***************************************************************** 04/20/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.100 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Russian work on Chinese nuclear power stays on course 2 US: Senate Seeks to Wrap Up Energy Bill 3 Indian activists want plug pulled on nuke plant 4 US: Coast Guard Wants Permanent Nuclear Plant Security 5 US: Opinion: Nuclear power necessary NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 US: Millstone 2 closed for second time in 2 weeks 7 US: LES to allow contract to expire 8 US: Coalition opposes new OPPD plant 9 US: Nuclear Power Hits Third Straight Record 10 US: Are Nuclear Plants Safe Enough? NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 AU: Database to identify removal of bones 12 US: Pa. will give out iodine tablets 13 US: Dark cloud of illness lingers over many NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 14 US: Reid, Ensign Want Travel Logs and Records of All Past Nuclear Wa 15 US: Plutonium production delays cited 16 US: Littwin: S.C. guv prefers going flat to Rocky Flats 17 US: Feds Doubt Plutonium Conversion Plan 18 US: Residents fear problems with West Valley cleanup 19 AU: Rio sticks to its guns despite grilling 20 US: Most lawmakers at hearing back Yucca nuke dump 21 US: Candidate says others also accept donations from dump advocates 22 US: South Carolina plutonium dispute might aid Yucca foes 23 US: Clark County money for Yucca fight will arrive sooner or later 24 US: Ads prompt Jeffords to soften Yucca stance 25 US: Brian Greenspun: Nuclear confrontation 26 US: Editorial: Hearing in House all for show 27 US: Grove: House unlikely to back Nevada on Yucca vote 28 US: Neff: 'Yucca Bucks' machine just might do the trick 29 US: Tax Radioactive Waste 30 US: Officers prepare to block plutonium 31 US: Senator criticizes Hodges' stand 32 Former EU environment chief takes Sellafield post 33 US: Group says state owns Yucca 34 US: The future of Yucca Mountain 35 Irish Sellafield resignation call 36 US: A Transit Crossroads Eyes Yucca Mountain NUCLEAR WEAPONS 37 US: Nations Review Nuke Treaty 38 Commentary - Japan's plutonium stockpile alarming 39 US: Stop nuclear hide and seek US DEPT. OF ENERGY 40 Idaho, U.S. Battle Over Nuclear Waste Dump 41 Troopers to simulate plutonium stop 42 State officials question plan for Paducah plant 43 Plutonium production delays cited OTHER NUCLEAR 44 Editorial: Sacrificing for Security's Sake in Higher Education ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Russian work on Chinese nuclear power stays on course Hoover's Online April 20, 2002 6:43am Beijing, 20 April: Russian specialists have installed the first reactor at the Tianwan nuclear power plant that is under construction in China and are making preparations to install the second, Russian Deputy Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeniy Reshetnikov told ITAR-TASS in Beijing on Saturday [20 April]. Reshetnikov is participating here in the work of the bilateral commission preparing regular meetings of the Russian and Chinese prime ministers. The work at the Tianwan plant construction site is proceeding according to schedule, the official said. It is the biggest Sino-Russian construction cooperation project for the present day. Two-thirds of the equipment for the station will be supplied this year, Reshetnikov said. The first reactor was installed there on 3 April... Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 0715 gmt 20 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring Copyright © 2002 Financial Times Limited, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 2 Senate Seeks to Wrap Up Energy Bill Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 WASHINGTON- The Senate is moving to wrap up an energy bill, but without two proposals that sparked the greatest political fireworks and may have had the most impact. Drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which environmentalists made a symbol of their opposition to the Bush administration's policies, and slapping automakers with tough new fuel economy requirements were found to be politically too hot to accept. In a showdown Thursday over the future of the refuge, drilling supporters could muster only 46 of the 60 votes needed to end a Democratic filibuster and allow a vote on putting the refuge provision into a broader energy bill. The House already had approved drilling as part of its energy package and President Bush had made it a centerpiece of his energy agenda. He was noncommittal when reporters asked him Friday if he would sign an energy bill without the ANWR drilling plan. "We'll see what happens," the president said. "The Senate missed an opportunity to lead America to greater energy independence," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declared, echoing Alaska's two senators who described the refuge as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on dictators such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein for its energy. Still, eight Republicans abandoned Bush and joined with most Democrats in rejecting drilling in ANWR, as the refuge is called. "There are other, more feasible options for ... reducing national foreign oil dependence," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. "Development would irreversibly damage this natural resource," argued Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., referring to the refuge's coastal plain where thousands of caribou visit and give birth to their young each summer, joined by millions of migratory birds, musk-oxen, polar bears and other wildlife. While drilling advocates argue the oil could be developed while still protecting the wildlife, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., maintained that the oil - estimated as likely between 5.7 billion and 11.6 billion barrels - still wasn't enough to make a serious dent in imports when it would start flowing south in eight to 10 years. What would help, Kerry argued, would be a significant increase in the fuel efficiency of automobiles and sport utility vehicles, which guzzle 70 percent of the 19 million barrels of oil consumed each day in the United States. But like the Arctic drilling, the auto fuel economy became a lightning rod in the energy debate. When Kerry pushed to boost federal fuel economy requirements by 50 percent, the auto industry and autoworkers said jobs would be lost and suburban soccer moms would no longer be able to buy SUVs. The proposal was killed last month on a 63-38 vote. Many of the same senators who opposed the fuel economy increase raised alarms during the Arctic refuge debate over U.S. reliance on oil imports, said Kerry. "They had no interest in national security when we put before the Senate a plan that would have saved America 1 million barrels a day in 2015 and 2 million barrels a day by 2020." The Senate likely will finish its energy legislation, covering more than 580 pages, sometime next week. Both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi want a bill, as does the White House. While lacking either oil drilling in ANWR or significant auto fuel economy measures, the bill includes myriad items that are attractive to politically powerful energy industries. Among them: -A compromise on renewable fuels that would triple the use of ethanol, a boon to farmers. -A phaseout of the water-fouling gas additive MTBE, welcomed by a number of states, including much of the Northeast. -Elimination of an oxygen requirement for gasoline and a reduction in "boutique" gasoline blends, making it easier for refiners to meet air quality regulations. -Government help for the nuclear industry to develop its next generation of power plants and continued limits on reactor accident liability. -Loan guarantees to build an Alaska natural gas pipeline, a $20 billion project aimed at providing access to large gas reserves on the North Slope. -Tax and other incentives for purchase of hybrid gas-electric vehicles, build more fuel efficient buildings and sell more efficient appliances. Among the issues not yet resolved, and likely to come up early next week, are details of proposed tax breaks, totaling nearly $16 billion, for energy conservation, renewable fuels an energy development. EDITOR'S NOTE - H. Josef Hebert has covered energy and environmental issues for The Associated Press since 1991. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Indian activists want plug pulled on nuke plant Asia Times: [Asia Times Online] [http://www.asiatimes-chinese.com] April 20, 2002 atimes.com By S P Udayakumar CHENNAI - Ceremonies that marked the start of construction on a 2,000-megawatt nuclear plant last month in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu were preceded by an inauspicious event: The project's Russian partners protested the sudden change in the site where their reactors were going to be installed. When the leading Tamil-language dailies Dinamalar and Daily Thanthi reported the Russian protests, India's panicky nuclear establishment dismissed the episode as nothing more than rumors. It also ensured that the delegation from Moscow never got to meet the press. Whatever the truth, the whole Koodankulam project in Tamil Nadu has been shrouded in opacity ever since former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi signed the deal to build it in 1988. That was barely two years after the Chernobyl accident put a question mark over the reliability of Russia's nuclear technology. Hit by an international boycott for exploding a "peaceful" nuclear device in 1974, India had little choice but to rely on its Cold War ally Moscow to achieve its ambition of producing 20,000 megawatts of power from nuclear energy by 2020. Koodankulam, a major component of achieving the stated aim of self-sufficiency in nuclear power generation, was briefly shelved when the Soviet Union collapsed. But by 1997, then Indian prime minister H D Deve Gowda and Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed an agreement, a supplement to the 1988 accord, to commission a detailed project report on Koodankulam because India was still interested in the reactors and Moscow in the dollars. Under the new plan, Russia would deliver two Russian-designed, standard high-pressure VVER-1000 water-cooled and water-moderated reactors that would produce 1,000MW of power per unit. By that time, protests against the project, including from activists in Sri Lanka across the Palk Straits from Tamil Nadu, had petered out and Chernobyl had receded from public memory. But questions regarding economic viability, scientific and technological feasibility, environmental sustainability and geological vulnerability persist. The Koodankulam project's cost estimate in 1988 was US$1.5 billion. The start-estimate (as opposed to the end-cost) in April 1997 was an alarming $4.5 billion. In November 1998, Russian and Indian nuclear engineers started working on a $57 million detailed project report (DPR). The reactors alone, expected to be ready by 2006, would cost roughly $3.1 billion. Says Dr R S Lal Mohan, director of the Nagercoil-based Conservation of Nature Trust: "Nobody knows for sure how much this Koodankulam project would finally cost. All the 47 hydro and thermal power projects that received techno-economic clearance from the Central Electricity Authority [CEA] as of December 1998 cost much less than nuclear-energy projects that cost a whopping sum of money." Rev Y David, coordinator of the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, challenges the scientific and technical feasibility and appropriateness of the project. This veteran activist, who mobilized the public in the late 1980s when the plant was first proposed, questions how a developing country such as India could embark on nuclear-power production, when technologically advanced countries such as Sweden and Germany are phasing out the nuclear-power option. "A country like India, that is respected around the world for its leadership in appropriate technology and sustainable development, should build on such a reputation and not fall for harmful nuclear energy," David said. Dr B K Subbarao, a retired naval captain and Supreme Court lawyer who has confronted the Department of Atomic Energy on its policies, asserts: "The Koodankulam nuclear project makes no sense when the country's six nuclear power plants with 14 units are operating at low capacities." Most of the 14 units (two at Tarapur in western Maharashtra state, four at Rawatbhatta in western Rajasthan state, two at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, two at Narora in northern Uttar Pradesh, two at Kakrapar in western Gujarat and two at Kaiga in southern Karnataka) are also beset with technical problems. While the country was to have achieved