported Yucca in past votes. + Missouri's Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan has voiced concerns about transporting waste, but not said how she will vote. Republican Sen. Kit Bond is likely to vote in favor of the project, a spokesman said. + In Oregon, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith has not publicly stated his position. "He's still looking at the issue," spokesman Joe Sheffo said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden seems to be leaning "90 percent" against Yucca, said Michael Carrigan, program director for Oregon PeaceWorks, who met Tuesday with top aides for Wyden and Smith. He is concerned about transporting waste in the state among other issues, Carrigan said. Smith is a tougher sell, Carrigan said. He has voted in favor of Yucca-related legislation in recent years. Oregon activists plan a few grass-roots campaigns, but they have little money. "Money for television ads could really make a big difference, really give us a chance," Carrigan said. Nevada lawmakers and anti-Yucca activists are not giving up on anyone who might have even the slightest doubts about supporting the project. Capitol Hill was a flurry of lobbying activity Tuesday as environmental groups from around the nation flocked to a rally and then the offices of their lawmakers. Activists held 44 meetings Tuesday, mostly with Senate staffers, said Kevin Kamps of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, who helped organize the event. Activists plan to make Yucca an issue in their local news and opinion pages, several said. They plan to flood Senate offices with e-mails, and postcards that read: "Do you know where your nuclear waste is? Yucca Mountain is closer than you think. Keep nuclear waste off our roads and rails." "After today the real focus will be on the ground, in the states," Kamps said. "If they want to hear from constituents, they are going to hear from constituents." Kamps met Tuesday with the staff of Michigan's Democrat Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. It's not clear how the two will vote, Kamps said after the meeting. The senators' aides were intrigued by the argument that waste will continue to pile up in Michigan as nuclear reactors continue to produce it, even if Yucca is constructed and begins accepting waste, he said. Waste must be stored on-site at plants for several years in cooling pools before it can be moved. "I think we made quite an impression with that," Kamps said. "They don't have a good answer for that." Few people in Missouri favor Yucca because so much waste from the East would travel the state's roads and rails, said Terri Williams, former mayor of Webster Groves, a town of 23,000 eight miles outside St. Louis. She was encouraged by her meeting Tuesday with Carnahan staffers, she said. Williams lives "11 houses away" from railroad tracks that would be used to haul waste and has been a vocal anti-Yucca activist for years. "It's not good for the people of Nevada, and it's certainly not good for the people of Missouri," she said. "Right now we're the 'Gateway to the West.' With this proposal we'll become the floodgates" to nuclear waste shipments, she said. The push for more money to pay for anti-Yucca advertising continues: Nevada has raised about $78,000 and Clark County commissioners voted Tuesday to add $1.5 million. Reid, Ensign and Gov. Kenny Guinn are planning to lead by example and donate personal money, their aides said today. Staffers would not confirm how much the politicians planned to give or when, although an announcement could come as early as today. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 Goodman eyes Utah meeting in Yucca fight Las Vegas SUN Today: April 18, 2002 at 11:11:09 PDT By Diana Sahagun and Mary Manning Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman could take the city's fight against Yucca Mountain to Salt Lake City, hoping to persuade officials there to side with the state of Nevada. Goodman said he met Tuesday with a representative from Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's office, who invited the mayor to speak before the Salt Lake City Council about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Goodman said he would try to set up the meeting to include Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev. As Congress takes up the issue, Nevada leaders are looking for political and financial support against the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Goodman announced the proposed meeting as the city is considering giving more money to help fund the fight against Yucca Mountain. Las Vegas has already pledged $100,000, and City Manager Virginia Valentine is scheduled to give the council a ballpark figure of what the city can reasonably afford in two weeks. The North Las Vegas City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to contribute $10,000 to the fight. Gov. Kenny Guinn and Sens. Reid and Ensign have asked for public, private and government contributions to help the state's lobbying effort against the dump. A legislative committee gave $3 million in matching funds, the Clark County Commission voted this week to donate $1.5 million after previously donating $1 million. A fund to accept public donations has collected more than $78,000. "While $10,000 may not seem like a lot, we are one of the smaller cities and do not have deep pockets," Mayor Michael Montandon said after the vote. "We do want to support this effort." A number of Nevada towns and businesses have already given, including the tiny city of Wells offered $1,367 and Mesquite, about 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas, gave $50,000. Just two days after a review of the tentative 2003 budget showed a $1 million shortfall, Las Vegas Council members agreed that the city should pitch in additional funds, even if it means postponing projects. The council has already set aside $100,000 to fight Yucca Mountain in the 2003 fiscal year budget, which begins July 1. Nevada has a $6 million fund to cover lobbying and legal expenses related to fighting the proposed dump, but state leaders say they need more money to fight the nuclear energy's powerful lobbying efforts. Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald said taking money from other projects would be like "robbing Peter to pay Paul," but said time is of the essence and that the city has to do whatever it can to help the fight. Assistant City Attorney John Redlein said there was nothing by statute to suggest it is inappropriate for the city to donate the money as long as it is "for the general public good." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 37 Editorial: County hits home run, city whiffs Las Vegas SUN Today: April 18, 2002 at 8:59:30 PDT Clark County moved quickly after the Legislature decided last week to transfer $3 million into the Nevada Protection Fund -- but only if matched by local governments. Although the county already contributed $1 million last year, commissioners voted 5-2 on Tuesday to pitch in again with another $1.5 million. Government normally doesn't move that fast but this is not a normal time -- it's an emergency. The money is needed to fight the federal government's plan to bury high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. There is no time to waste, as Congress is expected to vote by mid-summer on a motion to override Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto. No one could have asked more of the county. It realized the need, mobilized its staff, publicly debated the issue and a majority of its commissioners voted in the best interest of the state. The city of Las Vegas, however, showed none of that leadership at its meeting on Wednesday. Mayor Oscar Goodman is quick to talk tough about Yucca Mountain. He says he will file a racketeering lawsuit against the Department of Energy. He says nuclear waste trucks crossing his border will be met by city marshals and that he will personally arrest the first driver. He calls DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham "a piece of garbage." Dozens of other mayors have gotten earfuls of his rhetoric. But what happened during the City Council meeting Wednesday, during the state's most perilous time of need? Goodman and the City Council decided the issue could wait another two weeks. Yes, the council pledged to contribute some money over and above the $100,000 it has pledged from its next fiscal-year budget. But that budget doesn't begin until July and the Congress may have voted by then. And how much more money can the state count on? That won't be known for two weeks, yet every minute counts. Las Vegas, with a population of 500,000, is put to shame by the city of Mesquite, 80 miles to its north. With only 15,000 residents, it was one of the first to put up money -- $50,000. Nevadans would be better served if the city of Las Vegas would act as big as it talks. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Congress opens Yucca Mountain debate Las Vegas SUN Today: April 18, 2002 at 11:11:09 PDT By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON --Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told a congressional panel today that his department could begin shipping nuclear waste to Nevada by 2010 if Congress approves the Yucca Mountain repository based on "overwhelming scientific evidence." Testifying to a House subcommittee this morning, Abraham stressed that scientific research has proven that the site is suitable, and he urged the lawmakers to approve the plan and allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make the final decision. "In my view, there's overwhelming scientific support for this project," he said, noting that he expected a licensing application by the end of 2004. "We have done more than sufficient research to move to the next step." In Congress' first debate on Yucca, supporters received a favorable response from the House's Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. The hearing started with 10 of 11 members with opening statements speaking in favor of Yucca. Chairman Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, has been a vocal supporter of the dump. "I have been surprised by continual delays not related to site characterization, but I have been pleased with what I have heard from the scientists," Barton said. "We need a place where spent nuclear fuel can go and be safe for 10,000 years. It should not remain forever in more than 100 facilities throughout the nation." The hearing marked the opening of what could be a final congressional debate on the controversial 15-year-old project. Both chambers of Congress are expected to vote on the issue by the end of July. At issue is a resolution that endoreses the site, introduced last week after Gov. Kenny Guinn vetoed President Bush's approval of the site. If lawmakers approve it, they will have effectively overridden Guinn's veto. Barton hopes the full House will vote by early May. Congress has to act on the issue in the next three months under law, and the House was expected to pass it quickly onto the Senate, where Nevada leaders feel they have the best chance at stopping the issue. Barton has said he wants the issue to move through Congress quickly and wanted his subcommittee to pass the resolution by Tuesday and move the issue to the full Energy and Commerce Committee. Yucca supporters quickly tried to puncture Nevada arguments on the transportation of nuclear waste and stressed the issue of terrorism, saying it was better to have the nation's high-level nuclear waste buried in one spot rather than spread around the country. Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Ohio, who jokes about being named after a Mark Twain character, invoked Twain to make his argument. "He suggested that you are well served to put all your eggs in one basket -- and then watch that basket." He also addressed the controversial issue of the number of shipments it would take to haul 77,000 tons of radioactive waste to Nevada. State officials have said it could mean 100,000 truck shipments or up to 3,000 a year, but Abraham asserted that it would be "less than one shipment per day." Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., challenged Abraham on the shipments' safety. "I totally disagree with you," Markey said. "I think these mobile Chernobyls are not safe on the roadways and railways of America." Abraham was questioned by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a dump supporter, on what would happen if Yucca Mountain is not approved. Abraham said the federal law does not have a provision as to what would come next, and he said nuclear plants would begin seeking their own solutions such as a private repository on Indian land in Utah. "What you're telling us," Dingell said, "is you're going to have a helluva mess on your hands and the country will." About the only subcommittee member to challenge the issue was Markey, a longtime nuclear foe, who raised questions on the 293 unanswered issues about Yucca Mountain raised by the NRC. Abraham said those would be answered during the licensing process. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., led the charge against Yucca. "I must tell you, Yucca Mountain is not, nor will it ever be, geologically sound," said Gibbons, who holds a master's degree in geology. "Nobody in this room can predict what the next 10,000 years will bring at Yucca Mountain -- no matter whether we are discussing seismic activity, volcanic activity, meteorological activity or otherwise." Ensign urged the committee to consider alternatives such as recycling and characterized Yucca Mountain as an "expensive mistake." "For those who claim to be fiscal conservatives, you really have to take a look at this from a cost standpoint," Ensign said. He said it was understood that the House would approve Yucca, but warned of the Senate battle to come. "We've got some parliamentary tricks up our sleeves that you will see that we will pull," he told the subcommittee. The hearing was continuing throughout the day with a people representing the nuclear industry, the environmental movement and a number of regulators and experts scheduled to testify. In other news, Guinn, Ensign and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., each plan to donate $1,000 each to the anti-Yucca campaign fund, they announced Tuesday with little fanfare. The coordinated announcement came after several Nevada reporters asked the politicians if they had given money after making pleas for donations to the public. The money is being used to finance lawsuits challenging Yucca and fund anti-Yucca public relations campaigns, including television commercials to be run in various states. "They just felt it was the appropriate thing to do, to set an example," Guinn spokesman Greg Bortolin said. "He just felt like he would do the right thing and put his money where his mouth is." Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said, "They would not have asked their neighbors to contribute if they were not willing to contribute themselves. We're all in this together." Reid planned to give money from his personal credit card, Naylor said. Berkley had already donated money -- $200 -- to the fund. She quietly made a donation last week, spokesman Michael O'Donovan said. Gibbons intends to give an undisclosed amount of money, spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Campaigners aim to raise N-plant heat CNN.com - - April 17, 2002 By Bodil Jacobsen BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- Campaigners against nuclear reprocessing took their fight to close two controversial plants to Brussels on Wednesday. Environmentalists went to the European Parliament to question representatives of Sellafield in northwest England and La Hague in Normandy in France about a report that concluded their concerns over radioactive discharges from the two plants were justified. German Greenpeace spokeswoman Susanne Ochse told CNN she hoped the hearing, held by the European Parliament's Petitions Committee, would result in tougher measures against nuclear reprocessing plants. "The Committee of Petitions has a duty to protect citizens in the EU from negative impact and should take the petitioners seriously," she said. "As long as the effects of radioactivity on humans are not clear, nuclear waste should not be released." The Brussels meeting took place seven years after a group of German citizens gave in a petition raising concerns over the radioactive pollution in the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean due what they said was the nuclear processing facilities at Sellafield and La Hague. The report, produced by the World Information Service on Energy in Paris for the European Parliament Directory General for Research Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Programme, found the petitioners' claims relevant. Postcard petition Sellafield's operator British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which was represented in Brussels on Wednesday by its head of safety John Clarke, rejected claims that waste from the plant was a danger to public health. "Sellafield's discharges are tightly regulated and controlled under UK and EU legislation and numerous studies have confirmed that our activities do not threaten public health or the marine environment," Clarke said in a statement. The campaign group ShutSellafield also says residents on the east coast of the Republic of Ireland suffer higher-than-average cancer rates and blamed it on two million gallons of radioactive water released as waste each day from the Sellafield plant. Led by Ali Hewson, the wife of U2 singer Bono, they have stepped up their campaign to close Sellafield by providing all 1.3 million households in Ireland with a pre-paid petition postcard that they are urged to sign and send to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles. BNFL has responded by saying that most of the waste from Sellafield is rainwater collected on the site, with more than 99.99% of the total radioactivity retained. In Germany, tens of thousands of German anti-nuclear activists in recent years have tried to block transports of nuclear waste heading to reprocessing plants in France and Britain as well as thwart the return of the reprocessed fuel rods. The Petitions Committee, which continues the meeting on Thursday, cannot force regulations on Sellafield and La Hague. However, Greenpeace hopes the European Parliament will introduce ruling reducing waste products from reprocessing plants being led into the sea. © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 40 Tainted water transfer to get public hearing Thursday, April 18, 2002 By LAWRENCE HAJNA Courier-Post Staff CAMDEN Environmental officials will hold a public hearing on a controversial plan to transfer water containing low levels of radioactivity from a Gloucester Township Superfund site through Camden County sewer mains, Rep. Rob Andrews said Wednesday. It will be on May 15, said Andrews, D-N.J., adding a location and time could be announced today. "It is my intention to make sure they make this an interactive public hearing," Andrews declared. Hundreds of letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls have flooded the offices of county freeholders and the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority since the Courier-Post first reported the plan March 30. They've expressed fears over the CCMUA's plan to pipe water tainted with low levels of radium and uranium from under the GEMS Landfill Superfund site to its South Camden treatment plant, where it would be diluted with other effluent and discharged into the Delaware River. The water would flow through mains under Gloucester Township, Runnemede, Bellmawr, Mount Ephraim, Gloucester City and Camden. Earlier Wednesday, the Camden County freeholder board filed a motion for a restraining order in U.S. District Court. It complained the CCMUA did not adequately inform the public about the plan, designed to assist in cleaning up the GEMS Landfill. The freeholders asked for an order directing a public hearing involving the CCMUA, the state Department of Environmental Protection, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and a trust of past users paying for cleanup of the closed dump. The petition states the freeholders want the hearing to address the "potential risks of harm to the environment and the public." Freeholder-Director Jeffrey Nash said he is troubled by a lack of information about the process, including whether it' s been done elsewhere. "I don't know if this is reasonable or not," he said. " That's the problem." CCMUA Deputy Director Andrew Kricun defended the plan, saying the public won't be exposed to radiation and it's better than leaving the water under the landfill to contaminate drinking water supplies. The CCMUA, under an agreement with the DEP, EPA and the landfill trust, plans to transfer the ground water for a six-month trial period. The transfer could last up to 10 years if the process proves successful and officials don't decide to order another treatment option. The DEP and EPA could order upgrades to a treatment facility built at the landfill by the trust. Federal environmental officials believe the uranium and radium isotopes found in the water beneath GEMS result from naturally occurring radioactive minerals. They want to treat the water because it also contains industrial pollutants from the landfill, which closed more than two decades ago. Gloucester Township resident Patricia Iacovelli opposes the plan. She said the CCMUA sewer main wraps around her Woodland Avenue property, less than 100 feet from her house. She worries water tainted by radioactivity could leak into her well water supply. But, she said, "I have a feeling that it's already been determined, no matter what's said at the hearing." ***************************************************************** 41 Our military is the country's largest and least accountable polluter Thu, 4.18.02, 9:13 PM PT War of the world Some days, it seems like the U.S. military juggernaut is at war with the entire planet. And it is. Literally. The horrors of the Middle East have captured people's attention for the last week, and the U.S. response has been seen in our news largely in terms of the Bush Administration's desire to invade Iraq, and the potential diplomatic damage to U.S. aspirations for a global military empire. TV newscasts invariably focus on some guy with good posture, standing at a podium, government seal and flag behind him, gravely intoning that the peasants are revolting. Meanwhile, to the thundering disinterest of the networks, last week an outstanding public interest group called the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) leaked a draft bill, now in circulation among congressional committees, that would give the Department of Defense wide-ranging exemptions from America's environmental laws. According to PEER, under the draft bill, "bombing ranges, air bases, and training grounds would not be subject to key protections contained within the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Noise Control Act, Migratory Bird Treat Act, or the Endangered Species Act." Chalk this up as another piece of handiwork long wanted by right wing extremists -- this time in the Pentagon -- that is suddenly "doable" in Congress after 9-11. The argument, now made with a straight face in each of the armed services and in carefully stacked expert committees across Beltwayland, is that protecting habitat, groundwater, air, and even soldiers from degradation and toxic exposures interferes with military "readiness." A Pentagon official testified before a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month that for starters, the DoD would seek legislation in the 2003 Defense Authorization Act to shield their operations from compliance with anti-pollution and wildlife protection statutes. Never mind that almost all of the environmental laws named already contain perfectly adequate exceptions for military activity. The problem isn't that our environmental laws have interfered or will interfere with the Pentagon's wars on people and buildings; for that matter, they haven't interfered all that much with the Pentagon's wars on the planet, either. Our military is already the country's largest and least accountable polluter. War, of course, besides being bad for children, is also bad for other living things, and one nuclear bunker-buster (especially when followed by a few bazillion more) can ruin your whole biosphere. But even the more common sorts of turkey shoots waged by the U.S. military tend to be ecological disasters -- remember the Kuwaiti oil fires? -- and on a smaller scale, our armed forces are notorious for making messes on their land, and for refusing to clean them up. It's not all that surprising; an institution whose raison d'etre is dominance isn't about to mitigate its destruction just because the victims can't fight back. Anything from rare plants to endangered birds and small mammals to Afghan civilians can attest to that. No, the problem for DoD advocates of this bill is that there are environmental laws at all; and to the bill's creators, and their allies in Congress and in the Bush Administration, the very existence of environmental laws is offensive. Soon, no doubt, we'll hear that they are treasonous, by virtue of impeding "readiness." Nature casts its lot with the terrorists, and everything, even the yellow-bellied gnatthwacker, is either with us or against us. Why does it matter, given the number of Superfund sites and other enviro-catastrophes already on Department of Defense land? (Let's not even get into the Department of Energy, whose nuclear facilities at places like Hanford, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River rank among the Western Hemisphere's worst ongoing environmental disasters.) Despite our military's tendency to discount environmental protection as something sissies do, the military remains one of the country's largest land owners, and some of that land has become important wildlife habitat. That's particularly true for bases near large urban areas, where acres set aside for buffer or training exercises comprise some of the last oases from encroaching sprawl. Given a choice between suburbia and a wild place, most critters head for the wild place -- even if the place gets shot or blown up every now and then. The DoD's drive to exempt itself from the nation's green laws is purely ideological, with no particular complaint beyond the usual conservative carp that such laws prevent a landowner (in this case, the DoD) from doing what it wants wherever it wants. It does not seem to have occurred to these patriots that soldiers drink fouled water and get exposed to toxic waste, too. (No terrorist can cut down a buff leatherneck in his prime faster than, say, leukemia.) But you can be sure our patriots have calculated that if the military can be exempted from laws protecting the planet for no particular reason, then so can any new landowner that buys the surplus military land in a few years. Or, why not exempt other federal lands, too, like, say, the national park system? And what's good enough to protect the military (or our national parks) fer darn sure ought to be a fine standard for the rest of our country. It's a boot in the door. As you'll note, the desire to let the market decide what air we breathe or water we drink, a strategy George W. Bush already applied with great success in Texas, has made the need for some hippie holiday like Earth Day just about obsolete there. Ask the folks who breathe the air in Houston. Remind them to chew that air thoroughly before they swallow. And toast them with some bottled drinking water. Soon, for the yellow-bellied gnatthwacker, it'll be An Army of One. Reclaim History! Things that happened on Apr. 10 that you never had to memorize in school: 1848: Mass meeting of Chartists, campaigning for civil rights. Kennington Common, Surrey, Britain. A procession to the House of Commons to present a petition for civil rights was prevented by authorities. 1864: Archduke Maximilian, supported by a French army, became Emperor of Mexico. 1919: Mexican anarchist revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata ambushed and assassinated by Mexican troops, age 29, Chinameca, Mexico. One of the main participants in the peasant uprisings against the central government's authority from 1910 until his death. 1945: U.S. medical staff at an Oak Ridge, Tennessee hospital inject plutonium into the survivor of a car accident. Thus begins an enormous (and until the 1990s, top-secret) U.S. government program, which did not end until the mid-1970s, to investigate the effects of radioactive materials when injected into live humans. 1947: Jackie Robinson appears in first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers, becoming the first African-American to play major league baseball after 78 years of segregation. The game, until a franchise moved to Atlanta in the mid-'60s, was played entirely in northern cities. 1963: $45 million nuclear submarine Thresher implodes during a test dive east of Boston. All 129 aboard were lost. 1971: 90-year-old Jeanette Rankin, the first U.S. Congresswoman and the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. entry to both World Wars, leads 8,000 women in march on Pentagon to protest war in Vietnam. 1981: U.N. approves world treaty assuring no civilians should be attacked with "napalm, mines, or booby-traps." Defeated by U.S. veto. 1981: Brixton Riots: Beginning of a weekend of rioting in the racially mixed section of London, known as Brixton. Young people set fire to buildings and cars, pelted cops with bricks, and looted stores. Roving gangs directly fought cops with bricks, iron bars, and Molotovs. 1981: Imprisoned IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands elected to British Parliament. 1995: California judge rules that assault-type weapons manufacturers can be sued for carnage resulting from the product's use. Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the weekdaily Straight Shot for WorkingForChange. If you would like to be alerted as soon as his column is posted, please send a request to editor@newsforchange.com To see more of his work, click here. To respond to this article, report a problem or provide general feedback to the editors of this site, click here. Soon, for the yellow-bellied gnatthwacker, it'll be An Army of One. © 2002 WorkingForChange.com Printer-friendly version © 2002 Working Assets. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 The Unsound Science of Yucca Mountain A Statement on Behalf of Nevada Joe Egan April 16, 2002 Thank you for offering Nevada the opportunity to express its views. I'm the lead nuclear attorney on Nevada's legal team. Though I've tried to follow from a distance the science of Yucca Mountain, there is a Nevada man in this room who has followed it in far more depth than I. That man is Steve Frishman, who has worked for Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects as a reviewing technician for many years. My job is to take what Steve and his technical colleagues have found and translate it for a three-judge panel in the D.C. Court of Appeals. If you have a real technical question, I may have to refer you to Steve. Yucca Mountain is in play, as you know, on Capitol Hill. For at least until July of this year, Congress will debate Yucca Mountain issues, in at least three separate Congressional hearings. Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Governor of Nevada has issued his Notice of Disapproval of the Yucca Mountain site designation, and Congress now has 90 days of consecutive session to act to override that disapproval by majority vote in both houses. In Congress, the debate has shaped up to be virtually all NIMBY - that is, those who don't want the nuclear waste in their back yard, but want to put it in Nevada's back yard, battling those who don't want one of the 108,000 shipments going anywhere near their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it's hard to find a member of Congress outside the Nevada delegation who seems truly concerned about the science, or the safety, of the site. The science issue really doesn't win votes, and Congress apparently perceives that $7 billion spent over 17 years means the science debate is all but over. In large part, this is due to the sweeping representations made by Secretary Abraham, and the OCRWM leadership, about the resolute "soundness" of the science at Yucca Mountain. If you believe Secretary Abraham, then the science issue is over. The suitability of the mountain has been determined, and we're left with a few solvable NRC licensing issues. I suspect many of you scientists know better. I know I do. Indeed, this assembly appears to be one of the few constituencies left where the "science" of Yucca Mountain may actually matter. And therefore, I would like to remove my attorney's hat for an afternoon and replace it with my old science hat. As many of you know, I was previously a nuclear engineer, and I also hold a degree in Physics. At MIT, where I studied science, there's a term we would have used for the representations made by DOE bureaucrats about the current state of the science at Yucca Mountain. We would have called it "junk." Or possibly just "bunk." Which is not to sleight the many excellent scientists who have studied Yucca Mountain, and the many excellent scientists from the around the world who have reviewed those studies. On Nevada's behalf, we commend their work, and point instead to the shocking mismatch between what they have actually found and what the DOE bureaucrats have said they've found. Let's start with a few overriding assertions made recently by the DOE, which have led to some bizarre paradoxes. First Assertion: Under the law, DOE has determined the Yucca Mountain site to be "suitable" for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Under the law, this determination is final, unless a court overturns it. Understand that this is not a statement of "we believe our studies will ultimately conclude the site is suitable." Under the law, DOE has declared that the site IS suitable. Under the law, this means the relevant scientific inquiry is over. Paradox No. 1: In this room, we all know that the scientific inquiry is decidedly NOT over. DOE certainly knows the scientific inquiry is not over and, in fact, has barely begun in some areas. In the New York Times recently, and in a recent Washington Post Op-Ed by the Secretary, DOE postured that the scientific inquiry will be finished "as we go" over the next 100 to 300 years. NRC pointed to 293 unresolved technical issues in 9 critical areas. The ACNW, the NWTRB, and the IAEA/NEA peer review group have each pointed to gaping holes in the science for Yucca Mountain. So the science is done, but it is not done. Second Assertion: Under law, DOE must present, and has represented it will present, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a "substantially complete" license application for Yucca Mountain within 90 days of any Congressional override of the Governor's Notice of Disapproval. If such an override occurred in July, this license application would be due as early as this October, and certainly no later than November. Paradox No. 2: DOE itself has said it will not be ready to file a license application until at least December 2004, more than two years from when it is due. DOE's contractors at Yucca Mountain told the GAO it might be 2005 or 2006 before a license application can be filed. NRC's licensing rule, 10 C.F.R. Part 63, requires that any application filed for Yucca Mountain must be "substantially complete." So the license application is ready, and it is not ready, on science that is done, but that is not done. Third Assertion: According to the Secretary, Congress should approve his site designation, because NRC will decide, and is capable of deciding, the site suitability controversy in the context of licensing Yucca Mountain. This was also the view espoused by the New York Times in a recent right-thinking editorial. Paradox No. 3: Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Congress divided jurisdiction over Yucca Mountain between DOE, EPA, and NRC. DOE was given the job of determining site suitability, EPA the job of setting the primary health and safety standard, and NRC the job of licensing. Under rules now in effect, NRC will not in fact determine site suitability. NRC will simply determine whether an artificial waste package yet to be fully designed by DOE can meet EPA's emission standard for a period of 10,000 