production of 10,000MW of nuclear power by 2000, it now barely produces 2,500MW - and the target of 20,000MW by 2020 seems unrealistic. And then there are other issues. Opponents of the Koodankulam project contend that the "development" efforts of the Indian nuclear establishment sideline the very democratic norms and precepts on which the country was established. These critics claim that the specifics of nuclear weapons and energy programs, which have such an enormous bearing on the lives and futures of ordinary people, should not be kept away from the public view. Besides, costly nuclear-power generation deprives the country of funds badly needed for pressing needs such as health, education, housing, and transportation, they argue. Critics are also unhappy with the "use and discard" strategy adopted in nuclear power projects for obvious reasons of limited land availability and the impact of nuclear waste on the future generation's health and safety. India's population characteristics demand that energy generation be sustainable and environment-friendly, because even a small mishap can harm or kill a huge number of people. None of these factors seem to trouble the Indian nuclear establishment, critics say. The Koodankulam nuclear power project is said to have obtained a clearance of sorts from the Ministry of Environment and Forests just before the October 7, 2001, foundation-stone-laying ceremony for the project. No details of this clearance have been revealed to the public. The permission that the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project is said to have obtained in 1989 is not acceptable now, because a 1994 Act of Tamil Nadu mandates an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a public hearing before the construction of the project. The law requires obtaining permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as per the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. But Sheela Rani Chunkath, director of TNPCB, has clarified that it has not granted permission for the Koodankulam project. "If the nuclear establishment wants to set up the Koodankulam nuclear power project, let them follow the established procedure," says Dr R Ramesh of Doctors for Safe Environment (DOSE). S K Agarwal, Koodankulam project director, claimed in a recent seminar on health hazards of radiation that an EIA was actually done in 1988. He added that the site evaluation study, said to have delineated the strengths and weaknesses of the Koodankulam site, and the safety analysis report were all there. Asked why these reports were never released to the public, Agarwal said he saw no point in doing so because they were "very technical and voluminous". (Inter Press Service) ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Room 6301, The Center, 99 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong ***************************************************************** 4 Coast Guard Wants Permanent Nuclear Plant Security Channel3000.com - News - Waters Around Kewaune, Point Beach POSTED: 4:17 p.m. EDT April 19, 2002 The Coast Guard wants to make temporary security zones in the waters around the Point Beach and Kewaunee nuclear power plants permanent. [Nuclear power plants remain on highest alert after Sept. 11. ] Security perimeters on Lake Michigan around the plants were established after Sept. 11 to protect the facilities from possible sabotage. Boat traffic is prohibited in the zones. Lt. Cmdr. Tim Sickler said Friday the zones allow the Coast Guard and plant security to keep a close eye out for any encroachments. The Coast Guard said there's no specific threat against the plants that caused it to propose the permanent zones. The Coast Guard is taking public comment on its proposal until May 20. Sickler said the permanent zones would be smaller than the temporary one -- about 200,000-square yards around the Kewaunee plant and 125-square yards around Point Beach. Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 5 Opinion: Nuclear power necessary Saturday, April 20, 2002 A lot of good people at the April 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hearing on storage of spent nuclear fuel spoke with courage on a subject they little understood. Perhaps the final decision is predictable but not necessarily because the NRC listens only to power companies or big money. Perhaps the truth is one-sided, where the realities of our country's need for electric power to keep people employed and functioning outweigh the fears of the anti-nuke protestors, and the safety record of the nuclear power industry is vastly superior to the safety of coal-powered electricity, which kills 30,000 yearly with coal smoke. Perhaps the dependability of wind and solar power is too poor because wind doesn't always blow or the sun always shine. Engineers must learn to understand what nature offers, then explore what can be done at a reasonable price to make our lives better. Unfortunately they cannot command nature or create solutions out of nothing. Nuclear power offers the cleanest, most economical power available today to keep our homes and economy powered, and the nuclear waste problem could be managed safely without politicians obstructing and exaggerating fears. Out of these hearings people may see that no magic wand exists to get from nature what it does not offer. Lives will be saved as we expand a power industry that does not kill people through smoke or further disrupt our weather patterns with greenhouse gas emissions. Steve Barrowes Member, Scientists for Secure Waste Storage © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 6 Millstone 2 closed for second time in 2 weeks TheDay.com: Cause of Friday's shutdown is still not known as yet By Paul Choiniere - Published on 04/20/2002 Waterford –– For the second time in a little more than two weeks the Millstone 2 reactor was automatically shut down Friday, once again raising questions about the reliability of the nuclear plant that began operations in 1975. At about 2 p.m. a fault detected in the station's generator led to a series of automatic reactions that culminated with the shutdown of the reactor itself. Pete Hyde, a spokesman, said it was not immediately known what mechanical problem caused the fault in the generator. The nuclear reactor creates heat that flashes water to steam in the plant's steam generators. The steam then spins a massive turbine that in turn rotates the generator and produces electricity. When a fault was detected in the generator all the other systems began an automatic shut down, Hyde said. On April 3 the Millstone 2 reactor was returned to service following a 44-day scheduled outage. During the outage new uranium-filled fuel rods were inserted into the reactor and maintenance work was conducted. Two days after the restart the reactor had to be shut down again when problems were found in a reactor coolant pump. The plant went back into operation April 14. Now comes the latest shut down. Keeping reactors up and operating is key to running a nuclear utility profitably. Estimates vary, but even shutting down for just a few days means millions of dollars in lost electricity sales. The Virginia-based Dominion company, which purchased Millstone station in April 2001 for $1.3 billion, has prided itself on then strong performance of its nuclear units. The company operates four reactors in Virginia. Along with the two other reactors at Millstone Power Station, Millstone 2 ran into serious problems in the mid-1990s because of inadequate maintenance, regulatory violations and a failure to maintain accurate records of plant modifications. Even after Millstone 2 returned to service in May 1999, following a three-year outage, it continued to face operating problems and frequent shut downs. In the past couple of years, however, operators appeared to have a handle on the problem. When Millstone 2 was shutdown on Feb. 16 for the refueling, it ended a record 283-day run for the station that saw both Millstone 2 and 3 operate without interruption. John Markowicz, co-chairman of the state's Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, said the council will be interested in finding out whether the recent shut downs were due simply to unforeseen mechanical problems or if inadequate maintenance played a factor. “It is the older plant, so you would expect to see more problems,” he said. Millstone 3 continued to operate normally. Millstone 1 has been permanently mothballed. p.choiniere@theday.com © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 7 LES to allow contract to expire Journalstar.com: Local BY ALGISJ. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star After discussing the legal ramifications of severing its contract with Cooper Nuclear Station, the Lincoln Electric System administrative board on Friday voted unanimously to let the contract expire on Sept. 22, 2003, without any extension. That means that after that date, LES will no longer get electricity from Cooper, an 800-megawatt power plant owned by the Nebraska Public Power District south of Brownville along the Missouri River. Cooper represents about 20 percent of the annual energy that LES customers use. "We evaluate options when planning future resources to meet our customers' needs," said LES Administrator and CEO Terry Bundy. "Cooper Nuclear Station is not the most economical option for our customers." Under a contract that dates back to 1968, LES receives about 12.5 percent of the electricity generated by Cooper. LES officials say they pay NPPD about $25 million annually for the electricity they receive from the power plant. They said the termination of the Cooper contract will not affect customer rates or power supplies. "We will have enough resources to cover the 97 megawatts we got from Cooper," said LES spokesman Russ Reno. LES is building a new power plant north of Lincoln called Salt Valley Generating Station. The first phase of the project includes 125 megawatts of generation capacity. Salt Valley will use natural gas and steam to produce electricity. LES officials say they expect to be generating electricity in the summer of 2003. The city-owned utility also is considering joining a consortium of 13 utilities to build a new 750-megawatt coal-fired power plant south of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The LES Board on Friday approved a "letter of intent" to participate as a joint owner in the project for 100 megawatts. The coal-fired power plant, spearheaded by MidAmerican Energy Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, will cost LES over $100 million. MidAmerican, which is also a contractual partner in Cooper, expects to begin commercial operation in May 2007. MidAmerican officials have said they don't plan to renew their contract with NPPD when it expires in September 2004. Before voting Friday morning, the LES board went into an executive session to discuss current litigation involving LES and NPPD and how it relates to severing ties with Cooper. LES and NPPD are involved in lengthy lawsuits over millions of dollars in losses from the alleged mismanagement of the plant, access to information and records about Cooper, and the payment of decommissioning fees to cover the plant's eventual shutdown. So far, those payments are estimated at about $65 million. NPPD has said it intends to operate Cooper at least until Sept. 21, 2004, but its future remains uncertain after that date. That's one of the factors that LES officials say led to the decision to not extend the contract and look for other alternatives. "LES had long expected that Cooper Nuclear Station would be a reliable, cost-effective resource; however, NPPD's management and operating performance at CNS over the last 10 years have not resulted in CNS being operated as an economical and efficient plant, consistent with good business and utility operating practices," the board said in its resolution. NPPD spokeswoman Marcia Cady responded by saying: "That's their opinion. We don't agree with it, but they have the right to their own opinion." During the meeting, LES board member Thomas Schleich said Cooper's substantial operating costs over the last 10 years and its recent problems with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were two major concerns that led to the decision to let the contract expire. NPPD officials are spending $4 million to get ready for a federal inspection in June. The inspection grew out of two incidents last summer during an emergency preparedness exercise where Cooper officials were late in notifying the state and activating one of the emergency response facilities. Meanwhile, NPPD is looking at hiring a private company to manage the plant, close it or sell it to another utility. The Columbus-based utility hopes to reach a decision later this year. Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 473-7243 or alaukaitis@journalstar.com. Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Coalition opposes new OPPD plant Journalstar.com: Local BYPHILROONEY / The Associated Press A group of economic development officials formed to help keep the Cooper Nuclear Station at Brownville open is arguing that Nebraska may be building too many electric plants. Representatives of the Cooper Coalition told the state Power Review Board on Friday that it opposes the Omaha Public Power District's plans to build a new plant at its Nebraska City site. The board was to consider the application at the meeting. The Omaha-area power district's application fails to justify a need for the plant, or adding $1 billion in debt to customers, representatives said. ``The board should not ignore that Cooper Nuclear Power Station will have the capacity to meet OPPD's future needs, and existing transmission lines already connect Cooper to OPPD,'' said Jed Wagner, the coalition's executive director. OPPD spokesman Jeff Hanson said the district disagrees. ``We believe that going ahead with the 300-megawatt site at the Nebraska City plant is clearly in the best interest of the OPPD customer-owners,'' Hanson said. With enough customer commitments, the plant could be built to produce 600-megawatts of electricity. Wagner said Cooper is a $1 billion public asset that will be paid for in two years and can operate for several more decades. The Nebraska Public Power District could seek federal relicensing of the plant through 2034. That's not a sure thing, Hanson said. ``We don't know that Cooper is going to be operated until 2034. It's currently licensed until 2014,'' he said. The proposed OPPD plant would open in 2009 with a 50-year license, Hanson said. The district believes it would cost 20-25 percent more per kilowatt hour to buy power from Cooper than to produce the power at the new coal plant. Wagner told the Power Review Board that cooperative planning is needed because the Nebraska Public Power District is planning new power plants near Beatrice and Grand Island, and eight utilities have discussed combining forces to build a plant in Hastings. Hanson pointed out a news release from the coalition's parent organization, the Nemaha County Development Alliance, that the coalition's goal is to see that the Cooper Nuclear Station remains in operation and is licensed until at least 2034. Hanson said OPPD simply wants to provide reliable, cost-efficient electric power. Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Nuclear Power Hits Third Straight Record EarthVision Environmental News WASHINGTON, April 19, 2002 - US nuclear power generation set a third straight annual record with a 2001 total of 768.8 billion net kilowatt hours, which was two percent higher than the 2000 record of 753.9 net billion kWh. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the US Department of Energy, this is the third consecutive annual record for nuclear generation. For the third time in history, nuclear power accounted for more than 20 percent of the electricity generated in a single year said EIA, with nuclear's share of the market hitting 20.3 percent. According to EIA data, nuclear facilities in just three states - Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina - contributed more than a quarter of the nation's output. For more information about annual US nuclear generation and capacity, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf. Information on electricity generation by individual nuclear plants can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreact.html. ***************************************************************** 10 Are Nuclear Plants Safe Enough? FOXNews.com Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York. Friday, April 19, 2002 By Douglas Kennedy Editor's Note: This is the first of a series of reports examining the safety of the nation's nuclear facilities. NEW YORK—In the weeks following Sept. 11, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a no-fly zone over all the country’s nuclear plants. But it is now legal to fly directly over plants as long as the plane maintains an altitude of 2,000 feet. But will these relaxed regulations compromise security at nuclear plants against possible terror attacks from the sky? Anti-nuclear activists say yes, and argue the plants are particularly vulnerable to an air attack similar to the World Trade Center and Pentagon strikes. But the nuclear industry insists that's not the case. "We do not believe they are a good target at all for an air attack," said Steve Floyd of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "We think the problem of being able to hit the building in the right place combined with the robust design of the facility makes such an attack extremely improbable of causing a significant problem." Fox News decided to check out the safety conditions aboard a four-seat Cessna airplane rented from a flight school in Teterboro, N.J. FNC The plan was to fly over the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, 40 miles up the Hudson River from the airport, and just 33 miles from New York City. The plant appeared just 10 minutes after takeoff, on the right side of the plane. The aircraft crossed over the plant three times, for a full 20 minutes. No one warned the pilot of anything. No one at the plant, in fact, did or said a single thing in regards to the plane. The pilot, noting how close he was able to get to the domes, said it would not be difficult to steer the plane down and smash into the plant. "You're not that high and they probably wouldn't be expecting it," he said. "It would probably be pretty easy." Edwin Lyman, an official with the Nuclear Control Institute, a group that lobbies against the nuclear power industry, was put on edge by this test flight’s success. "That is a severe problem," he said. Even a small plane could damage a nuclear power plant, he added, and "a small craft packed with explosives could add an even greater punch." But Floyd didn’t seem as worried by the experiment. "Given the robustness of the buildings, a small plane can't carry enough explosives to cause a significant problem structurally at a nuclear power plant," he said. "There's an average of somewhere between 12 to 15 feet of concrete and steel that an airplane would have to penetrate in order to cause a direct impact on the fuel that's in the reactor." It would be almost impossible for even a large plane to get through, he explained. But not all of a plant’s radioactive materials are kept in the reactor. Highly hazardous spent fuel rods are housed in the domes – often in what critics say are easily breached concrete encasements. "Damage to the spent fuel pool could lead to a massive release of radioactivity, which would then threaten the entire New York metropolitan area if we're talking about Indian Point," Lyman said. The foot print size of these spent fuel pools must also be examined, Floyd said. They are typically 40 feet by 60 feet. That's a very small target for an airplane traveling at 400 miles per hour to try to hit. There are more than 103 nuclear plants in the country, and almost all are close to at least one major airport. That leaves some looking to the sky feeling queasy with a far more terrifying type of air sickness. Fox News' Amy C. Sims contributed to this report. Fox News Network, LLC 2002. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 AU: Database to identify removal of bones [20apr02] news.com.au - By COLIN JAMES ADELAIDE hospitals will set up special teams to tell people bones were secretly removed from their dead children for nuclear tests. The Federal Government will pay for a national program to notify and provide counselling for more than 21,000 Australians whose relatives had bones taken over a 30-year period. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency will provide a database to three Adelaide hospitals to identify 3000 South Australian children and adults who supplied bones. Relatives of anyone who died between 1957 and 1978 will then be invited to contact the hospitals to determine if bones were removed without their knowledge or consent. The database is expected to be available within several months. Under a plan approved by the Federal Government, the agency will also make available more than 3400 ash samples it has kept for 30 years. These were produced when thousands of bones were incinerated and tested for strontium-90, a fission byproduct from nuclear tests. The National Health and Medical Research Council's ethics committee has recommended against health authorities directly contacting relatives. The committee said this could be too traumatic for many people. ***************************************************************** 12 Pa. will give out iodine tablets Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Health, Science and Environment Protection against nuclear plant disaster Saturday, April 20, 2002 By John M.R. Bull, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Correspondent HARRISBURG -- The state is changing its longstanding policy against distributing anti-radiation tablets to those who live near the five nuclear power plants in the state in case of a disaster. "However, I want to be very clear that our best protection is evacuation," said Gov. Mark Schweiker. Faced with criticism that surrounding states distribute the anti-radiation pill potassium iodide, known as KI, Schweiker has agreed to accept a supply of the drug from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has recommended that all states stockpile and distribute the pills. The state now will prepare a distribution plan to get the pills to those who live within 10 miles of a plant. State officials also will put together a public awareness campaign so that those people know how to store the tablets and when to take them. Two pills for each resident will be distributed in the next few months and are meant as a small measure of temporary protection to people while they flee from a nuclear disaster. The pills protect only the thyroid gland against cancer and hypothyroid conditions but are worthless against any other medical condition that can result from exposure to radiation. Potassium iodide is a non-radioactive iodine that fills up the thyroid gland with iodine prior to exposure to any radiation and blocks the gland from absorbing any additional radiation for 24 hours. Those allergic to iodine should not take the pill. To anyone else who takes them, the pills may cause skin rashes, salivary gland swelling, a burning in the mouth or throat, sore teeth and gums, symptoms of a head cold, an upset stomach and diarrhea. State officials fear people will take the pills unnecessarily. The pills that will be distributed from the NRC will come only in adult dosages, and Earl Freilino, state director of homeland security, said he is concerned they may not be safe for children. The decision to distribute the pills does not change the state's emergency response plan, which calls for early evacuation of a surrounding area when release of radiation from a nuclear plant is projected. "It's important for residents to remember that even in the event of an actual radiation release, they should wait for instructions from the governor and the state department of health before ever taking KI," said Freilino. The state has balked at distributing the pills for fear residents near a nuclear plant will have a false sense of security. It is an issue that has percolated in emergency management circles for the last three years. In a series of hearings held last year, state officials heard from county emergency management officials who said they believed they needed the pills to save their own lives if called on to help evacuate an area. And some people who live near nuclear plants complained that other states have been distributing the pills and said that if it is good for others, it's good for Pennsylvania residents. Pennsylvania's reactors are located at five power stations -- Beaver Valley in Beaver County; two each at Limerick in Montgomery County; Susquehanna Stream in Luzerne County; Peach Bottom in York County; and one at Three Mile Island in Dauphin County. A copy of the state's evacuation plan can be found by those who live near a nuclear plant, in the front of their phone books. Copyright ©1997-2002 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Dark cloud of illness lingers over many Thousands of workers, residents have developed cancers Friday, April 19, 2002 By LISA STIFFLER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER RICHLAND -- Doctors first suspected cancer when they spotted abnormalities in Craig Hall's lung. Five years later, in 1996, the electrician was diagnosed