years. That is not a site suitability determination. Fourth Assertion: DOE says the geology of the Yucca Mountain site is "suitable." According to DOE, the repository comprises a "mix" of man-made and geologic barriers. There are no scientific "showstoppers" at Yucca Mountain, says DOE. Paradox No. 4: Because DOE has attempted to engineer a waste package to isolate radioactive waste for 10,000 years, the duration of the EPA regulatory standard, the geology of Yucca Mountain has been rendered irrelevant. Of course there are no site suitability showstoppers, because the mountain does not matter. As noted recently by the IAEA/NEA peer review group, we're left with a Yucca Mountain project that can perhaps one day demonstrate regulatory compliance, but which has not even attempted to demonstrate long term safety. We're left with a project whose radionuclide emissions will peak thousands of years after the waste packages fail, a project that could be licensed on the beach at Hilton Head, irrespective of long term safety. So the conclusion is this: NRC will determine site suitability, but it cannot determine site suitability, on an application that is ready, but that is not ready, on science that is done, but that is not done, for a geologic repository that is not geologic. But please don't take my word for it. I've left you with a number of handouts representing the work of others - real scientists, not lawyers. The first is a summary of an affidavit filed for us by the former head of the Yucca Mountain project, Dr. John Bartlett. The second is a summary of an affidavit filed for us by a former two-term NRC Commissioner and CalTech-trained physicist, Dr. Victor Gilinsky. The third is a bulletized summary of various key findings and conclusions made by principals of the ACNW, the NWTRB, the GAO, and other independent reviewers of the science of Yucca Mountain over the past year or so. The fourth is a summary of the shocking conclusions released recently by the IAEA/NEA peer review group of DOE's total system performance assessment for Yucca Mountain. And lastly, there is a comparison of the findings of the peer review group and the NWTRB with recent statements made in writing by the new Director of OCRWM. I call your attention particularly to the peer review report, and especially its Appendix 3, which deals with Yucca Mountain hydrogeology, as well as its conclusions about the statistical integrity, or lack thereof, in DOE's models. The essence of this rather long report is painfully simple: We don't yet "have a clue" about the hydrogeology of the saturated zone at Yucca Mountain. We don't even know enough yet to build a model, let alone certify that the model demonstrates site suitability. Though we've tried to demonstrate regulatory compliance for the repository, we haven't yet even attempted an affirmative safety case. The performance models are crude, not state-of-the-art, and commit statistical faux pas equivalent to mixing inches and gallons. Repository performance has unacceptable uncertainty, and cannot be demonstrated with "any degree of realism." Let me highlight verbatim just a few of the many troubling conclusions from the peer review report: + "The saturated zone flow system at Yucca Mountain is very complex and not sufficiently understood to propose a conceptual model for a realistic transport scenario." + "The level of understanding of the hydrogeology of the site, based on [USGS] documents, is low, unclear, and insufficient to support an assessment of realistic performance." + "DOE's sensitivity study does not give any clues to the important pathways for the water in the system." + In DOE's model, "increased ignorance leads to lower expected doses, which does not appear to be a sensible basis for decision-making." + The panel "observed that currently there is a very large range of estimated doses based on probabilistic analysis (often extending to four orders of magnitude or more). This large range presents a credibility problem." + The panel "observed a tendency for more focus to be given to the demonstration of numerical compliance with the proposed regulatory requirements than on developing and presenting an understanding of repository performance. I'm still enough of a scientist to find all this to be more than a little disconcerting. Though I'm normally on the industry side of the law, I find myself squarely allied in this case with Nevada. I sought out this job. And I must add, I've had no trouble enlisting other scientists to help Nevada out, as you will soon see if this case goes to NRC. As a lot, I've found scientists to be a remarkably honest bunch. I don't think you can find a scientist who will stand in front of this body and proclaim the Yucca Mountain site, if it's not altogether irrelevant, is ready to be pronounced "suitable." On the flip side, the number of scientists who have expressed grave reservations about the thoroughness and readiness of the work done so far by DOE is ever growing, their voices growing ever louder. I submit to you that, notwithstanding the politics, notwithstanding the enormous pressure on the scientific community by government and the industry to push this project along, notwithstanding all the money to be made, the scientists will win in the end. In the end, Yucca Mountain will not serve as this nation's high-level nuclear waste repository. Because you, ladies and gentlemen, will not permit it. ***************************************************************** 43 Yucca Letter opposing Wyoming position Letter to the Casper Tribune -- Dismay at Delegation Support - By Marta Adams Casper Tribune Casper, Wyoming Dear Editor: As a native of Wyoming, I am dismayed that Wyoming's congressional delegation has supported the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This support exists despite overwhelming evidence that Yucca Mountain is scientifically the wrong site to store, much less geologically isolate, the world's most hazardous waste from the human and natural environment. Yucca Mountain not only will not provide a solution to the ever accumulating nuclear waste problem, but it poses a multi-billion dollar liability for American taxpayers, many of whom do not benefit from nuclear generated electricity. From Wyoming's perspective, the Yucca Mountain Project presents hazards that your leadership may not fully appreciate. I ask that you consider the following: Because this country's high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel is currently accumulating at nuclear power plants, mostly east of the Mississippi, the Department of Energy (backed by the politically potent nuclear industry) proposes to use this country's highways and rail corridors to transport the nuclear waste to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. To dispose of this undesirable waste, DOE proposes an unprecedented 38 year shipping campaign to move the waste across thousands of miles of highways and rail lines, exposing the population and the environment to unacceptable risks along the way. It is expected that truck shipments to Yucca Mountin would be a daily occurrence through Wyoming. Rail shipments to Yucca Mountain would likewise present daily risks along Wyoming's rail corridors. To prevent any number of transportation-related calamities presented by the Yucca Mountain Project, Nevadans need your help. Please contact your representatives in Congress and tell them that you do not want thousands of nuclear waste shipments passing within harm's way of your state. Although the State of Nevada has submitted a Notice of Disapproval of the Yucca Mountain Project to Congress, both houses of Congress can override Nevada with a simple majority vote. If you need additional information concerning the Yucca Mountain Project and its negative implications for all Americans, the State of Nevada has a useful website: www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/ Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue affecting us all. Respectfully, Marta Adams Sr. Deputy Attorney General Nevada Attorney General's Office (775)684-1237 ***************************************************************** 44 Statement of Kenny C. Guinn Governor of The State of Nevada Before The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcomittee on Energy and Air Quality OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR One Hundred One North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701 KENNY C. GUINN Governor April 18, 2002 Honorable Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Kenny C. Guinn and I am Governor of the State of Nevada. I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments for the Committee's consideration. Due to conflicting commitments, I am unable to be present in person, and I apologize for that. I am disappointed, however, that the Committee was unable to accept Mr. Steven Molasky to testify for Nevada in my place. Mr. Molasky, a respected Nevada businessman, is a senior member of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects and would have made a valuable contribution to your deliberations. I am likewise disappointed that your Committee was unable to accept the testimony of Mr. Robert Loux, the longstanding Director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Project, and perhaps the most knowledgeable Nevadan when it comes to Yucca Mountain issues. Nevada considers the Yucca Mountain project to be the product of extremely bad science, extremely bad law, and extremely bad public policy. Moreover, implementing this ill-conceived project will expose tens of millions of Americans to unnecessary nuclear transport risks. For that reason, we believe Congress should take no further action with respect to the Yucca Mountain project. Attached to this statement are the Notice of Disapproval and an accompanying Statement of Reasons I recently filed with the U.S. Congress pursuant to Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Please consider the Statement of Reasons to represent my written testimony to the Committee. In addition, I would like to supplement this testimony with the following: More on the Unsound Science of Yucca Mountain Yet another document, perhaps the key document, has now appeared from within the scientific community that excoriates the scientific work of the Department of Energy (DOE) in connection with Yucca Mountain. Numerous independent scientific reviewers have now evaluated the project during the past year, and all have reached the same conclusion: There is nowhere near enough information to certify the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for high-level nuclear waste disposal, and the information that is available suggests the site is woefully unsuitable geologically. This latest report, however, reaches shocking new conclusions. It is a peer review report commissioned by DOE from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency (IAEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These agencies assembled some of the world's leading scientists to evaluate, over several months, the total system performance of Yucca Mountain as represented by DOE and its computer models. Among other things, these leading scientists concluded that DOE lacks sufficient information even to build a model to predict the suitability and hydrogeologic performance of the proposed repository. According to the peer review group, the water flow system at Yucca Mountain is "not sufficiently understood to propose a conceptual model for a realistic transport scenario." Moreover, according to the peer review group, DOE's level of understanding of the hydrogeology of the site is "low, unclear, and insufficient to support an assessment of realistic performance." DOE's sensitivity studies in its computer models "do not give any clues to the important pathways for the water in the system." Perhaps most troubling of all, in DOE's performance model of Yucca Mountain, "increased ignorance leads to lower expected doses, which does not appear to be a sensible basis for decision-making." It is truly amazing to me, as an elected executive official, that DOE commissioned this peer review report many months ago, and then made a final "site suitability" determination to the President and the Congress in spite of its stunning conclusions. It shows once again, in my view, that politics has long prevailed over science when it comes to Yucca Mountain. This is another reason for Nevada to redouble its efforts to stop this project - government bureaucrats seem unable to pull the plug, even in the face of shocking independent evidence that the science is bad or nonexistent. A copy of the IAEA/NEA peer review report is attached, together with a brief summary of its findings. The PECO Solution and the Myth of Proliferating Storage Sites It is almost certain that, even if Yucca Mountain proceeds, every nuclear utility in the United States will nonetheless have to build an interim dry storage facility for their inventories of spent nuclear fuel, if they have not already done so. This is because Yucca Mountain will not be ready to receive high-level radioactive waste until long after spent fuel pools at reactor sites have been filled to capacity. Moreover, as I have explained in my Statement of Reasons, Yucca Mountain will not reduce the number of storage sites across America for 60 to 100 years, even if no new plants are built, and Yucca Mountain will never reduce the number of storage sites as long as nuclear reactors continue to be built and operated. Attached to this statement is a copy of the agreement DOE signed with PECO Energy in June 2000. As explained in my Statement of Reasons, the PECO deal is the safe, practical, economic alternative to a severely flawed Yucca Mountain project. It represents what utilities are planning to do, and will do anyway, in the real world. The only question about the PECO solution is whether it will be implemented using funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund, or from some alternative funding source. I urge the Committee to explore the PECO deal carefully, and to question DOE and the nuclear industry as to why it has recently been ignored, or even hidden from public view. Transport Issues The final issue I want to bring to your attention again is the nuclear transportation issue. Some have accused Nevada of fear mongering simply for honestly and sincerely raising the many questions that nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain pose for our nation's citizens. But these are extremely legitimate questions, and they deserve legitimate answers. In its Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain, DOE's own numbers point to as many as 108,000 high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain. Almost every state, and most major metropolitan areas, will be affected by these shipments. More than 123 million citizens reside within one-half-mile of the proposed transport routes. The modes and methodologies for shipment have not yet been determined, much less analyzed. For example, we recently learned from DOE that as many as 3,000 barge shipments may be involved, traversing numerous port cities and harbor areas. According to DOE's own analyses, a single accident scenario could produce thousands of latent cancer fatalities and lead to many billions of dollars in cleanup costs. DOE has never done an analysis of the terrorism risks associated with mass transport to Yucca Mountain. In a recent brief filed in NRC license proceedings by nuclear utilities for the proposed Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah, the nuclear industry took the position that it is essentially no one's jurisdiction, other than the U.S. military, to evaluate terrorism risks in spent fuel transport. According to the utilities, this is not a proper subject for analysis by DOE, the NRC, the Department of Transportation, or the industry itself. In short, if you believe the industry, this is an area that only Congress can now evaluate, or direct others to evaluate. Put another way, if Congress does not order such an analysis to be done, none will be done. In the wake of September 11th, failure to perform such an analysis would appear unwise. And there is something else our experts now tell us: DOE has never done an evaluation of the nuclear criticality risk of a spent fuel cask getting struck by a state-of-the-art armor-piercing weapon. In recent nuclear industry advertisements and press statements, it was suggested that if a warhead penetrated a cask, authorities would simply dispatch an emergency crew to "plug it up." This assumes the dose rate in the vicinity of the cask is not a lethal one. It assumes that the warhead does not essentially liquefy the contents of the cask, if it is not already liquid. It assumes that any inner explosion in the cask would not so alter the geometry of the contents that the contents would go critical, obliterating the cask. It assumes that the cask is not over a river or on a barge and will not subsequently fill with water, a neutron moderator. It assumes that the cask is not filled with U.S. or foreign research reactor spent fuel, which is usually comprised of highly-enriched, or weapons-grade, uranium. Finally, there are questions regarding the casks that will be used for shipping high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel to any repository. First of all, very few casks exist today, so the ones that would be used for a 38-year shipping campaign to Yucca Mountain are still in various stages of development. That might be acceptable if we knew they were going to be subjected to rigorous physical testing prior to use, but that is not intended. Instead, computer- and some limited scale-model testing is the planned method of assessing cask integrity. Those ancient tapes we have all seen of discarded shipping casks being dropped from helicopters, run into cement walls and hit by trains - none of that is planned for the new generation of casks. No, instead we are being asked to believe recent industry claims that the new, not-yet-built casks can withstand "all but the most advanced armor-piercing weapons" and a "direct hit by a fully fueled Boeing 747." These wild claims are not based on actual testing, and we know from tests conducted at Sandia National Laboratories in the 1980s and by the U.S. Army at Aberdeen Proving Grounds as recently as 1998 that even very robust casks are vulnerable to attacks from small missiles. Shouldn't the new generation of casks be subjected to full-scale physical testing under a range of conceivable scenarios, including an attack by terrorists willing to give their own lives? These are but a few of the many legitimate questions that remain about high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel transport. As a nation, we deserve clear and honest answers. Industry claims and a "trust me" attitude are simply not enough. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, --/s/-- KENNY C. GUINN Governor ***************************************************************** 45 'No Risk' To Health BNFL Tell Europe THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS Thursday, April 18, 2002 BNFL will today tell the European Parliament that there is no risk to public health from Sellafield's operations. Head of safety at Sellafield, John Clarke, will present a BNFL clean image side to Euro MPs during a public hearing held by the European Parliament's petitions committee, in Brussels. The hearing is examining the impact of nuclear reprocessing on communities and regions in the European Union. At the centre of the controversy will be damning claims by the petitions committee that: "a statistically significant increase in the incidence of leukaemia has been established in the surrounding regions of Sellafield and the La Hague reprocessing plants. "While acknowledging that a conclusive link has not been established it cannot be ruled out that exposure to radiation is an initiating or at least a contributing factor." The European report states that BNFL and the operators of the French nuclear reprocessing plant are contaminating the food chain with radioactivity yet they have not complied with article 34 of the Euratom Treaty in not divulging full details of their radioactivity operations. But Mr Clarke said: "We are pleased to have the opportunity to directly address the Parliament and to present the facts. "There is a lot of misinformation about the nuclear industry in general and reprocessing in particular and I think this debate is a very valuable contribution. "Sellafield's discharges are tightly regulated and controlled under UK and EU legislation and within the context of international agreements. Numerous studies by scientific organisations and regulatory organisations have confirmed that our activities do not threaten public health or the marine environment. "One of the greatest misrepresentations is that two million gallons of 'nuclear waste' are discharged every day. Most of this volume is actually just rainwater collected on the site, with more than 99.9 per cent of the total radioactivity retained." Howard Rooms will be representing the views of the Sellafield trade unions at the debate. Also speaking will be Prof John Haywood, chairman of the Sellafield Local Liaison Committee. David Lowe, from the Secretariat to the Petitions Committee said: "The committee findings are likely to raise the political temperature on this issue and the European Commissioner on the Environment is going to make a statement.'' Although the Committee does not have any legislative powers, the European Parliament could enact legislation in future. ***************************************************************** 46 BNFL Workers Go Back THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS Thursday, April 18, 2002 More than 700 Sellafield contractors were back at work on Friday after peace talks settled a dispute which had led to them walking out. The contracting and civil engineering workers voted on Wednesday to take unofficial strike action in a row over outside contractors taking over local jobs and introducing lower rates of pay. They had voted at a mass meeting last week to strike until Monday of this week. But the dispute was resolved at a meeting on Thursday between BNFL and trade unions from the project joint council, which oversees the construction site, along with the various construction companies involved. Grant Cattanach, regional organiser for Amicus (formerly the AEEU engineering union), said that its members were due back at work on Friday. The trouble flared after recent redundancies were made among men employed by Shepleys and APEL (formerly William Press) while contractors paying lower wages had moved on site and taken over projects. Mr Cattanach said that a solution to the problem was reached with the transferred work now being given back to the original construction companies. Mr Cattanach said: "There will now be adherence to the NACI agreement, something that will suit the men, the employer and the client.'' BNFL spokesman, Jamie Reed, said BNFL was pleased that the matter had been resolved and said he was looking forward to business as usual on site. ***************************************************************** 47 Opinions:Yucca Mtn. proved safe for N-waste Augusta Georgia: James M. Allen, Aiken, S.C. --> Yucca Mtn. proved safe for N-waste Web posted Thursday, April 18, 2002 Letter to the Editor In regard to Susan Bloomfield's April 15 letter, "Yucca Mountain unsafe for waste": How many degrees in geology or nuclear science does Ms. Bloomfield have? How many years of study has she devoted to her conclusions? The simple fact is that years and years of research (over $9 billion worth) has been done at and about Yucca Mountain by real scientists with real expertise. Their findings contradict everything Ms. Bloomfield says. While everyone has a right to his or her opinion, I think I speak for all technical professionals when I say the environmentalists' utter and total lack of qualifications to speak about anything nuclear should be highlighted at the same time as their grand pronouncements on what we should be doing as a country. Anyone else who admitted to knowing nothing substantive about a subject - but still had the temerity to offer opinions - would get only the derisive hoot they so richly deserve. James M. Allen, Aiken, S.C. ***************************************************************** 48 Yucca: How safe is safe? | csmonitor.com from the April 18, 2002 edition AT THE MOUTH OF THE TUNNEL: Researchers are testing the feasibility of using Yucca Mountain, with five miles of tunnels, to store the nation's nuclear waste. See graphic. ROBERT HARBISON - STAFF By Pete Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor How well will Nevada's Yucca Mountain perform as a long-term storage site for the nation's most radioactive waste? The US Department of Energy offered a multivolume answer to that question three years ago. But to a National Research Council team that reviewed the findings, that response was hardly reassuring. The group found shortcomings in the study that rendered it "unlikely" that it described the site's probable long-term behavior. But the team also noted a more troubling issue for those looking to science for absolute answers on the site's suitability. Assessing Yucca Mountain's performance, they said, "may be beyond the analytical capabilities of any scientific and engineering team." The reason: It's too hard to predict what will happen over tens of thousands of years, given the diverse processes – such as volcanic activity, seepage, or changes in rock chemistry – at the site. The prospect of turning Yucca Mountain into a nuclear-waste dump site has long been controversial. But the issue reared up again earlier this month when Nevada Gov. Kenny Guin vetoed President Bush's selection of the site as the nation's high-level radioactive waste repository. The April 8 veto triggered a 90-day period during which Congress must override the veto if the project is to move to its next stage. In the process, lawmakers will help define the role science plays in shaping public policy. The tension between many politicians' quest for "science-based" decisions versus many scientists' hope that their work will merely inform political decisions, is playing itself out not only in regard to nuclear waste but in other environmental issues such as climate change and drinking-water standards. In the case of Yucca Mountain, the science and engineering studies are being conducted against the backdrop of political pressure on Congress to act. The pressure is coming from the nuclear industry and the states where nuclear plants are located. They are pressing the federal government to fulfill its decades-old promise to take possession of the waste. Nuclear utilities have paid billions of dollars into a fund to pay for a permanent solution to the problem. "Politicians say that decisions on Yucca Mountain should be made based on science," says Kevin Crowley, director of the National Research Council's radioactive-waste management board. "I agree that decisions should be informed by science.... But in the end, it's our elected officials who must make a judgment on how much uncertainty is acceptable. What is 'safe' and 'When do we have enough information?' are questions science cannot answer." If the Yucca Mountain decision were left to scientists, a number of them would say the heap of solidified volcanic ash is not ready for prime time. "The state of the science is not adequate" for making a decision on placing waste there, says Allison Macfarlane, a professor in the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. This may seem like an odd statement after nearly 20 years of study at a cost of some $7 billion. But even senior Energy Department advisers on the project have acknowledged that, as time has passed, the site has looked less and less ideal. As if to underscore the point, a team of three vulcanologists argues that the recurrence rate for eruptions at Crater Flat, a volcano about 10 miles southwest of Yucca, may be understated. Writing in the current issue of GSA Today, a publication of the Geological Society of America, the trio notes that until now, the Crater Flat area has been treated as a volcanic zone isolated from similar groups of cones that form a rough line from the California state line to the Lunar Crater volcanic field northeast of Yucca Mountain. But "Yucca Mountain is not isolated. It's part of a very large volcanic field" that appears to be on a broad common eruption cycle, says Eugene Smith, the University of Nevada geology professor who headed the team. The Yucca Mountain area, he speculates, could be nearing the end of a relatively quiet period, and could see more eruptions in the future. At the least, he says, "you have to consider the entire field" in assessing eruption hazards near Yucca Mountain. Earthquakes have been another concern. Yucca Mountain is laced with faults, as is the region. In 1992, a magnitude 5.6 quake struck not far from Yucca Mountain. The quake registered more than 2,000 aftershocks. Some observers are concerned about how quakes might open or redirect paths by which water seeps through the repository and into the aquifer below. This could affect rock chemistry and lead to corrosion in the repository. Although the waste canisters are being designed using corrosion-resistant alloys, experts expect corrosion and leakage of radioactive material. Although the water couldn't become radioactive, researchers say, radioactive-waste particles can attach themselves to other small particles in the water and be transported to the aquifer. Indeed, the simulations designed to mimic the flow of water through unsaturated rock "do not fit reality at all," says Mary Lou Zoback, of the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif. Estimates of seepage rates are also being questioned. "Water has moved through the mountain faster than anticipated," notes Rodney Ewing, professor of nuclear engineering and radiological science at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He cites a study that detected an isotope of chlorine typically attributed to above-ground nuclear tests in water that had seeped through the rock to the level at which the repository would be located. The implication is that surface water may take only tens of years, not hundreds or thousands, to reach waste-storage casks. He acknowledges that finding a little bit of the isotope doesn't necessarily mean that large amounts of water move quickly through the rock from the surface to the aquifer. But, he continues, "we now have the problem of trying to estimate what this signal ... will mean." Dr. Ewing says doing that will be difficult. "To model such a complicated system over 10,000 years is quite an undertaking," he says. "The challenge for modeling Yucca Mountain is equal to ... modeling climate change." To its credit, researchers say, the Energy Department appears to be heeding some of their advice. For example, the department has begun thinking in terms of building the repository in stages, with each new stage contingent on an improved scientific understanding of the repository's likely performance. And it appears to be open to using some of the site's natural assets to the repository's advantage, rather than finding engineering solutions that buck the natural structure and system. Many observers still see gaping holes in the federal government's scientific foundation for picking Yucca Mountain as a repository. But storing waste in a central underground geological formation remains their preferred approach. Storing spent fuel in storage pools or in dry casks on premises of some 100 nuclear plants around the country instead, is a nonstarter. "We really need to proceed with this experiment," says Dr. Zoback. To reject Yucca Mountain "means that we think it's safe to leave the waste in above-ground pools for however long at 77 distributed sites" around the country. "No one has done the real analysis of the risk that we're accepting as a society by allowing that condition to exist." AP Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights ***************************************************************** 49 Two object to nuclear waste storage site TheDay.com: Lawsuit claims land was family farm of 18th century slave By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 04/18/2002 East Haddam — An amateur historian and an eighth-generation descendant of 18th century slave-turned-businessman Venture Smith have filed a lawsuit seeking to block construction of a nuclear waste storage facility, claiming it would defile Smith's ancestral home. Smith descendant David Warmsley of Middletown and Douglas R. Jones of Essex, a self-taught historian, spoke to news reporters Wednesday in First Church Cemetery, where Smith and his immediate family are buried. In Haddam, across the Connecticut River from the site, owners of the closed Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant are moving forward with construction of the storage facility. The site for the project is either the same place Smith once operated a roughly 100-acre family farm, or close to it. Historical researchers have not pinpointed the exact boundaries. Smith died in 1805 and the property passed from the family in 1843. The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. now owns it. Kelly Smith, a spokeswoman for Connecticut Yankee, said an archeological review of the site — done before the site was selected — found nothing. She said remnants of the foundation of the Smith home, located about a quarter-mile from the planned waste storage facility, would not be harmed and could be safely researched by archaeologists even after construction is completed. Called an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the fenced-in concrete pad about the size of a football field would serve as the resting place for 43 steel and concrete casks filled with highly radioactive nuclear waste. The waste is now contained in a storage pool within the plant, which is being slowly dismantled. The project has generated much controversy in Haddam and surrounding towns. It was cleared for construction in January when the Haddam selectmen, on a 2-1 vote, agreed to settle a dispute over its location. Opponents have challenged the settlement in federal court, so far unsuccessfully. The lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court in Middletown, seeks a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent further construction activities pending completion of a “satisfactory archeological survey” of the property. If items of historical significance are found, it could lead to a request for a permanent ban on the facility's construction, said the men's attorney, Nancy Burton. Smith was an African prince who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. He eventually bought his freedom and that of his wife and three children. Despite the lack of a formal education, Smith prospered by farming the land, trading and eventually acquired a fleet of 20 ships and boats, said Jones. Smith's standing in the community is evident by his burial site, located in a section that at the time would have normally been reserved for whites, said Karl Stofko, East Haddam town historian and cemetery president. A request is pending to place the Smith home in the National Register of Historic Places. “To build a nuclear waste dump on this land is quite plainly wrong and unjust,” said Jones, who has made a hobby of researching the life of Smith and speaking on the subject. Warmsley said family members are well aware of the incredible achievements of their ancestor during a time of extreme prejudice. “It's a sense of pride for our family to know he was such as hard worker,” said Warmsley. He said he wants to make sure that everything possible is done to research the site and that it remains accessible. Visitors must now receive permission to get on the property, which will continue to be the case after the storage facility is built. “I think he would be right alongside us fighting this,” said Warmsley. “All his life people were trying to take things away from him and I think he'd feel, 'Here we go again. They're trying to take my heritage away from me.' ” Smith, the Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman, said the company also is proud of that heritage and dedicated to protecting the site where it appeared Venture Smith once lived. But it makes no sense to block a needed storage facility located a quarter-mile away, she said. p.choiniere@theday.com © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 50 Go like a bomb Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | David Hambling on the atomic aircraft that never really took off Thursday April 18, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Air travel and nuclear power are both notably risky areas, so combining the two to produce nuclear-powered aircraft seems a surprising idea. But in 1946, anything seemed possible, including the US Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP), which reached an advanced stage before it was cancelled in 1961. In principle, the atomic jet engine is similar to the conventional version. Air is sucked in through a compressor and passes through the atomic reactor. The air acts as a coolant and is itself rapidly heated. The hot air expands and is directed out through a tailpipe, producing thrust. The difference is that the heat comes from atomic power rather than burning fuel; in theory an atomic jet could run for years without refuelling. We associate nuclear energy with huge power plants like those in aircraft carriers and submarines, but smaller versions were possible even 50 years ago. The real problem is with the shielding. The prototype system featured a reactor weighing a mere five tonnes - but it needed 30 tonnes of shielding as an absolute minimum. A further 19 tonnes of shielding were provided for the crew. The engines and other components added another 30 tonnes. The only aircraft suitable for this sort of load was the Convair B-36 bomber. One was converted into a flying testbed (NB-36H), with a small air-cooled nuclear reactor and a new nose section with lead and rubber shielding. This was a test of the concept only; although the reactor produced about a megawatt of power, it was not connected to the conventional engine. Forty-seven flights were carried out between 1955 and 1957. Each flight was accompanied by a transport of US Marines; in the event of an accident, they had the unenviable job of parachuting down to seal off the crash area. The NB-36H relied on "shadow shielding" for the crew. A large block of protective material was placed between them and the source of radiation so they were in its protective shadow; the radiation in all other directions around the aircraft was at a much higher level. The crew exposure levels were still high, and it was suggested that they should be drawn from older men, above the usual age for fathering children, to minimise the risk of genetic damage. In 1958, Aviation Week reported that the Russians had their own prototype nuclear-powered bomber: "Completed about six months ago, this aircraft has been observed both in flight and on the ground by a wide variety of foreign observers from communist and non-communist countries." This raised the spectre of Russian bombers lurking on the borders. Some time later, it became clear that the scare was caused by Russian theoretical work, which had never progressed beyond the drawing board. By 1961, many technical problems had been overcome and nuclear jets had been successfully operated on the ground - but President Kennedy cancelled the programme. However, according to Brian D Bikowicz, who has studied ANP, the main reason for the cancellation was bad management at a high level. Management was divided awkwardly between the Atomic Energy Commission and the Air Force; shifting political demands meant millions were spent on facilities that were never used. The ANP did not come up with the goods quickly enough. Better organisation might have put nuclear aircraft in the air 40 years ago; but the idea did not die with the Dr Strangelove era. Professor Ian Poll, president of the Royal Aeronautical Society, suggested in May last year that nuclear power could solve many of the environmental problems associated with air travel: "I am not pretending the nuclear issue is easy, but an assessment could be made today - the physics are proven, so it would just be a matter of examining the engineering issues." Engineering issues are likely to be the least of it. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 51 Russian nuclear submarine Yekaterinburg ready to return to service BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 18, 2002 In Severodvinsk, the final touches are being added to the refit of the nuclear-powered submarine Yekaterinburg. The work took four years due to slow financing. [Correspondent Denis Yakovlev] The Yekaterinburg last went to sea six years ago. Since 1996 it has been in dry dock. For a long time there was no money for the repair work. The repair experts started their work just four years ago. [Leonid Abramov, chief constructor, Zvezdochka state machine-building plant, caption] To be frank, the repairs were protracted but this was all to do with cash shortages. We used to take two years to refit such vessels. Nowadays it takes four years or more. [Correspondent] The Yekaterinburg belongs to the same class as the Kursk - ten sections, two reactors and 130 crew members. It can take up to 16 nuclear missiles. These underwater cruisers form the basis of the Russian navy. [Abramov] This series of vessels indeed is the main strategic force of our Russia. [Correspondent] In 11 years of service, the sub travelled more than 90,000 nautical miles. It has many more left in it, but it badly needed repair. The experts literally replaced every rivet in every section. The Yekaterinburg will be relaunched in the next few days. It is most likely that it will set course for Murmansk where nuclear submarines of this class are based. [Video shows a submarine in dry dock in Severodvinsk, Archangel Region. Broadcast 0405 gmt.] Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 0400 gmt 18 Apr 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 52 Defense Department says nuclear interceptors not an option The Nando Times: By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press WASHINGTON (April 17, 2002 4:12 p.m. EDT) - The head of the Missile Defense Agency told senators Wednesday that the Defense Department has no plans to arm anti-missile interceptors with nuclear explosives. A top science adviser to the Pentagon has said scientists are studying the idea of using nuclear explosions to wipe out incoming missiles. The Pentagon's current missile defense programs rely on systems that smash into incoming warheads at high speeds or incinerate them with lasers. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said his agency has no plans to use nuclear weapons. "We have no part of our program that involves nuclear-tipped interceptors," Kadish told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. He acknowledged that "some people are thinking about it," however. Two senators on the panel - California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Alaska Republican Ted Stevens - objected to the idea, saying using nuclear explosives in anti-missile systems would be unacceptable. "I find it absolutely inexplicable how we might explore the use of nuclear-tipped missiles, given what they could do with radiological fallout," Feinstein said. The Bush administration's missile defense development programs are projected to cost about $46 billion over the next five years, and Bush's 2003 budget proposal includes $6.7 billion for the effort. Bush announced last year he was pulling the United States out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which bans anti-missile systems. Russia and other countries have criticized the move. William Schneider Jr., chairman of the Defense Science Board, told the Washington Post last week that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had approved studies of nuclear-tipped missile interceptors. Using nuclear explosives would make destroying enemy missiles easier, since the blast would obliterate everything within a wide area. Using interceptors to smash into missiles is a huge technological challenge, requiring extremely accurate sensors to allow the "kill vehicle" to find the missile and distinguish it from harmless decoys. But nuclear weapons have disadvantages as well. Besides the radioactive fallout, a nuclear blast would create an electromagnetic pulse that would wreak havoc on computers and other electronic devices over an area as large as a continent. A nuclear explosion in space also would endanger the United States' civilian and military satellites. Copyright © 2002 Nando Media ***************************************************************** 53 Iraq asks UNSC to avoid selectivity in applying nuclear non-proliferation rules BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 18, 2002 New York, 17 April: Iraq has said that the Zionist entity's refusal to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and apply the Strengthened Safeguards System of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] to its nuclear installations constitutes a threat to pan-Arab security and extremely harms the credibility and universality of the NPT. In a speech at the run-up meetings to the next NPT Review Conference scheduled in 2005, which were held in New York, the head of the Iraqi delegation asked the UNSC [UN Security Council], out of its responsibilities for preserving international security and peace, for an international guarantee to implement all the nuclear no-proliferation regulations without selectivity, discrimination or double standards, and to take the necessary measures to realize this goal. He explained that attempts to bypass the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament principles by being selective will have extremely serious, negative effects. He stressed that Iraq is keen to keep the Middle East region free from weapons of mass destruction, notably the nuclear weaponry, because this issue concerns not only the Middle East countries, but also all countries in the world. He noted that Iraq welcomes the UN secretary-general's efforts to facilitate the implementation of UN resolutions pertaining to keeping the Middle East from nuclear weapons. The head of the Iraqi delegation called on the UN secretary-general and the UNSC to start taking the necessary measures to guarantee the implementation of Paragraph 14 of Resolution 687l, now that Iraq has fulfilled all its obligations with regard to disarmament. He noted that it is regrettable that the UNSC completely ignores this paragraph and has taken no measures whatsoever to implement it. Source: INA news agency web site, Baghdad, in Arabic 17 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 54 Critics of US say nuclear bunker-buster would not be clean bomb Zawya.com | by Robert Holloway UNITED NATIONS, April 18 (AFP) - Critics of US nuclear policy said that bombs designed to destroy targets deep underground would spew enough radioactive fallout to kill tens of thousands at street level. The United States does not have such weapons, but a Pentagon report leaked March 15 said "new capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply buried targets" including stocks of chemical or biological arms. The Pentagon's nuclear posture review, sent to Congress in January and published on the Internet by GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, dominated discussion at a two-week UN committee meeting which ends Friday. Larry Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense and now Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations, said "the new weapon would not be a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon" but would be qualitatively different. David Culp, of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby in Washington, said that, contrary to the official US image, a "bunker-buster" would not explode with minimal fallout. The two men were speaking Wednesday at a diplomats seminar attended by AFP. Culp said the envisaged weapon was an existing B-61 or B-83 warhead, modified with a ground-penetrating casing and carrying a 300-kiloton charge (equivalent to 300,000 tons of TNT). That is 15 times greater than the bomb which flattened the Japanese city of Hiroshima in August 1945, and "would create a huge crater and throw up lots of dust," he said. He estimated that such a warhead, used against an underground target in downtown Baghdad, would cause between 10,000 and 40,000 deaths within 24 hours due to radioactive poisoning. "It would not be a clean nuclear weapon; there is no such thing," he said. Iraq is one of seven countries mentioned in the Pentagon report as potential targets of US nuclear missiles. Culp said advocates of bunker-buster bombs argued that the high temperature of a nuclear explosion would incinerate chemical or biological toxins and thus eliminate the risk of their dispersal by other forms of blast. The report has worried many attending the UN committee, called to prepare the next review of the 1970 Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), due in 2005. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, described the report as "a canary in a coalmine," intended to test the atmosphere of negotiations. "Delegates have been wondering how to respond, since it is not yet a policy document," he said. One concern is that the United States might end its 10-year-old moratorium on nuclear testing in order to develop the bunker-buster. The administration of US President George W. Bush has already made clear its hostility to the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the resumption of testing could deal a fatal blow to the NPT. "Would it require testing?" Culp asked, adding: "That is a question that not even our government knows the answer to." The bunker-buster "would be a new weapons system with a new capability, using parts of old warheads," he said. Even in the 1990-91 Gulf War against Iraq, "there was never any talk of using nuclear weapons," Korb said. "Today, there is talk of using them to go after terrorist targets, for example." rh/fgf Copyright © 2002 Zawya.com Ltd. ***************************************************************** 55 Watchdog group urges review of Livermore Lab contamination Tri-Valley Herald Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 3:09:19 AM MST By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Thursday, April 18, 2002 - -->LIVERMORE -- Members of a Livermore-based nuclear watchdog group, in a Wednesday meeting with Energy Department officials, requested that an upcoming inspection focus on radioactive contamination and the dangers it poses to lab neighbors and workers. An advance team from the Energy Department Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance arrived at Livermore Lab on Tuesday to collect information for a June inspection of two areas of lab operations: environment, safety and health; and emergency management. The team, which concludes its visit today, also met with lab and local Energy Department officials, who presented overviews on relevant lab activities and offered tours of lab sites. Marion Fulk, a former Livermore Lab physicist and a member of Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said he worries about contamination from tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that is produced at the lab and used in research there. "I'm concerned about the tritium that gets outside the fence," he said. Janis Kate, a Livermore teacher and member of Tri-Valley CAREs, told the group that she believes there may be links between melanoma rates in the Livermore community and radiation released from the lab. And Rene Steinhauer Sr., also a Tri-Valley CAREs member, said he is worried about groundwater contamination at the lab site and at the lab's explosives testing site in the Altamont hills. He also questioned the adequacy of security and safety measures at the lab's plutonium storage building, called the Superblock. Lab officials have maintained that operations do not threaten the health of lab workers or community residents. Thomas R. Staker, a member of the visiting Energy Department team, said that the inspection, which is planned June 10-20, will focus mostly on lab compliance with environment, safety and health regulations. These programs were last evaluated by the independent oversight office in 1997. Also, inspectors will evaluate lab responses to issues identified in an emergency management review conducted last year. Lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said the inspectors had asked managers "to go back and look at a few areas," and the laboratory developed a two-year plan to respond to their recommendations. Inspectors will review some documents and data during the June visit, though Staker said they will concentrate on activities performed at lab facilities. "The key focus is performance," he said. William A. Eckroade, another member of the visiting Energy Department team, said the inspection group will study radiation-monitoring programs, including groundwater monitoring, waste storage and waste shipment operations. In July, the inspection group is expected to return to the lab to verify the accuracy of its report, and the final version of the document is expected in August. ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 56 East Bay DOE office seeks to improve nuclear monitoring Tri-Valley Herald Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 3:08:50 AM MST Research projects solicited to characterize seismic events By FROM STAFF REPORTS Thursday, April 18, 2002 - -->To better detect nuclear weapons development programs around the globe, the Energy Department's nuclear security agency is asking researchers to identify the slightest differences between earthquakes and nuclear explosions. An Energy Department regional office in Oakland this month issued a notice soliciting proposals to characterize the intricacies of seismic events and to develop methods to estimate the yield of nuclear explosions by measuring other physical properties. The Energy Department is offering an estimated $2.5 million for four to seven research projects. Livermore Lab to carry out research The research will support the Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Research and Engineering Program, which is carried out by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and other nuclear weapons research labs for the National Nuclear Security Administration. These labs rely on data from a range of instruments, including satellites and ground-based detection systems, for monitoring seismic events and measuring radioactive releases. "Satellite systems are capable of providing an exact location and a thorough characterization of an atmospheric (explosion)," states a report released this year on the explosion-monitoring program. Seismic and acoustic detection systems are used to detect and characterize underground nuclear tests, the report also states, but "the uncertainty in a yield estimate using these methods can be as high as a factor of 10" because of incomplete information about the geology in other regions of the world. "We are currently engaged in an effort to characterize the regional seismic properties of Western China, the Middle East and North Africa, and the former Soviet Union," the report states. U.S. seeks advance notice of testing The United States seeks to detect nuclear testing programs in other nations to "allow the U.S. to be forewarned and to preemptively deal with the testing entity before it can contemplate using its weapons," the report also states. Some of the research projects are expected to receive approval by September, while others will receive approval in 2003, the announcement states. ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG ***************************************************************** 57 Some Oak Ridge employees go back to work after radioactivity found KnoxNews: State April 17, 2002 OAK RIDGE, Tenn.- A dozen of the 120 employees sent home from the former K-25 uranium enrichment plant because some radioactive isotopes were discovered in their building have returned to work. The British Nuclear Fuel Limited Inc. employees were sent home April 1 after at least two lab tests showed that radioactive transuranic isotopes were present in piping and other parts of Building K-31, where employees were dealing with fissile materials. No one was injured or contaminated. "We have begun calling people back to work for selected work activities," said Norman Hammitt, a BNFL spokesman. "We anticipate work being available by April 26 in most areas. The workers have been informed that they will be called back when work is available in their area." The isotopes have not been removed, but will be as part of the ongoing cleanup work under way at the site, Hammitt said. "We are initiating work controls for those areas where the transuranics have been detected," he said. BNFL, the U.S. subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, employs about 900 workers in Oak Ridge. The Department of Energy contracted BNFL to dismantle equipment at the closed weapons plant. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 TIME - Leon Jaroff - At the DOE, Dowsing for Dollars The feds make an investigation into the paranormal Wednesday, Apr. 17, 2002 "Further testing of dowsing...would be a misuse of public funds." U.S. Geological Survey report, 1917 Somehow or other, that decades-old admonition has fallen on deaf ears at the U.S. Department of Energy, which has been misusing public funds for just that purpose. Dowsing? Its many practitioners describe it as an ancient art of searching for hidden things, using a mystical sixth sense that enables them to discern otherwise imperceptible radiation from water, precious metals, bodies, gold and other objects that are out of sight, usually underground. For most dowsers, that sixth "sense" is stimulated and amplified by a hand-held, Y-shaped dowsing or divining rod, or two parallel rods, or a pendulum, devices that then supposedly swing on their own to point out the location of the hidden objects. Untold thousands of people practice or believe in dowsing. An American Society of Dowsers is flourishing, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has defended the producers of a questionable dousing device, and these mystical gadgets have even found their way into a Tom Clancy novel, "Rainbow Six", where the good guys use them to divine the location of terrorists. All that aside, dowsing and dowsing devices have failed every rigorous test designed to test their validity. In other words, there is no dowsing sixth sense, only dowsing nonsense. All this doesn't seem to faze the Department of Energy, which in recent years has wasted time and taxpayers' money in embarrassing efforts to confirm the legitimacy of some high-tech dowsing devices. The latest egregious example came to light when the DOE's Inspector General reported the testing of a dowsing procedure called Passive Magnetic Resonance Anomaly Mapping (PMRAM). Using its device, the manufacturer claimed, one could map the underground location of groundwater, faults, fractures, buried objects and chemicals. The Inspector General's report was a model of straightfaced restraint. It called the PMRAM technology "unique in that it combines an electronic system and a human operator into a single bio-sensory unit by connecting the operator at the wrists to an electronic system, which is harnessed to the body." Unique indeed. The report went on to note that "the technology relies on the ability of the world's only qualified operator, a resident of the Ukraine, to sense changes in magnetic fields." That stipulation alone should have raised warning flags. But the Department's Office of Environmental Management had already spent more than $400,000 testing PMRAM when its request for additional funding was brought to the attention of the Office of Science and Technology (OST), which had not been previously consulted. After conducting a peer review of the test results to date, the OST did not mince words. The technology, it charged, "appeared to be implausible, did not allow for a scientifically-based evaluation, provided no useful information during three field evaluations, and appeared inadequate as a site-characterization tool." The Inspector General's conclusion: "Had a peer review been performed prior to testing, the Department could have avoided spending $408,750 on this technology." But there is evidently a dowsing cabal at the DOE. Within the past few years the Department has not hesitated to spend taxpayer dollars testing other dowsing devices. One was called the Quadro Tracker, a contraption with lights and buttons that, when examined at the Sandia National Laboratory, was found to contain in its handle ants, yes ants, embedded in epoxy. When the Quadro Tracker folks attempted to sell fraudulent franchises, the FBI finally put them out of business. Another DOE candidate was the DKL Lifeguard, a supposedly high-tech device that turned out to contain unpowered and unconnected electronic circuitry, and was determined to be worthless by scientists at Sandia. zWhy does the DOE continue to believe in dowsing? Part of the problem may lie with the appointment of scientifically-illiterate politicians to head a department that oversees such advanced scientific institutions as the National Laboratories. For the Clinton Administration it was Bill Richardson, a New Mexico congressman intent largely on pursuing his Vice-Presidential aspirations. Under George Bush, it is Spencer Abraham, whose appointment as Energy Secretary was a consolation prize after he was defeated in his bid for reelection as Senator from Michigan. The Department of Energy, and the nation, deserve better. Copyright © 2002 Time Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 DOE repaid legal costs, GAO finds This story was published Thu, Apr 18, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer More than 95 percent of the legal defense costs incurred by Department of Energy contractors were paid by the government from 1995 to 2001. The implication of the study by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, is that DOE took the position that its contractors were in the right in almost all the lawsuits filed against them. There were about 2,100 complaints during the period audited. The GAO study found DOE reimbursed its contractors almost $292 million for legal defense costs from fiscal 1995 through the first three quarters of fiscal 2001 -- a 6-year, 9-month period. During that period, the contractors paid almost $13 million for their legal defenses, the report said. That was just 4.25 percent of the total. Figures for Hanford contractors for the corresponding period were not available Wednesday. But one of those cases, which still is open, is the Hanford downwinders' lawsuit against a string of the site's lead contractors dating back to World War II. So far, DOE has reimbursed those contractors for $19.2 million in defense costs, the GAO said. U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nevada, requested the study in 1998, voicing concerns that DOE might be subsidizing contractors that violate the law, the GAO report said. The study was finished this year. Federal regulations allow DOE to reimburse contractors for "reasonable legal costs." "Such costs are not reimbursable if there is liability related to the contractors' willful misconduct, lack of good faith or failure to exercise prudent business judgment. In practice, DOE reimburses its contractors for most of the legal costs," the GAO report said. During the period inspected, 2,116 legal complaints were litigated against DOE contractors, with 444 of those cases still open as of June 30, 2001. DOE averaged slightly more than $45 million a year in legal reimbursements during this time. The complaints included claims for equal opportunity employment matters, radiation and toxic exposure incidents, injuries, wrongful discharge disputes, whistleblower issues and worker compensation cases. Of the 1,672 cases closed during this period, 661 were dismissed, 868 were settled out of court and 140 ended in judgments either for or against the contractors, the GAO report said. The GAO could not determine the final disposition of three cases. In the 444 cases that still are open, DOE so far has paid almost $106 million in legal costs. The contractors have used their own money to pay $1.8 million in legal costs in those open cases. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 60 DOE wants to trim Hanford jobs This story was published Thu, Apr 18, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The Department of Energy's headquarters wants to trim the DOE's Hanford tank farm employees at the same time it is cranking up construction of a huge waste glassification complex. DOE's headquarters wants Hanford's Office of River Protection to shrink soon from 128 full-time equivalent employees to 109. Meanwhile, the Office of River Protection argues it needs 134 to 170 FTE employees to do its job properly. An FTE is 40 hours worked a week, a way to crunch full-time and part-time employees into one figure. Harry Boston, manager of the Office of River Protection, protested DOE's headquarters' order in a memo sent Monday to DOE's cleanup czar Jessie Roberson. The Herald obtained the memo outside of DOE's channels. Boston declined Wednesday to comment. A Wednesday request for comment from DOE's headquarters in Washington, D.C., was unsuccessful. The Office of River Protection manages Hanford's 177 underground tanks containing 53 million gallons of highly radioactive wastes. It also is in charge of designing and building a complex to convert those wastes into glass. Construction is supposed to start late this year. DOE is on a nationwide push to nail down plans this year on how to tackle its numerous cleanup programs faster and cheaper. That includes putting limits on the number of DOE employees at all its cleanup sites. Boston's memo noted that DOE recently announced its intention to speed up work with Hanford's tank wastes, trying to work out an accelerated arrangement with the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "This new initiative will require greater involvement of the federal staff," Boston wrote. Originally, the Office of River Protection planned to expand to 160 to 170 FTE employees. Meanwhile, DOE's headquarters ordered the office to trim its 128 FTE employees to 109. "Today, (the Office of River Protection) is critically understaffed and stretched thin in management and oversight of critical functions. This is not simply the opinion of (Boston), but the result of rigorous analysis and multiple external reviews. ... This would be the worst possible time to reduce staff from an already understaffed office," Boston wrote. In about two years, the Office of River Protection expects to supervise about 1,200 contractor employees taking care of the tank farms, plus approximately 4,000 more building the glassification complex. Boston's memo argued that the Office River Protection could operate successfully with 134 FTE employees if it can team up more with DOE's Richland office and the two main tank waste contractors. If ordered, he wrote, he would trim the Office of River Protection to 109 FTE employees. But attrition cannot account for all the cuts, and a few employees would have to be laid off, he wrote. DOE's Richland office, which manages everything at Hanford outside of the tank farms, is relatively untouched in this cutback. The Richland office employs 349 people -- not FTEs -- in its environmental management program plus a handful in other programs. It is ordered to trim that number to 346, said Manny Van Pelt, DOE Richland office spokesman. Three Richland office employees already are identified to leave by attrition, he said. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 61 Hanford's unfinished business After countless delays and billions of dollars, the tide may be turning in cleanup of huge nuclear waste site Thursday, April 18, 2002 By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER RICHLAND -- At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the stopwatch is always running. Hanford is a hazardous-waste dumping ground and that role may be expanding. The race against time began in 1943, when the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor rose from the tumbleweeds here, and scientists rushed to build the A-bomb before the Nazis. Almost 60 years later, the stopwatch is still ticking. Old reactor fuel sits just 400 yards from the Columbia River in Southeastern Washington, corroding in giant "swimming pools" that are well past their life expectancy. And Hanford's greatest environmental threat -- millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste -- still fills underground, leak-prone tanks, some as large as Olympia's Capitol dome. Also beneath the ground, vast amounts of tainted water are advancing like sinister blobs toward the river, and scientists are scrambling to figure out how to stop it. Adding to the time pressure, it's uncertain how much longer the public and Congress will be willing to pump money into the U.S. Department of Energy site before they decide to padlock the gates and walk away. Some $35 billion has been spent on the cleanup to date -- enough to keep the city of Seattle running for nearly two decades. It'll cost at least $50 billion more to get the job done, an effort that will span another generation, according to the latest estimates. But success hinges on successfully implementing technology never before used on such a grand scale, even as contractors concede their plans are incomplete and government officials keep changing the goals. [graphic] Tank farms >> GIF (57K) >> PDF (36K) [graphic] Tank construction and monitoring >> GIF (39K) >> PDF (54K) [graphic] Cleaning up groundwater >> GIF (52K) >> PDF (75K) [graphic] Tank breakdown >> GIF (35K) >> PDF (28K) [graphic] Spent fuel rod handling >> GIF (126K) >> PDF (410K) After 13 years focused on cleanup, the next few months could bring a breakthrough for Hanford, even some skeptics agree. Almost half of the spent fuel is supposed to be moved to safe storage, and construction should begin this fall on a massive treatment plant that aims to trap the most radioactive tank waste in a stable glass form. "This really is a watershed year," said Harry Boston, manager of DOE's Office of River Protection. "A lot of hard work has been done over many years and now we are in a position to reap the rewards." But as always with Hanford, there are no guarantees. Boston, a widely respected leader in the cleanup, is being transferred this summer by top DOE officials. Those same officials recently started backing away from promises to turn all of the waste to glass, fueling environmentalists' fears about the future of the 586-square-mile reservation. "We were about to take a small step forward and got hit by a baseball bat by the Bush administration knocking us far backwards," said Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group. Over more than 40 years, Hanford produced enough weapons- and fuel-grade plutonium to fill a cube measuring 5 feet on each side. A baseball-sized chunk was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. 9, 1945, helping to end World War II. Stopping only at the end of the Cold War in 1991, Hanford created two-thirds of the nation's plutonium supply. Atom by atom, the stockpile grew -- and so did the damage. More than 140 million curies of radiation spewed into the air, was poured into the desert, buried in the sand and dumped into the Columbia. By comparison, the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was mild -- releasing about 50 million, mostly short-lived curies. The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island unleashed 50 curies. The impact of a curie -- a unit of radioactivity -- varies by element, but exposure to even a fraction of a single curie of strontium-90 or iodine-129, both of which contaminate Hanford's groundwater, dramatically increases the risk of getting cancer. Today, decades later, the human toll is still being tallied. At the height of Hanford's nuclear production, thousands of workers were exposed to dangerous doses of radiation, and thousands more "downwinders" claim they were unwitting victims of secret radiation releases, such as the infamous "Green Run" when 8,000 curies of iodine-131 were intentionally released in a 1949 experiment. "We didn't know what levels were harmful," said Dr. Tim Takaro, assistant environmental-health professor at the University of Washington. But he added: "If they would have erred on the side of caution, then you would not have released iodine-131 up the stacks." Looking back, it's hard to understand why Hanford workers handled the waste so irresponsibly, burdening future generations with a cleanup that currently costs an average of $5.1 million a day. In the early years, defense-minded scientists probably "thought that a smart scientist would come along right behind them" to figure out how to safely treat the waste, said Michele Gerber, author of "On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site." Instead, the environment became a dumping ground. The practice continued through the ‘70s, with DOE insisting it was exempt from the nation's toxic-waste crackdown. It took until 1989 for federal and state officials to agree to clean up the nation's largest radioactive waste site. In the Tri-Party Agreement, the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Ecology set timelines for cleanup and standards that had to be achieved. The pace for cleanup was finally set, the finish line roughly established. The "course" runs from sludge-filled underground tanks to basins filled with old uranium fuel rods, and from the site of the treatment plant to the river's edge. Tank farms: Turning poison into glass It's a place that often looks and feels as remote as the surface of the moon, but Hanford's central plateau is suddenly bustling. [Canisters] Canisters, some holding plutonium and uranium, sit underwater in Hanford's "K" basin, awaiting removal. Joshua Trujillo / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo Hundreds of workers are moving enough soil to fill Seattle's 42-floor Smith Tower four times. They're digging massive craters that will soon be home to facilities that will "vitrify" -- or turn into a glass substance resembling volcanic obsidian -- 53 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in underground tanks. Since 1956, Hanford officials have known the tanks were leaking, though it wasn't publicly admitted for nearly 20 years. More than a million gallons of waste wound up seeping into the soil. It's now the most important project at Hanford and the largest at any DOE cleanup site in the nation. And there's finally reason for optimism: Ground was broken on the treatment plant last fall. "The tank farm is no longer the end of the line where things go to die," Boston said. "It's now the front end of the largest chemical-processing facility in the world." What is now tank waste was created during Hanford's heyday in chemical treatments used to separate plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel. Not knowing what to do with the lethal stew, workers pumped it into steel tanks. Waste was later transferred between tanks, and truckloads of chemicals were added to stabilize the material and reduce corrosion. That created one of the biggest challenges facing cleanup contractors: How to take some 40 nasty varieties of radioactive waste and make it safe for long-term storage. "We have created a very chemically complex brew at this site that is different than anywhere else in the world," said Roy Gephart, program manager with Richland's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a government-funded, independently operated research lab. [Pelicans] Pelicans rest on a sandbar on the Columbia River while two decommissioned reactors at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation loom in the background. Some $35 billion has already been spent on the cleanup of the site, which for more than 40 years churned out plutonium. Joshua Trujillo / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo Buried under 10 feet of soil, the 177 tanks don't look like much. Organized into clusters called "farms," the orderly yellow manhole covers and pipes belie the mix of radioactive liquids, sludge and solid salt formations below. Like a horror movie in which the would-be victim stumbles and falls as the monster closes in, DOE has tried time and again to initiate programs to process the waste. The stumbles have cost taxpayers $3.5 billion in the last decade alone, records show. It started in 1958, when Hanford officials began exploring turning tank waste into a ceramic form. The $25 million plan was scrapped. In the late ‘80s, a decision was made to vitrify and turn waste into grout, but the plan was abandoned when the stability of the grout was called into question. In 1998, a contract privatizing the vitrification project was signed. But DOE fired British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. in 2000 when cost estimates doubled. Despite the setbacks, work on the foundation for the vitrification plant is currently under way. Once treated, the melted glass, which will still be radioactive, will be poured into canisters to harden. Highly radioactive waste is supposed to go to a national repository, once a site is chosen and one is built. Less dangerous waste will be buried at Hanford. Most of the retrievable liquid waste in the oldest decaying tanks has been pumped into double-shelled vessels. More than a million gallons will be transferred this year, leaving 700,000 gallons to be moved in 2003. That, however, doesn't fully empty the tanks -- or eliminate the environmental threat. Thirty-two million gallons of radioactive solid material and sludge will remain. Despite the progress already made, critics say the $4 billion vitrification project could still be tripped up. Bechtel National Inc. -- the company hired to do the job after British Nuclear Fuels was fired -- and DOE have come under fire for the piecemeal approach that allows construction to begin before all of the designs are completed. Bechtel defends this design-as-you-go process, known as "staged construction," as allowing them to work faster and incorporate new technology. It's been done on other projects successfully undertaken by the international company, Bechtel officials said. They stand to earn a maximum of $600 million for the 10-year Hanford contract, but the amount decreases for missed deadlines and cost overruns. But Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., former senior policy advisor to the secretary of Energy, is skeptical of what he calls "the ready, shoot, aim approach." "DOE has been in a rush to build big monuments before they know if these things will actually work," he said. Treatment of the foulest waste must begin by 2007, according to Tri-Party Agreement deadlines. By 2018, 10 percent of the waste by volume, 25 percent by radioactivity, is to be vitrified. Ninety-nine percent of the waste is to be turned to glass by 2028. A new contract will cover continued operations beginning in 2011. [Greg Deroos] Greg Deroos fires up a giant mister to help evaporate contaminated water. After the water is evaporated, the heavy metals remain and can be disposed. Joshua Trujillo / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo Once processing begins, the trickiest portion of getting the waste stabilized is expected to be "pre-treatment," or separation of waste into its constituent parts. That isolates the waste that will be radioactive for a long time from material that decays more quickly. In tests, Bechtel researchers have successfully vitrified small amounts of tank waste. Ron Naventi, Bechtel National's vice president and manager of the vitrification project, is confident of large-scale success, calling the technology "well-proven." But before a single drop has been encased in glass, DOE is already talking about scaling back the project in favor of what they hope will be a faster, cheaper alternative. Earlier this year, Jessie Roberson, the agency's nuclear waste-cleanup czar, said she wanted only 25 percent of the most radioactive waste vitrified. Roberson hasn't backed off those statements, despite objections from state officials and environmentalists. "That's not cleanup," said Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire, lead negotiator of the Tri-Party Agreement. "Cleanup is removing the waste and removing the tanks unless we get some new technology that I can't see right now." In February, two environmental groups and the Yakama Indian Nation filed a federal suit to force DOE to remove all of the waste from the tanks at Hanford and two other sites. Removal is required by federal law, though DOE has reclassified some of the waste, which could allow leaving it in tanks. A response from DOE is expected later this month. Bechtel is soliciting proposals to do tests with another type of treatment called "steam reformation." About two-thirds of the less-radioactive waste would be heated in a process that binds the radioactive material and sulfur waste in a solid form. Organic compounds and nitrates turn to gas or salt. The radioactive solids, depending on their hardness and solubility, could be stored in canisters or added to grout for long-term storage. Steam-reforming could save money by reducing the scope of the vitrification project, DOE officials say. Naventi expects to know if the technique works on Hanford waste by the end of the year. If it does, a pilot project using larger volumes of non-radioactive waste will start next year. "Until we get a vitrification plant built and get some of the waste out of the ground, I don't think the cleanup can be viewed as successful," said Dennis Faulk, a regional manager for the EPA. "Until we get the plant going, everything else gets dwarfed." The basins: Potential for catastrophe The metal grating suspended over 20 million curies of fuel -- submerged under 16 feet of water -- jiggles unnervingly underfoot. Drop a pen or earring into one of the two nearly Olympic-sized pools and it joins 2,000 tons of highly radioactive, corroding fuel that awaits removal. [F Reactor] F Reactor in December 1944, two months before it was started. Now the site has been stripped of support buildings and smokestacks. In one year, "cocooning" of F Reactor is scheduled for completion. All entrances will be sealed with concrete or welded shut and the $17 million cleanup finished. /U.S. Department of Energy Click for larger photo The water, lit from below in an eerie glow, is needed to shield workers from the radiation and prevent the fuel from igniting. If exposed to air, there is potential for the uranium fuel rods that have lost their protective coating and the fine bits of uranium to react with oxygen and catch fire. The pools are 30 years past their intended lifespan and have leaked more than 15 million gallons of contaminated water. Located down the plateau from the tank farms, they're on the banks of the Hanford Reach, the 51-mile undammed stretch of the Columbia River and a designated national monument. Removing the fuel from the basins -- K East and K West -- is one of the most urgent projects here. Watchdog groups worry that a terrorist attack or an accident could release a surge of radioactive water and allow the fuel to ignite. "You don't need a bomb," said Pollet. "If you drain the water, you have a catastrophe." Like much of the cleanup at Hanford, dealing with the spent fuel required new technology and facing risks never dealt with before. Workers must remotely manipulate it with underwater arms, washing away organic material and sludge to prevent chemical reactions that could occur in storage. The fuel is then packed into metal baskets, placed into canisters and stored in 40-foot-deep vaults until it can be moved to a still-to-be-named national waste repository, possibly Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The $1.6 billion project, which has blown deadlines and racked up stiff penalties for safety violations, has been making progress, recently setting a record for the most fuel moved in a week. Since December 2000, more than 14 percent of the fuel has been removed from the basins. The goal is to get nearly half done by the end of this year, the rest by July 2004. Plans are under way to build a transfer station so the fuel in the east basin, which is more contaminated, can be moved to the cleaner pool for processing. Then there's the 1,600 cubic feet of sludge made up of eroded concrete and corroded fuel that will need to be packed up. How it will be ultimately treated is unknown. Another uncertainty comes from the budget, which still isn't fully funded for next year. An additional $28 million needs to be added to the $90 million that the Bush administration requested for the basin project. DOE's project manager, Larry Earley, said the agency has been assured that money for the project has been secured. But he added: "You can only be reassured so much until that check is actually in your hands." The checks won't keep coming for the basin project or anything else at Hanford unless pressure is continually put on the DOE, state officials and watchdog groups agree. "We will lose the war over there the day the media, the average citizen and our delegation become disinterested in this issue," Gregoire said. "The only way we're going to get this done is if the citizens of the state of Washington hold the DOE accountable." The old reactors: Horrors in the sand Like archaeologists on a bountiful desert dig, Hanford workers have repeatedly unearthed surprises from the past. But instead of finding gems and treasures, they've been shocked to discover spent reactor fuel and hundreds of barrels filled with flammable uranium shavings. They were buried in a 20-foot-deep trench and forgotten. They're relics of a culture that made production of nuclear warheads a priority over waste-management and record-keeping -- of a society that let the government operate unquestioned, behind closed doors. Four years after the discovery, work started this week April 15 on excavating the barrels and moving them to a permanent storage site away from the river. The project is expected to be completed by January. Occasionally, workers stumble upon a welcomed memento. During the cleanup of H Reactor, the fourth of nine built along the river, workers discovered a chalk drawing of a naked woman on a brick wall. Based on her hairstyle, it's guessed that she was created in the late 1940s -- probably by some lonely heart whiling away hours in an anteroom. [Single-shell tanks] Construction of single-shell tanks at the C farm in 1944. /U.S. Department of Energy Click for larger photo Alas, the "Painted Lady" will be blown apart when the reactor is "cocooned," a process in which the reactor core is left inside while all entrances into the building are cemented shut, a new roof goes on the building and adjoining buildings and fuel basins are cleaned and demolished. Only C Reactor has completed the process so far. The hulking cement building looks something like a Monopoly game hotel with one side partly cut away. Seven other reactors are scheduled to be cocooned by 2012 at a projected total cost of $102 million, not including the newest reactor, for which cost estimates are not done. B Reactor, the world's first, will be left open for at least the next few years, until a decision is made whether to preserve it as a museum. Most of the reactors were shut down in the mid-1960s and left in various states of disarray. Another part of the cleanup is removing 10 million tons of contaminated soil to prevent radioactive material from leaching into the Columbia River. When the reactors were in operation, the contaminated water used to cool the cores was pumped into soil near the facilities or straight into the river. Solid waste was buried in shallow trenches. So far, 3.3 million tons of soil have been moved inland to the center of the reservation, dumped in an enormous trench lined with plastic and clay to prevent toxins from seeping out. "It's a very rudimentary approach. ... They keep taking scoops until they get a clean one," said Todd Martin, chairman of the Hanford Advisory Board, an organization responsible for cleanup oversight. Still, he's pleased to see the risk to the river lessening. "It's a little bit crude," he said, "but it allows them to take action without pushing a lot of paper." Groundwater: Columbia in peril Across the desert, underground chemical "nets" are cast in a race to capture polluted groundwater flowing toward the Columbia. The river is an important source of irrigation water, drinking water for nearby Richland, and the spawning site of the river's largest population of wild , fall chinook. But some of the contaminants are too tricky to trap and trying to stem the flow of polluted water spanning an area larger than the city of Seattle is a Herculean task. There have been successes in the groundwater-treatment plan, but overall it's been criticized as unfocused and lacking specific goals. "We don't have our act together with respect to groundwater," Mike Gearheard, EPA director of the Environmental Cleanup Office, said at a public meeting earlier this year in Richland. More than 400 billion gallons of contaminated wastewater was dumped at Hanford over the last half-century -- enough to fill Seattle's Green Lake a thousand times. The volumes were so great that new ponds sprang up in the desert. It pushed contamination deeper underground and into the groundwater years faster than it would have moved otherwise. Along the river and in the area of the underground tanks, pump-and-treat operations are removing an assortment of radioactive and toxic pollutants. Wells draw the groundwater to the surface where it's cleaned and then injected back underground, upstream of the well. Results have been mixed. The technique has slowed the flow of strontium-90 to the river, but less than 1 curie of the radionuclide has been removed from the groundwater at a cost of $4 million, prompting an independent oversight group to tell the DOE in September to consider other options. Another scientific solution has also fallen short. Last month the final section of a chemical barrier 2,300 feet long was erected 80 to 115 feet below the surface to trap a toxic form of chromium that is trickling into the river. The pollutant is highly toxic to salmon. The technology -- called In Situ Redox Manipulation -- traps hexavalent chromium and converts it into a less-mobile, safer form. It's supposed to be cheaper than pumping and treating, but it hasn't performed as planned. The toxin is slipping through "holes" in the chemical net at concentrations 50 times higher than the goal. "You've got to tweak it a little bit, but we're not giving up on ISRM," said Greg Mitchem, former manager of Bechtel's groundwater project. The impact of chromium and other pollutants on salmon is still being debated. A 2001 study found an unusually high incidence of male DNA in the chromosomes of female Hanford Reach chinook. The abnormality could result in too many male fish compared to females. A project to remove from the soil a potential carcinogen called carbon tetrachloride has had mixed success. In the first few years of operation, 150,000 pounds of the poison were recovered. But retrieval has been less efficient in the last three years. DOE is working on a proposal for long-term restoration goals at the site. It restricts access to groundwater for 150 years due to contamination, upsetting some watchdog groups. "If you restrict the groundwater, you have to restrict the shorelines of the national monument," Pollet said. "It's a cruel hoax on people who one day want to use the Hanford Reach National Monument." DOE argues that groundwater contaminants are quickly diluted in the Columbia. The river flows at about 120,000 cubic feet per second, while the contaminated water enters at 40 cfs. Some say that natural radiation decay and the cleanup projects will protect the river, barring a serious accident. "If we do our jobs correctly, the river should never get any worse," EPA's Faulk said. And so the work continues and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation inches toward the finish line for cleanup. There is momentum driving the project forward, but it must be sustained, say those involved. "Part of the difficulty with the Hanford cleanup is trying to get people to grasp the magnitude and complexity of the job at hand," said the advisory board's Martin. "It's so hard to get people to understand that it's a long-term job and it's going to cost a lot of money, but there is an end in site." A HANFORD TIMELINE JAN. 1943: Hanford selected as site of world's first full-scale nuclear reactor for plutonium production as part of the atomic bomb Manhattan Project. AUG. 9, 1945: Atomic bomb armed with Hanford plutonium dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. MARCH 1947: President Truman declares Cold War with Soviet Union; $350 million expansion at Hanford follows. 1956: Highly radioactive material is confirmed leaking from massive underground tanks. 1963: Last of nine reactors built. 1964-1971: Eight of the reactors shut down. 1987: Last reactor mothballed. FEB. 1989: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state Department of Ecology and U.S. Department of Energy sign Tri-Party Agreement setting deadlines and standards for cleanup. NOV. 1989: Plutonium production ceases. 1994: Tri-Party Agreement modified to specify that 99 percent of the waste in 177 underground tanks will be turned to glass, or vitrified. DEC. 7, 2000: First batch of irradiated reactor fuel removed from water-filled K basins near the Columbia River and moved to dry storage. SEPT. 2001: Work begins on waste-to-glass treatment facilities. DEC. 2001: Secretary of Energy orders Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility shut down. THIS WEEK: Work begins on removal of about 1,200 buried barrels filled with uranium shavings. JULY 2004: All spent fuel to be removed from K basins 2007: Deadline for starting to turn tank waste to glass. 2010: The soonest the national waste repository can open at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. 2012: Cleanup, closure of eight of reactors due. 2018: Goal for vitrifying 10 percent of waste by volume, 25 percent by radioactivity. 2028: Finish vitrifying waste. THE SERIES TODAY : Dogged by controversy and costly wrong turns, the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is on the brink of a breakthrough, even some skeptics agree. TOMORROW: The Tri-Cities are bracing for a final boom, with thousands of workers and their families rolling in to support Hanford's treatment phase. But the poor will be further hurt by rising rents. Also in tomorrow's coverage, stricken former workers are finally getting the help they need. P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 ©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 62 Government owns more vehicles than Hertz; Energy Department has more vehicles than employees [http://www.sfgate.com] LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer (04-17) 13:05 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government owns more cars and trucks than Hertz does after a buildup in the 1990s that left one vehicle for every three federal employees, a White House inventory shows. The inventory, obtained by The Associated Press, shows the federal fleet includes 602,626 vehicles for 1.78 million workers, at a cost of $2.29 billion a year. "This is obviously the type of expenditure that will drive taxpayers crazy," said Tom Schatz, head of the budget watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. The Bush White House is examining the massive fleet, with an eye toward reduction. "One's first impression ... is that the numbers seem excessive in many cases and that significant reductions may be in order," White House Budget Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. wrote in a memo asking federal agencies for an explanation. Daniels' Office of Management and Budget compiled the figures through the end of September 2000, the latest statistical period available. At the Energy Department, there are 15,600 full-time employees and 16,351 vehicles. The department contends the number is misleading because some vehicles are used by the 100,000 workers of agency contractors. The Agriculture Department had a ratio of one vehicle for every 2.4 people. Other ratios include a vehicle for every 2.7 workers at the Interior and Labor departments, and a car for every 3 Justice Department workers. The Defense Department has a vehicle for every 3.7 workers, a figure that does not include military vehicles. The fleet is larger than that of Hertz, the largest car rental company in the world. In the past year Hertz has reported 525,000 vehicles in its worldwide inventory. Company officials there said that number was reduced after the economic slowdown following the Sept. 11 attacks. Daniels said the review is part of an effort to crack down on waste in government. "It's not a revelation that there are major management problems and waste problems in the federal government," he said. "We're determined to get at it as soon as we can, no later than the budget submissions this fall." Though the Energy Department feels its number of cars should be weighed in light of the large number of contract workers it uses, Secretary Spencer Abraham was nonetheless surprised at the size of the fleet and is looking for ways to reduce it, spokesman Alfonso Aguilar said. He said the department has trucks, vans, ambulances and buses, and the vehicles are mostly at 31 sites away from Washington. Some are remote locations that use buses for transportation within a facility. The agency also transports unique items, including nuclear material. Labor Department spokeswoman Sue Hensley said many agency vehicles are used by inspectors who check workplace and mine safety, and enforce wage-and-hour laws. Two-thirds of the department staff works away from Washington, she said. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the bulk of agency vehicles are driven by law enforcement officers from the Border Patrol, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mark Pfeifle, spokesman for the Interior Department, said officials are studying ways to reduce the fleet but pointed out the agency has employees in 2,400 locations, manages 507 million acres and maintains the third largest law enforcement force in the government. The Agriculture Department has 7,000 offices nationwide, many in rural areas and small communities, said spokeswoman Alisa Harrison. The agency also includes the Forest Service, which requires a diverse array of vehicles and a number of temporary workers, including firefighters. Schatz, the government waste watchdog, said the fleet could be reduced by tightly regulating which federal workers receive a car and by changing government officials' attitude. "It's easier to buy or lease a new car than figure out if you need one," he said. ©2002 Associated Press   ***************************************************************** 63 WNA NEWS BRIEFING 02.16 | 10-16 April 2002 A weekly summary of international news relevant to the nuclear energy industry. [NB02.16-1] US nuclear power plants generated a record 767.3 TWh of electricity in 2001, up from 754 TWh in 2000, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The increase of 13 billion KWh represents ‘the equivalent of adding two large nuclear power plants’. The average capacity factor of US plants in 2001 was 90.7%. Nuclear electricity production increased by 138.7 TWh between 1997 and 2001, which the NEI claims is ‘equivalent to adding 18 nuclear plants since 1997’, while new nuclear generation added since 1990 equals the equivalent of ’24 new nuclear plants’. (Nuclear Energy Overview, 15 April, p6; see also News Briefing 02.14-1) [NB02.16-2] China’s three operating nuclear power reactors generated 16.68 TWh of electricity in 2001, compared with 15.96 TWh in 2000. The share of domestic electricity output held by the Daya Bay and Qinshan plants fell slightly, from 1.18% in 2000 to 1.13% in 2001. The average load factor was 87.9%, up from 84.2% in 2000. There are eight nuclear power reactors currently under construction at four sites in China - Qinshan-2, Qinshan-3, Ling Ao and Tianwan. (NucNet News, 140/02, 15 April; see also News Briefing 00.03-10) [NB02.16-3] Power companies should take a more active approach to increasing public awareness of the benefits of nuclear energy, EU energy and transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio said in a speech to the Spanish Mining Club in Madrid. She described nuclear as ‘an essential energy source both for European competitiveness and for the environment’. However, she called for ‘more transparency, more information and more debate’ about the role of nuclear power in overall energy policy. She urged power industry to play a leading role in that debate. (NucNet News, 134/02, 9 April; see also News Briefing 01.28-3) [NB02.16-4] US: FPL Group has agreed to buy a majority interest in the Seabrook nuclear power plant from a consortium of owners. Under the terms of the agreement, FPL will acquire an 88.2% interest in Seabrook for a total of US$836.6 million. This amount includes US$749.1 million for the plant and its decommissioning trust fund; US$61.9 million for nuclear fuel; and, US$25.6 million for components from the partially completed unit 2. FPL is hoping to complete the acquisition by the end of 2002. The deal is subject to approval from federal and state regulatory agencies. FPL already owns the Turkey Point and St Lucie nuclear power plants. Seabrook is a 1161 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR) that started operating in 1990. (FPL Group, 15 April; see also News Briefing 02.08-9) [NB02.16-5] US: A hole in the Davis Besse reactor pressure vessel head could be repaired by welding a stainless steel plug, FirstEnergy has suggested to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The repairs would cost between US$16-20 million and take 3-4 weeks to complete. The NRC must decide whether this is an acceptable method to fix the problem. If it decides not, the reactor could be out of operation for up to two years while a new reactor head is fabricated. Meanwhile, an NRC-ordered review of the country’s 69 pressurised water reactor (PWRs) has not found any of the corrosion in reactors caps similar to that of the Davis Besse plant. (Ux Weekly, 15 April, p3; NucNet News, 137/02, 11 April; see also News Briefing 02.15-1) [NB02.16-6] US: Entergy will prepare an application for an early site permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant site. The company expects to submit an ESP application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in June 2003. (NucNet Business News, 23/02, 16 April; see also News Briefing 02.15-6) [NB02.16-7] India: Work has started on the construction of Kaiga-3 and -4. The first concrete was poured at the site, adjacent to units 1 and 2, on 30 March, officials from the Indian department of energy announced. The new units will be pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs). Meanwhile, the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has decided operation of Rajasthan-1 will be ‘allowed only up to 30 April’ this year. The reactor has ‘faced problems in some of its components such as cracking in its end shield and leakage in the over pressure relief device’, operator Nuclear Power Corp of India (NPCIL) reported. NPCIL will now apply to the AERB to conduct an inspection of the reactor and to devise a repair plan. Separately, officials have confirmed that the first concrete was poured at the Kudankulam site on 31 March and not on 2 April. (NucNet News, 139/02, 12 April; see also News Briefings 02.14-9 and 02.08-11) [NB02.16-8] Russia: Minatom has released financial results for 2001. The country’s nuclear power plants generated 136.4 TWh of electricity in 2001, up 4.7% on 2000. The average capacity factor for Russian nuclear power reactors was 70.3% in 2001, up 1.2% from that in 2000. Minatom plans to generate 144 TWh of electricity in 2002. Minatom and the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant reported a net profit of US$160 million for 2001, up 9.9% from 2000. Minatom continues constructing nuclear plants in China, Iran and India. The Russian ministry exported production and services valued at US$2.51 billion in 2001, an increase of 10% over 2000. (FreshFUEL, 15 April, p2; Ux Weekly, 15 April, p4) [NB02.16-9] Russia will lend Ukraine US$45 million in 2002 to help complete construction of the Khmelnitsky-2 and Rovno-4 (K2/R4) nuclear power reactors, according to a statement from Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov. However, according to Platts, the Ukraine was hoping to receive up to US$115 million from Russia in 2002, including US$70 million in cash and US$45 million worth of supplies. Talks between Ukraine and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) about a possible loan continue. (Ux Weekly, 15 April, p4; see also News Briefing 02.13-8) [NB02.16-10] Bulgarian officials held negotiations with European Union (EU) energy and transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio regarding the closure of the Kozloduy-3 and -4 nuclear power reactors. The EU is calling for the closure of the two reactors by 2006, but Bulgaria wants to continue operating them until 2008-2010. Bulgaria has already agreed to close units 1 and 2 by the end of 2002. (FreshFUEL, 15 April, p4; Ux Weekly, 15 April, p4; see also News Briefing 02.11-6) Loyola de Palacio said that the EU would have no objection in principle to a proposal by Bulgarian prime minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Goethe to resume construction of the unfinished Belene nuclear power plant. She said construction of the plant was a ‘national concern’ for Bulgaria and posed no problems in the context of current Bulgarian EU-accession negotiations, providing the reactor design ‘complied with modern safety requirements’. (NucNet News, 138/02, 12 April; see also News Briefing 02.15-11) [NB02.16-11] Japan: The Nuclear Safety Commission confirmed that using mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel at nuclear power plants is safe. It also recommended stepped-up safety measures at reactors nationwide in an effort to overcome growing public concerns that have so far prevented the use of MOX fuel in Japan. The commission also reaffirmed its support for plans by the Japanese electricity industry and government to use MOX fuel at 16-18 reactors in the country by 2010. (SpentFUEL, 15 April, p4; see also News Briefing 02.01-13) [NB02.16-12] US: A new Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response has been established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The office will centralise and streamline selected NRC security, safeguards and incident response responsibilities and resources. It will work with other federal agencies in the event of an emergency or a terrorist threat. (Nuclear Energy Overview, 15 April, p6; Nuclear Market Review, 12 April, p2; see also News Briefing 02.08-7) [NB02.16-13] Sweden: The municipality council of Tierp voted 25 to 23 against a site investigation aimed at determining the suitability of the site as a potential location for a national spent fuel repository. The decision follows acceptance of site investigations at Osthammar and Oskarshamn. (NucNet News, 135/02, 10 April; see also News Briefing 02.12-14) [NB02.16-14] US: The Bush administration submitted a formal request for Congress to act quickly to override the state of Nevada’s statutory veto of the planned Yucca Mountain high-level waste (HLW) repository. The move last week by Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn to file a veto against the proposed site triggered a 90-day deadline for the US House and Senate to either affirm or override the state’s veto. The House is widely expected to vote to override the state’s veto by a comfortable margin, while the vote in the Senate could be much closer. (Nuclear Market Review, 12 April, p3; see also News Briefing 02.15-13) [NB02.16-15] Russia: Minatom intends to sign a contract in 2003 giving an unnamed UK nuclear research facility rights to export spent nuclear fuel, including plutonium, to Russia for reprocessing, according to Russia’s minister for nuclear energy Alexander Rumyantsev. Details of the contract were not disclosed. There is speculation that the fuel may be from the recently closed Dounreay research facility. (Ux Weekly, 15 April, p4; see also News Briefing 01.29-3) [NB02.16-16] UK: British Energy (BE) and NNC have agreed to combine their international consultancy groups to form BE NNC International Consultancy (BENIC). BENIC said it will build on BE’s ‘position as the world’s largest privatised nuclear utility, and NNC’s position as the leading UK provider of nuclear services in eastern Europe’. Over the past seven years, BE and NNC have worked together in partnership arrangements primarily supporting aid programmes focused on enhancing the nuclear safety of reactors in central and eastern Europe. (NucNet Business News, 22/02, 15 April; see also News Briefing 99.13-6) Previous News Briefing NB02.15 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************