with a rare and potentially lethal condition caused by exposure to toxic beryllium. And that could have happened at only one place: Hanford. [Chronic beryllium disease] Fluor Hanford workers Craig Hall, Rich Brooks and Steve Halterman. Hall and Halterman have both been diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease; Brooks has developed a sensitivity to beryllium, a toxic metal used. Jackie Johnston / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Hall, who's worked at the nuclear reservation for 21 years, suspects he contracted chronic beryllium disease while doing maintenance work in a contaminated area where reactor fuel had been fabricated. His symptoms are common to the disease: shortness of breath, sweats and fevers, chest pains and extreme fatigue. He's had to miss days at work and cut back his hours because of the disease, but said he wants to stay at Hanford to help others. "If I walk away that makes me selfish," said Hall, 50. "That's not me. I see an injustice." Beryllium, a silvery metal, was used at Hanford in uranium fuel rods, science experiments and equipment. Today, at least 30 workers currently employed there are either suffering from beryllium disease or have been exposed enough to be at high risk of contracting it, according to a report by the Hanford Joint Council, which helps resolve employee concerns. More than 40 years of operations at Hanford wreaked havoc on the environment, spewing lethal doses of radiation and toxic chemicals into the desert and Columbia River. The damage didn't stop there. Thousands of former workers and residents living downwind were made ill by releases from the atomic bomb-making plant -- developing cancers and other ailments. And still today, those toiling to clean up the poisons are getting sick. "You have a human legacy here," said Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., former senior policy adviser to the Secretary of Energy. "I'm most concerned about the workers; they're on the front line," said Dr. Tim Takaro, assistant environmental-health professor at the University of Washington. "I don't think enough is being done." In January 2000, federal rules went into effect to protect U.S. Department of Energy workers from beryllium exposure and to launch disease-detection programs. But last month's Joint Council report found that Hanford contractors still haven't fully implemented required safeguards. Some of the findings: + Workers are burdened with too much paperwork, preventing them from getting tested for beryllium disease. + Those diagnosed with the disease or exposed to the metal didn't know they had the right to be transferred to jobs in uncontaminated areas. + Fluor Hanford, a primary DOE contractor at Hanford, failed to adequately test equipment for contamination. Similar to asbestosis, beryllium disease occurs when particles of the metal are inhaled. The disease can take years to manifest itself. Fluor Hanford is starting to make the changes recommended in the report, including hiring an ombudsman to help workers negotiate the paperwork and tests needed to document the disease. The contractor is also examining the concerns over the testing program. Dave Van Leuven, Fluor Hanford's executive vice president and chief operating officer, has pledged that if an employee feels uncomfortable in a particular building, "We'll move you out of there." Shortly after the rules protecting workers from beryllium went into effect, the Energy secretary ended years of secrecy and admitted that nuclear weapons-plant workers had been exposed to harmful levels of dangerous materials, dating back to the 1940s. Last year, the federal government initiated a program to pay current and former workers or their relatives $150,000 if they were made ill working at a plant, plus cover their medical costs. Covered diseases include radiation-related cancer, beryllium disease and chronic silicosis caused by exposure to toxic silica. The program has been applauded, but its success has been mixed. It can be difficult for former workers to verify that they were at the site decades ago. To prove that they got cancer from being there, employees must have their radiation exposure amounts reconstructed from old records. And yesterday, the DOE released draft regulations for claims approvals. If this version is finalized, some watchdogs say, few people will receive compensation, in part because contractors will be able to contest claims. "The DOE has made this the most difficult thing you can imagine," said Tom Foulds, a Seattle attorney helping former Hanford employees receive compensation. DOE spokeswoman Manny Van Pelt said the agency is doing "detective work," trying to track down old employment records on behalf of claimants. As of last week, more than 24,000 workers nationwide had filed claims with the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, but fewer than 2,700 had been approved. More than $172 million has been paid out, plus $524,000 in medical bills. While strides have been made to assist workers, those who had the misfortune of living near Hanford -- eating from gardens irrigated by polluted water, drinking milk from cows that ate grass contaminated with radioactive fallout -- still struggle for recognition. Millions of dollars have been spent on more than a decade of research trying to determine if the 2 million people who may have been exposed to radiation releases were made ill because of it. The greatest releases occurred during Hanford's early operations in the mid-1940s, but continued into the '70s. Thousands of "downwinders" sued to get the government to pay for medical monitoring. They lost their federal case in 1999, but appealed. The suit is tied up over the issue of how much exposure is necessary to increase the risk of disease. A decision on the appeal is expected soon. But this shouldn't simply come down to radiation-exposure levels, said Alvarez, of the Institute for Policy Studies. There are ethical considerations, too. "If people were engaging in activities knowingly endangering the public ... that needs to be factored into the decision of whether people should be compensated," he said. 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 Send comments to [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 14 Reid, Ensign Want Travel Logs and Records of All Past Nuclear Waste Shipments Senator Harry Reid Friday, April 19, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an effort to review the safety and security needs of thousands of potential shipments of high-level nuclear waste, U.S. Senators Harry Reid, the Assistant Majority Leader, and John Ensign requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide all information at their disposal regarding the transportation records of past nuclear waste shipments. Government estimates indicate 50,000 to100,000 truck shipments, or 10,000 to 20,000 rail shipments, and nearly 1600 barge shipments would be required to transport high-level nuclear waste to a proposed nuclear waste repository outside Las Vegas, Nevada. In an April 2, 2002, letter the NRC stated that the casks used to transport this material have not been certified through physical tests on full-scale models. The same letter confirmed that testing for damage caused by fire has been largely preformed and analyzed by computer simulation alone. “We have a responsibility to fully understand the potential risks to public health, safety, the environment, and the economy posed by this large number of proposed shipments,” said the Senators in the letter. “To better understand those risks, we would appreciate complete information on every shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipped in the United States by truck, rail or barge.” Senators Reid and Ensign asked for the NRC to provide the following information for each shipment: 1. A description of the contents; 2. The origin and the destination locations, and any intermediate stopping points; 3. A description of the route taken during shipment; 4. The total miles traveled and time consumed; 5. A description of any incidents, such as accidents, traffic violations, regulatory incidents, or other unusual events, that occurred during the shipment, including any releases of radioactive material; 6. A description of any security escorts accompanying each shipment; 7. A description of how local and state governments along each shipment route were notified of the shipment; 8. The total cost of the shipment and a breakdown of the cost of providing security for the shipment. ### ***************************************************************** 15 Plutonium production delays cited Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: Web posted Friday, April 19, 2002 From staff and wire reports Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico might be lagging in its effort to build plutonium pits, which fuel nuclear weapons, a federal report says. The lab is behind schedule in about half the things it needs to do to make the grapefruit-sized metal balls, says the report prepared by the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. The report, released this week, cites bad management and planning that relied on a problematic computer program. Progress has been made since the report was prepared, said Everet Beckner, the DOE's deputy administrator for defense programs. The lab is now only behind in 14 of the 40 manufacturing processes need to make the pits, he said. The United States has not built new, weapons-grade pits in more than 10 years. The DOE made the Los Alamos lab responsible for making new pits seven years ago. The possibility of delays has not caused any problems with the work schedule at Pantex, said Brenda Finley, DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration spokeswoman. Through Finley's office, Del Kellogg, leader of the production operations team said, "At this point, we don't foresee any impact at the plant." The lab has made pits, but they have not been certified, or guaranteed to work as good as the old ones. Only certified pits can be placed in nuclear weapons. A pit is squeezed by high explosives. The pit then explodes in a fusion blast. The report says it will cost $1.7 billion to prepare the first pit. Chris Paine of the Natural Resources Defense Council questioned how the lab had failed to make a certified pit, especially given how much money the lab has spent. "I think it's ridiculous," he said. "You spend a billion dollars over a decade and you say you can't certify a pit. You're either incompetent or you're lying." The Associated Press and Amarillo Globe-News Business Editor Greg Rohloff contributed to this report. © 1996-2002 Amarillo Globe-News ***************************************************************** 16 Littwin: S.C. guv prefers going flat to Rocky Flats Rocky Mountain News: Columnists April 20, 2002 I'm violating the first rule of column writing, which is, if you want someone to actually read the column, never use the words rocky and flats consecutively. But there is another rule, which overrides the first rule and goes like this: If the governor of a state threatens to lie down in the middle of the highway to block a convoy of trucks carrying weapons-grade plutonium from your state to his, you can write Rocky Flats until the plutonium comes home (which you pray it never does). Jim Hodges, the South Carolina governor, has made just that vow. And it gets better than that. On Monday, the state of South Carolina -- hereafter known as the dumpee -- will conduct an exercise/photo op, in which state troopers practice stopping the convoy at the state borders. This is street theater from a governor, who, I'm told, is not a street theater kind of guy. Picture Bill Owens lying on the highway and you get the idea just how weird this is. You know what we have here. Think Civil War redux. Except with nuclear weapons. Or maybe Smokey and the Bandit VI. If the Bandit was hauling plutonium. Now, there are some problems for South Carolina, which could see the first trucks rolling down I-95 any time after May 14. Actually, seeing the trucks could be one of the problems. The Department of Energy uses heavily armed stealth trucks. The energy boys don't tell you when and they don't tell you how. Although there is a rumor that if you see an outsized Miller truck with the logo "More Nuclear Waste, Less Filling," then you might be onto something. And the other thing is that the U.S. government could call out the marshals or maybe even the Army to take on the state troopers, who, if outmanned, would not be defenseless. Whatever they lack in firepower, they make up in mirror sunglasses. This is a states-rights battle like none seen in a great while in a state in which they know something about civil wars. OK, we have to sort of explain the issue. As everyone knows, they're turning Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge, and wildlife, like humans, does poorly around too much plutonium. They've got to dump the stuff somewhere and South Carolina is a traditional dumping ground. At some point -- OK, years -- after the plutonium arrives at Savannah River Site, it is supposed to be mixed with uranium and converted into something called MOX (mixed oxide fuel) to be used in nuclear power plants. Not everyone believes this will -- or can -- happen. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has expressed concern. Duke Energy Corp., which is supposed to use the MOX, has expressed concern. And the Russians figure into this somehow as well. It's better if you don't know. Hodges has actually agreed to take the plutonium but has demanded an exit strategy, in order to eventually get rid of the stuff. And he wants it in writing. And he wants penalties if the government decides, many years later, it isn't really interested in taking the plutonium off South Carolina's hands. You don't have to be a student of energy policy to know that no one, as in no one, wants nuclear waste. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a Republican, have spent the past nine months or so negotiating this issue with Hodges, a Democrat. According to Allard, Hodges has basically won -- saying he has his assurances, and that Allard is willing to put them into law -- but refuses to claim victory, saying that legislation isn't good enough. Hodges wants the issue settled in court -- while, presumably, the plutonium remains at Rocky Flats instead of South Carolina, where it would sit until at least 2007. And so the name-calling, as so often in the world of convoys, has begun. Hodges has accused Allard of politicizing the issue, saying Allard needs Rocky Flats cleaned up for his race with Tom Strickland. Allard says Hodges has been running on the don't-dump-on-me issue for months. Allard press secretary Sean Conway said of Hodges: "We have put together legislation that will codify the agreement. Everyone is on the same page except the governor. He's the one who continues to posture on this issue." And then, just to make it personal: "I've talked to people in South Carolina and you know what his nickname is? Elmer Fudd. He's not regarded as the best and brightest down there." Conway says Hodges is isolated in his own state. But that's not what I heard from South Carolina Democrats. And the South Carolina Sierra Club has offered to join Hodges on the highway. Dell Isham, South Carolina chapter director, said Hodges told them, "Would you mind lying down in front of me?" And if the story isn't strange enough for you yet, it might help to know 75 percent of the plutonium going to South Carolina actually originated in South Carolina. Which makes me wonder what people here in Colorado would say if the trucks were coming the other way. My guess is this: Good luck, pal, getting past TREX. Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com. MORE LITTWIN COLUMNS » ['E.W. Scripps Co.'] ***************************************************************** 17 Feds Doubt Plutonium Conversion Plan Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 COLUMBIA, S.C.- The agency that oversees the nation's commercial nuclear reactors says there is no guarantee that a controversial federal program to turn plutonium from nuclear weapons into fuel for reactors will ever start. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressed its concerns in a memorandum filed in a relicensing case last week. Gov. Jim Hodges' office says it validates his fight to keep federal shipments of plutonium out of the state, a fight that could lead to a showdown with federal officials next month. The regulatory agency agreed with Duke Energy Corp., which also worries whether a program to convert the plutonium at the federal nuclear facility called the Savannah River Site will fail before it begins. The Savannah River Site is south of Aiken, near the Georgia state line. Duke Energy's concerns were filed as part of the utility's plans to relicense several nuclear power plants that would use the new form of fuel made from weapons-grade plutonium, company spokesman Tom Shiel said. The new nuclear fuel is called mixed oxide or MOX. In its memo, the NRC wrote that agency officials "see no reason to doubt Duke's statement that its submittal of a MOX license amendment application is uncertain." Cortney Owings, Hodges' spokeswoman, said the NRC and Duke misgivings about the feasibility of converting to use of MOX "validate Governor Hodges' position" against allowing plutonium into the state. "There are a lot of questions that need to be answered involving this process," she told The New York Times. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has said his intention is to begin shipments of 76 trailer loads of plutonium from the former nuclear weapons facility in Rocky Flats, Colo., to South Carolina shortly after May 15. The shipments would continue through June 2003. Hodges, a Democrat, wants Abraham to sign documents that could be enforced by the courts assuring the plutonium won't be stranded in South Carolina if the Energy Department changes its plans. He has said he is ready to send state troopers to intercept the truckloads or even lie in the road himself to stop them. Abraham says he would commit to taking the plutonium out of the state if the plan falls through, but does not want courts to be involved in national security decisions. Department of Energy spokesman Joe Davis said the government is so committed to the MOX program that it has pledged to spend $4 billion over the next 20 years. "This is the policy of the United States," he said. Besides, he said, the NRC's doubts about the program are Hodges' fault. "It's because the governor won't agree to allow us to move forward," he said. The MOX program is part of an international arms agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which each country pledged to convert some of their plutonium used to arm nuclear missiles into fuel. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 Residents fear problems with West Valley cleanup Buffalo News - CATTARAUGUS COUNTY Cattaraugus Correspondent 4/19/2002 ASHFORD - Residents in a wide radius of the former nuclear fuels reprocessing center and West Valley Demonstration Project in rural Cattaraugus County want to believe removal is eventually planned for various radioactive wastes, contaminated buildings, soils, tools and other materials now awaiting cleanup and decommissioning. But the truth is the final remediation method hasn't even been recommended yet. That "preferred alternative" will be part of the U.S. Department of Energy's final environmental impact statement on decommissioning, which has been promised for completion by 2005. In the meantime, many observers fear some wastes will be entombed on the site forever and that a new policy on decommissioning has created loopholes to allow an early pullout by the Department of Energy. The uneasiness is growing as the highly successful vitrification project draws to a close and what was once 600,000 gallons of high-level liquid waste - now encapsulated in solidified form and stored in a temporary building in an above-ground storage area - wait for final disposal. Anxieties are also fueled by the recent announcement of layoffs at the Demonstration Project, the DOE's fast-track plan announced earlier this year, and the congressional threat to slash the budget due to a failure of negotiations between the DOE and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority on the responsibility for high-level waste disposal fees and long-term site management. The chief topic of what one official termed a "meeting marathon" - held in three parts Tuesday and Wednesday in Ashford - was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policy statement, released last January, on the site's decommissioning criteria. Both the presenters and the audience, about 75 people in all, were well-versed in the science and technology of nuclear waste. Some in the audience were members of the West Valley Citizen Task Force, established and trained five years ago by the DOE and the energy authority to provide advice in the draft environmental impact studies. There was also a smattering of local residents and media representatives. Presenters were representatives of the regulatory agencies involved with the site activities, who recited their roles and responsibilities for the cleanup and decommissioning of the West Valley site. They were invited to meet Tuesday with the Citizen Task Force, but the main purpose of their visit was to carry out a task outlined in talks last November to establish communication lines for the duration of the cleanup. It was clear that the real work of designing a road map to closure still lies ahead. "I hope that doesn't mean they're going to put a blanket over the place and go home," said Cattaraugus County Legislature Chairman Jess Fitzpatrick, adding he believes the NRC wants to return to a set of dosage criteria governed by a federal license-termination rule, but is uncomfortable with a proposal to reclassify high-level waste as incidental waste and also a suggestion to use flexible standards. Fitzpatrick said he doesn't believe the site can ever be returned to a pristine state, but county leaders will apply political pressure to make the agencies remove the high-level waste and contaminated buildings. He pointed out that this week's television coverage of the topic and the budget concerns for the cleanup are fueling the local rumor mill. "Now it's about implementation," said Larry Camper, an NRC decommissioning branch chief who tried to assure the group that the agency's policy statement doesn't create new criteria but relies on old methods that call for site-specific information for a decommissioning decision. Camper described the meetings as successful, generating feedback that he did not interpret as negative. Citizen Task Force member Ray Vaughn said he witnessed some progress and described three versions of the policy statement. The official written statement is inherently vague, he said, while a second one emerged from the verbal explanations given by regulators. A third version is his own strict legal interpretation of the written document, he said. "All the regulators seem to be buying into what they heard in the second version. . . . I expect there will be no exceptions (in the decommissioning criteria) except as a last resort," Vaughn said in a final note of optimism. Others were not so upbeat, however, with Carol Mongerson of the West Valley Coalition on Nuclear Wastes hinting that some groups may resort to a lawsuit if the agencies try to avoid the required federal environmental review process and try to close the site by grouting the high-level waste tanks and encasing other wastes in concrete. She said Wednesday's meeting served no practical purpose and, as one of only a few people in attendance at a Wednesday morning meeting, described witnessing an argument between DOE and energy authority representatives that ended when an Environmental Protection Agency representative urged a return to negotiations. Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 19 AU: Rio sticks to its guns despite grilling - theage.com.au By Barry FitzGerald April 19 2002 [Protesters] Protesters maintain their rage against Rio Tinto outside the meeting. Picture: VIKI LASCARIS Sacked coal workers and the anti-uranium mining lobby were yesterday given short shrift at the Melbourne annual meeting of the global mining giant Rio Tinto. After a colorful protest outside the meeting, their complaints were given a good airing during the formal business of the meeting, a follow-up to the main event of the London meeting last week, and attended by about 200 shareholders. The Rio board had to deal with a barrage of questions on its refusal to reinstate coal workers sacked at three of its operations over the past four years despite being directed to do so by the Industrial Relations Commission. The group also backed away from guaranteeing that there would be no development of the Jabiluka uranium deposit in the Northern Territory - a project that the traditional Aboriginal landowners continue to oppose. The meeting was told that Rio was within its rights to continue to appeal against the IRC decision on reinstating the sacked coal workers, and that while a Jabiluka development was not on the cards, Rio could not rule one out forever because that was a "sovereign issue". After the meeting the group's managing director, Leigh Clifford, said he expected the results of Rio's appeals to the IRC's unfair dismissal reinstatement orders "will be handed down in the not too distant future". He said that given the potential for the company or the workers to make additional appeals, the IRC had kick-started a conciliation process. "We have been open to conciliation and negotiations on this matter for some time," Mr Clifford said. But he added that there had been an "unrealistic expectation about jobs that are available back at the mines". "I think that if there is good faith on both sides there is a prospect of resolving some of those issues. But I don't think people should expect to be lottery winners out of such an exercise," Mr Clifford warned. Group chairman Sir Robert Wilson, in his formal address to the meeting, delivered the same message as that delivered in London last week. The London address prompted a 2.4 per cent sell-off in Rio's share price as the market read it to be a gloomy assessment on the pace of economic recovery and its effect on commodity prices. Sir Robert was making no apologies yesterday but was nevertheless trying to be more upbeat at the media conference that followed the meeting. "Our best guess is that there will be some pick-up in global demand as the year progresses but it is not going to be dramatic," he said. "The question of the pricing of commodities is a separate one to some extent, and one that we wouldn't necessarily have a particular insight into." But Sir Robert said it did not take much activity by the big hedge funds to a have a "dramatic effect" on commodities traded on terminal markets. On a positive note, Sir Robert said there was "some evidence that the hedge funds are modestly long at the moment". Rio's share price ended yesterday's trade 18 cents higher at $37.30. Copyright © 2002 The Age Company Ltd ***************************************************************** 20 Most lawmakers at hearing back Yucca nuke dump By Doug Abrahms [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS 4/19/2002 12:09 am [Energy boss Spencer Abraham testifies Thursday at the Yucca Mountain hearing. - Associated Press/ASSOCIATED PRESS] WASHINGTON — A vast majority of House members at the first congressional hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump voiced support Thursday for the project, saying they favor moving the radioactive garbage out of their states and into Nevada. Democrats as well as Republicans said they wanted to move quickly ahead to build the nuclear-waste dump because the issue has been studied for 20 years. The dump would be built some 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and nuclear waste-laden trucks and trains could be routed through northern Nevada. The House is expected to pass a resolution within weeks that supports President Bush’s decision to build Yucca Mountain. The Senate will take up the issue later this year. Nevada’s congressional delegation has decried the Yucca Mountain project, saying that transporting the waste would endanger much of the nation. But during the hearing, Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La. and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said high-level nuclear waste is being stored in more than 30 states, and more than 160 million people live within 75 miles of a nuclear power plant or military weapons facilities. “So for the sake of long-term public health and safety and our national security interests, it is absolutely critical that we move to develop Yucca Mountain,” he said. “It is isolated on federal land at the Nevada Test Site — 14 miles away from the closest residence — and is safe and secure.” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said he plans to vote at a Senate energy and commerce subcommittee hearing on Tuesday to override of Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn’s veto of Yucca Mountain. He has said he expects the full House to approve the bill in early May. Yucca Mountain proponents tried to appease opponents by saying several times that passing this resolution would only allow the process to move forward, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission still must approve the application. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said that if Congress fails to support Yucca Mountain, the Energy Department has no alternative site but remains responsible for taking possession of the spent nuclear fuel from atomic power plants. “There is no alternative at this point,” he said. “Failure to do this leaves us with a responsibility to deal with the waste and no plan.” Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said at the hearing that commercial power plants could continue to store their nuclear waste on-site in dry casks until the Energy Department finds a better solution than moving it across America’s highways and railroads and burying it in the Nevada desert. The costs have continued to mount for the project, which Ensign dubbed “boondoggle in the desert.” “If we know these dry casks are good for 100 years, what’s the rush?” he said. Nevada Reps. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, and Shelly Berkley, a Democrat, also spoke against Yucca Mountain at the hearing. “Yucca Mountain has not or never will be geologically sound” enough to house nuclear waste, Gibbons said. Still, the big fight remains in the Senate, which is expected to start taking up Yucca Mountain in late spring or early summer. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., did not speak at the House hearing. Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said the senator could be more effective battling Yucca Mountain elsewhere. “We’ve got some political tricks we will pull up our sleeve,” Ensign said referring to the Senate vote on Yucca Mountain. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 21 Candidate says others also accept donations from dump advocates Dario Herrera Candidate says Jon Porter has done little to fight repository [Yucca Mountain] More about Yucca Mountain Saturday, April 20, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Herrera: Yucca backers send dollars to Porter By JANE ANN MORRISON REVIEW-JOURNAL Democratic congressional candidate Dario Herrera said Friday he won't accept money from unions that support the Yucca Mountain Project, and he challenged his Republican opponent to reject contributions from House leaders who want to store nuclear waste in Nevada. At a cold and windy news conference Friday, Herrera made the planned nuclear waste repository a litmus test. He repeated previous demands that state Sen. Jon Porter, R-Henderson, spurn money he has received from top House Republicans. "House GOP leaders are no friends to Nevada families," said Herrera, chairman of the Clark County Commission. According to Herrera's research, Porter has accepted $62,000 in contributions from House Republicans in the past two congressional election cycles, including support from Speaker Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Richard Armey, Tom Davis and Joe Barton. All donated to Porter through their political action committees, and all back the Yucca Mountain Project. "Jon Porter is drinking their champagne, eating their shrimp, and doesn't understand why this compromises his commitment to the Yucca fight," Herrera said, standing outside the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse, where he hopes to someday have an office for Nevada's 3rd Congressional District. Seven other Democrats attended the news conference: former Gov. Bob Miller, former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, County Commissioner Myrna Williams and Assembly members David Parks and Vonne Chowning. Each one criticized Porter for accepting contributions from Republican leaders. Asked whether their condemnation of Porter applied equally to Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, who also has accepted money from House leaders, the eight Democrats said no. The difference, they explained, is that Guinn accepts contributions from Yucca Mountain supporters but is actively fighting the federal government's plans to build a high-level nuclear waste repository there. The governor "is working diligently," Herrera said, while Porter has done nothing more than work on "some toothless resolution that was passed 17 years ago." Herrera charged that Porter's "silence has been deafening" in resisting a repository. Porter said he held a hearing on transportation issues during the 2001 Legislature. "And where was Dario?" Porter asked. Porter also is a scheduled speaker next week before the House Transportation Committee. He said he found it ironic that on the same day he was working on his testimony, Democrats were holding a news conference to attack another Nevadan. Herrera said Porter should either return the House leaders' money or donate it to the Nevada Protection Fund, which was established to pay for the legal and public relations battle against nuclear waste in Nevada. Contacted later, Porter said he would welcome support from the Teamsters and electricians, two unions that back the Yucca Mountain Project. "I'd love to have their support," he said. Porter's father was an electrician. Union leaders at the Teamsters Local 631 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 367 either were unavailable or didn't return telephone calls Friday afternoon. The electricians' business manager, David Jones, submitted a letter to Congress on Thursday supporting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Jones wrote that as electricians and Nevadans, "we believe an aggressively managed repository at Yucca Mountain can make a meaningful and safe contribution to our country." Porter called it "hypocritical" for the eight Democrats to hold a news conference attacking him when one of their own -- U.S. Sen. Harry Reid -- has accepted contributions from Yucca Mountain advocates in the past. "I don't question Senator Reid's determination on these efforts" because of those contributions, Porter said. Although Porter will not return the $62,000, he said he will donate the $1,000 from nuclear energy lobbyist Robert List to the Nevada Protection Fund. List is a former Republican governor of Nevada. As chairman of the Clark County Commission, Herrera takes credit for the $2.5 million the commission has contributed to the fund. The total is $1.5 million less than what he wanted the county to donate. In addition, Herrera and his wife, Emily, gave $250 to the fund last week and will donate another $250 next month. After the news conference, Miller said everyone knows Porter, if elected, will fight the nuclear dump. But accepting the money sends an "implicit message," Miller said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 22 South Carolina plutonium dispute might aid Yucca foes Saturday, April 20, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Debate over transporting radioactive waste helps Nevada's position By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials see a dispute between South Carolina and the Energy Department over plutonium shipments as a possible opening in the battle to win Senate votes against a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. South Carolina's senators, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, still intend to vote for permanent nuclear waste storage in Nevada, their offices said Friday. But Sen. John Ensign, D-Nev., said two other Republicans are tilting toward Nevada's position as a result of the states' rights dispute. He declined to name the senators. Ensign maintained that South Carolina's objection to receiving government plutonium from Colorado buttresses Nevada's argument regarding the difficulty of transporting nuclear waste safely. "This situation in South Carolina already has influenced another Republican senator who used to be firmly in the other side's camp and is now on our side," Ensign said. Another senator is reconsidering, he said. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he plans to approach Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who has voted consistently for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. "I'll talked to Fritz. I've talked to 35 senators already. I got the easiest ones out of the way first," Reid said with a chuckle. But Hollings does not intend to change his mind on Yucca Mountain, spokesman Andy Davis said. "He still sees Yucca Mountain as part of the endgame because that's where the plutonium will be sent for permanent storage," Davis said. Rebecca Fleming, spokeswoman for Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., said the plutonium controversy will not affect Thurmond's support for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The House and Senate will decide by a majority vote later this year whether to uphold Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of President Bush's recommendation of Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. South Carolina opposes Energy Department plans to begin transporting 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium as early as May 15 to Savannah River, the department's nuclear facility in Aiken, S.C., near the Georgia border. After arriving, the plutonium would be converted to fuel for nuclear power plants. South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat who is running for re-election this year, is concerned the plutonium will never leave after it arrives at Savannah River. Hodges is threatening to close the state's borders to the plutonium shipments, which will come from Rocky Flats, the government weapons facility near Denver. "There seems to be a rush on the DOE side to make the shipments to Savannah River," Hodge spokeswoman Cortney Owings said. "The governor will not allow these shipments to enter South Carolina unless there is legislation or a federal court order requiring the Energy Department to move the plutonium out of the state." Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said the South Carolina dispute is unrelated to Yucca Mountain. The radioactive material must be sent to Savannah River because a U.S. agreement with Russia prevents plutonium from being used for weapons, he said. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 23 Clark County money for Yucca fight will arrive sooner or later Saturday, April 20, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal State needs cash infusion for TV advertising, public relations push By ED VOGEL REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- The state cannot receive a $1.5 million donation from Clark County to fight the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository until June 18, scarcely a month before a vote on the dump in the U.S. Senate. Bob Loux, administrator for the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, said Friday that the delay will not be a problem because he temporarily can borrow from other funds for an anti-Yucca Mountain advertising campaign. But he can't accept the county-approved contribution until the state amends an existing agreement with the county. The new agreement requires approval of the Board of Examiners at a May 14 meeting and of the Legislature's Interim Finance Committee on June 18. The money is crucial for Loux's office because he quickly needs to fund a multi-million dollar television advertising and public relations campaign aimed at combatting President Bush's plan to put nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Nevada leaders have conceded the state lacks the votes in the House to block the dump, but they say there's a chance to prevail in the Senate. The House is expected to vote in May on a dump resolution while the Senate vote should come in July. Once the state receives the $1.5 million, the Legislature can match the contribution. Though the county commission stipulated the $1.5 million must be spent on Yucca Mountain legal expenses, the state already has a $2.8 million legal defense war chest. Loux will pull $1.5 million from the legal fund and use it on the anti-Yucca ad campaign, then will replace the removed funds with the Clark County donation. Las Vegas advertising executive Mark Brown said the delay in receiving the county funds will not hamper ad agencies from placing anti-Yucca TV spots in states where votes are in doubt. Brown said some TV stations might not request immediate payment for purchased time if they know the money is coming. Guinn has called on Nevadans to contribute at least a dollar to stop the repository. Toward that effort, Loux's office received about 150 checks a day this week from citizens contributing to the Nevada Protection Fund. On Monday Loux reported residents had contributed $77,777 to the effort, including one $75,000 donation. Loux said he wouldn't be able to give an updated figure on contributions until May 29. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 24 Ads prompt Jeffords to soften Yucca stance Sen. James Jeffords Saturday, April 20, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada's lobbying against nuclear waste burial at Yucca Mountain appears to have caught the attention of at least one senator, but whether it will affect his vote remains to be seen. Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont softened his statements on nuclear waste after Nevada-backed environmental groups launched a $300,000 television ad campaign this week on two network stations in his state. Jeffords, the Senate's sole independent, has voted in the past to send radioactive spent fuel from Vermont's nuclear power plant to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He said Friday he is likely to do so again when the Senate votes this summer on the Yucca repository site. But in the meantime, Jeffords and fellow Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, have become guinea pigs for Nevada's debut of a 30-second commercial aimed at convincing citizens that nuclear waste could be more vulnerable to accident and attack on the road to a Yucca Mountain repository than if kept in place at power plants. In the spot scheduled to air another week, Vermonters are shown intercut footage of nuclear plants, highway rush hour backups and children at play while a narrator intones over ominous music that if Yucca Mountain is approved, nuclear waste traffic accidents "are inevitable. And terrorist attacks will become harder than ever to prevent." The battle was joined on Friday when Vermont's largest newspaper, The Burlington Free Press, ran a half-page ad bought by the Alliance for Sound Nuclear Policy, whose members include the Nuclear Energy Institute. The ad describes Nevada's commercial as "scare tactics" while touting that "transporting used nuclear fuel is safe." Nevada strategists say support from the environmentally minded Vermonters is key for the state to prevail in the Senate, which now tilts towards approval of the Yucca Mountain Project. A vote is expected before August. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said TV ads will begin running in a second state in a few days, but would not say where for fear of tipping off the nuclear industry. Ad planners have said Missouri, Oregon and Utah are among the probable targets, states where Nevada lawmakers and consultants believe senators might be swayed by the right message. After Vermont began reacting to the commercial, Jeffords responded by issuing a statement recognizing "legitimate questions remain about (Yucca Mountain), including the safety of transporting nuclear waste to the site. I look forward to full and open discussions over the next few weeks with both my constituents and experts on this issue." Nevada officials and environmentalists said they viewed Jeffords' response as an opening to apply more pressure. Others said the Vermont senator may have merely been comforting constituents by acknowledging his willingness to listen. Jeffords said Friday his office received a "moderate" number of calls about the commercial. He would not specify how many. He said the television ad was "something you have to be ready for in politics, and I think we have handled it appropriately." Leahy's office has fielded "several dozen" calls on the commercial, spokesman David Carle said. Leahy supports a national repository, but believes "the ball is in the Bush administration's court to address concerns senators have about transportation issues," Carle said. Reid, who approved the Vermont ad campaign, believes Jeffords and Leahy might still be convinced. "I think (the ads) have done quite well," Reid said Friday. "I think we have a shot at two senators who didn't vote with us before. I don't know if we'll get both, or one, or none of them. We're working on that." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 25 Brian Greenspun: Nuclear confrontation Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. AM I STILL STANDING? By the time you read this I will have already taped an appearance opposite former governor Bob List for a half-hour debate about Yucca Mountain on "This Week in Las Vegas." (This is being written Thursday night, we taped the show Friday morning, and it will air on Channel 3 tonight at 7.) So much for up-to-the-minute news! The real issue, of course, is not whether I am still standing after the public sees the show, but whether I was competent enough to make the case that needs to be made against a highly paid lobbyist for the nuclear power industry. That's what List is these days, a hired gun whose mission it is to soften up Nevadans to the point that they will give up their hopes, dreams and futures for an empty promise of things that will never come. For the record, I am not getting paid one cent for fighting President George W. Bush's decision to help his friends in the power industry make many more millions by shipping 77,000 tons of radioactive waste to a dumpsite just outside Las Vegas. In fact, like many good-hearted and sensible Nevadans, this fight is costing me and my family many dollars as we support our senators and our governor in this fight to stop the madness. Whatever we spend, though, and I hope all other Nevadans -- except List, of course -- feel the same way, it pales in comparison to what we may lose if those trucks and trains start rolling our way with thousands of loads of deadly waste for years and years to come. Not only will we lose years of financial investment, we will lose something much more dear. Over one and a half million people have chosen to make their homes in Las Vegas. If President Bush gets his way, some or many of those people who have called this place home for a long or short period of time, will have to make an awful decision. And that is, do we stay or do we go? I already know what my decision is, and I know others are struggling right now with the kind of oppression by a federal government that cares not one whit about whether or not we want to live in a place which the government will now make unsafe. This is not one of those national security decisions or other efforts that have a certain glamour to them. This is about billions of dollars for the big boys and nothing more. All Nevada represents is a quick and dirty alternative, albeit a dangerous one, to a 21st century scientific solution for a national problem. Like most other things, it is all about money and the lives we will trade so others can get it. The truth of the matter is that no one has any idea what this whole thing may cost because nobody has a crystal ball. At least one that works. That is why the government and its puppeteers in the nuke waste business have hired List, to make sure Nevadans give up the fight before we learn whatever truth there is to know. Well, I know two irrefutable facts. Yucca Mountain is not a safe geological storage site for nuclear waste or any other kind of waste because it sits in the middle of one of the most active earthquake zones in the country. Of the thousands of trucks and trains that will roll through American cities on their way to Las Vegas, some of them will get into accidents and some of those will spill their deadly cargoes. The question remains: Where will you be when that spill happens? Will you be in New York? In St Louis? How about Denver, or Salt Lake City or Los Angeles? Or, how about making your way through the Spaghetti Bowl after work when one of those big rigs turns over and spills 10,000 years of death and destruction into downtown Las Vegas? Or what about the next earthquake? A few years ago there was a 5.6 shaker just a few miles from Yucca, but it did enough damage to the DOE site that it made the scientists take notice. That's about when the politicians decided to ignore science and risk the world on the next roll. Can you imagine a 7.0 earthquake near Yucca Mountain? Not only would the Strip hotels sway to and fro, but the water table would gobble up the plutonium canisters and spread their death throughout this part of the world. Yes, that can happen, and if history is any guide, it will happen. Where will List and his benefactors be when it comes time to clean up the mess? Bury the dead? Care for the sick and dying? I know they are paying him a lot of money, but it can't be so much that it allows him and his conscience to hide forever, can it? So I hope I will have done the job that needs to be done tonight. We must get past the fairy tale the nuclear industry is telling about gold at the end of the rainbow for those of us who will just give up. Because if we give up, all we will get is what we deserve. And, believe me, Nevadans are not the people who deserve that kind of misery. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 Editorial: Hearing in House all for show Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 WEEKEND EDITION: April 21, 2002 On Thursday the first congressional hearing was held on President Bush's plan to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Members of Nevada's congressional delegation, testifying before the House energy subcommittee, laid out the reasons why it would be a disaster to go forward with Yucca Mountain. They aptly noted that not only would a nuclear waste dump endanger public safety, but the project will continue to be a financial boondoggle, costing billions of more dollars than originally estimated. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is on the 31-member committee, made a salient point about terrorist threats posed to transportation, referring to Sept. 11 when he said that it's "a short distance from box cutters to box cars." But those were the high points of the hearing, which overall wasn't a genuine effort to learn the facts about the dangers associated with nucle ar waste. Most members had their minds made up and already were on the Yucca Mountain bandwagon. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who doesn't like to be bothered by nagging questions about nuclear waste's storage and transportation, told committee members that Congress should quickly approve a dump at Yucca Mountain. Abraham indicated that members of Congress shouldn't worry too much about their decision because the experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would have to grant the project a license before it is built, still would have the final say. "We're confident enough to go to the next stage," Abraham said. "Those who oppose (Yucca) wouldn't even test it." Of course, the reason why Abraham and the nuclear power industry want Yucca Mountain in the hands of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is because that agency for years has acted more as a cheerleader instead of a regulator for the industry. No wonder he is so confident about passing the buck. It also wasn't comforting that after Abraham spoke, the committee room virtually emptied out. Only the chairman, Joe Barton, R-Texas, and the vice chairman, John Shimkus, R-Ill., were left. That meant the other 29 committee members didn't bother to take advantage of the opportunity to listen to criticism of Yucca Mountain that has been voiced by independent sources with no ties to Nevada. They didn't hear Gary Jones of the General Accounting Office, Congress' own investigative arm, tell them that the Energy Department wasn't prepared to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because the scientific studies haven't been completed yet. The committee members also didn't bother to hear Jared Cohon, the chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, explain that the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain performance estimates were "weak to moderate" because of technical issues that haven't been resolved. If this is the way the House intends to assess the transportation and storage of 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste -- man's deadliest substance -- then it's hardly reassuring to think how little time House members spend on matters with less gravity. Thousands of shipments of nuclear waste will pass near some of the towns and cities in their districts, but the nuclear power industry's influence -- and contributions -- outweigh any concerns they may have. Another reason why hope is all but lost in the House is because of Speaker Dennis Hastert. Illinois, which is where Hastert is from, just happens to be the state with the most nuclear power reactors. So Hastert has made it a top priority for the GOP leadership that Yucca Mountain get built. A House transportation committee will hold a hearing on the shipping of nuclear waste, but it appears certain at this point that the House will approve Yucca Mountain. That means Nevada's fate will rest in the hands of the Senate, whic! h likes to refer to itself as the world's greatest deliberative body. We can only hope that the Senate does a better job than the House's dismal performance last week. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Grove: House unlikely to back Nevada on Yucca vote Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 Benjamin Grove covers Washington, D.C., for the Sun. He can be reached at grove@lasvegassun.com [grove@lasvegassun.com] or (202) 628-3100, Ext. 269. THE FIRST congressional hearing on Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of Yucca Mountain was laced with omens of the House vote to come. House energy subcommittee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, on Thursday had impaneled an impressive group of witnesses to testify both for and against Yucca Mountain. At the very moment Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., began to urge the subcommittee to reject the Yucca project, the jarring buzzers that call lawmakers to the House floor for votes shook the hearing room. It was as if Congress had sounded the final game-ending buzzer on Nevada's attempt to block Yucca in Congress, even before Ensign could get a word on the record. Ensign, who once served in the House, ignored the first series of buzzers and forged ahead with his comments. But minutes later a second series zapped his train of thought mid-sentence. "If dry cast storage on-site is good for 100 years, at least 100 years -- are you guys planning these bells purposely?" Ensign asked, to some laughter in the hearing room. The joke was clear: Ask not for whom the House bell tolls. It's Nevada. Of course, that comes as no surprise. Barton's subcommittee has long been widely expected to support the Yucca project, and panel lawmakers will finally get their chance Tuesday. From there the full committee will likely pass it as early as Thursday. The full House could pass it by the end of the month, quickly tossing the issue to the Senate, where the vote could be closer. But Nevada never really stood a chance in the House. As the hearing dragged on Thursday, it became clear some subcommittee members, who fully intend to vote in favor of Yucca Mountain, have not even familiarized themselves with basic details about the storied, high-stakes issue. Rep. Edward Whitfield, R-Ky., asked if other nations had national waste repositories, even though it has been widely reported that Yucca Mountain is the first of its kind in the world. Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Ohio, was confused about how many nuclear plants America has. (The nation has 103 operating nuclear reactors, including two in Sawyer's state, and a number of government waste sites that would ship waste to Yucca Mountain.) Even Barton, who has long been a student of waste issues, bobbled a few facts. He referred to a now widely publicized test in which a TOW missile was fired at a nuclear waste transportation container, and said the cask released no radiation. (True enough. But the missile wasn't fired. The charge was mounted on the cask and detonated, putting a small hole in it. And the test container released no radiation because it was empty. If it had contained waste, it likely would have released deadly material. Even industry experts say missiles can breach their strongest casks.) It got comical at times: When Rep. John Dingell, the respected 49-year House veteran, questioned Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Dingell referred to the project several times as "Yoo-ca" Mountain. And later, when it became clear a number of panel members couldn't even pronounce Nevada, Barton finally asked Reps. Shelley Berkley and Jim Gibbons to settle it once and for all: Ne-vaa-da or Ne-vah-da? Ne-vaa-da, Berkley and Gibbons said. So why do lawmakers -- mostly lawyers, few scientists -- have any say about Yucca Mountain at all? Federal law originally drafted by lawmakers in 1982 gave the nation's representative lawmakers the responsibility to accept or reject Nevada's official veto of the project. Now many lawmakers like Dingell are ready to vote based on the endorsement of Department of Energy scientists, despite doubts raised about Yucca's suitability by the General Accounting Office and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The GAO is Congress' own investigative arm and the board was created by Congress in 1987 to watchdog the DOE's scientific studies. Subcommittee lawmakers seem eager to punt the project to experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would license the site if the NRC deems it safe. The nuclear industry couldn't agree more. "The issue here is not whether Congress has a role to play in determining whether the site is scientifically suitable," Joe Colvin, CEO and president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top lobby group, told the subcommittee. "It is up to Congress to move us into the licensing phase." The House, at least, was preparing to do just that on Thursday, when even the weather seemed to portend the worst for Nevada lawmakers. Shortly after the subcommittee hearing ended, a brief thunderstorm rolled over the nation's capital. Nevada officials hope things will be sunnier in the Senate. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 Neff: 'Yucca Bucks' machine just might do the trick Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 ASK YOURSELF: What's a buck worth? An hour of parking downtown? A tip for a waitress? Or three seconds on a nickel slot machine with the maximum bet. A dollar's value is hyped by cheesy long distance ads and Nevada politicians alike for its ability to make a real difference. Gov. Kenny Guinn has asked Nevadans to dig not so deep to pull out a buck and contribute it to stop the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. It seems so easy. But tossing four quarters in a vending machine is easier than dropping it in the state's collection box. Despite all the rhetoric against the dump and the polls showing 80 percent of Nevadan against it, we aren't putting our money where our mouths are, and politicians aren't leading the way with the same fund-raising vigor they apply to their own re-election campaigns. So now two weeks after Nevada put out its initial request for cash, the donations (save for the $75,000 a very generous widow from Incline Village gave) don't even cover the cost the state must have spent advertising its pitch for your cash. Guinn should have backed his veto with the first individual donation to the Nevada Protection Fund. And before U.S. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., begged state leaders for more taxpayer dollars, they too, should have opened their wallets. Each has since contributed $1,000 to the Yucca fight, remarkably in the same week reporters began asking politicians how much they've given. Add to that $3,000 the $1,250 Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman parted with and the $200 from U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, and 4,445 Nevadans are off the hook for a buck. And that's a good thing because motivating the residents of this state to give the government a dollar is harder than convincing them they can hit 15 Keno numbers. Four quarters is one-fourth of Tony Sebastian's weekly allowance -- a stipend the 9-year-old gets for keeping his room clean, walking the dog and not missing any school. So when Tony's mother happened upon my informal poll of residents to find who had contributed the requested $1, the youngster overheard and said: "Lady. I'll give the dollar so I won't glow." At the Albertson's where I chatted with Tony and other customers, I had seen dozens pulling out $5s and $10s a few weeks earlier for Thin Mints and Lemon Cremes. Then again, Girl Scouts tell you how they spend the $3 each box of cookies gets them. None of the 30 people I asked -- and for that matter, none in my newsroom -- had given a dollar. In my office one person responded to the question by pulling out a dollar bill and heading off to the vending machines. At Albertson's, a woman I just watched play quarter slots for 10 minutes told me the fight was a waste of money. So with that answer in mind, Nevada can get the gaming industry off its duff to help inspire the masses with a progressive slot guaranteed to pull in the $2 million. Here's how the machine I'd like to call Yucca Bucks would work. It would be a $1 machine linked in a statewide progressive from Primm to Mesquite and Laughlin to Winnemucca and all points in between. The jackpot would start at $1 million -- $500,000 donated from pooling fees each participating casino would pay to have the machines and another $500,000 from the Nevada Protection Fund. But don't worry -- just as state Treasurer Brian Krolicki says the state can win back $20 million in some kind of strange Ponzi-sounding investment scheme -- the protection fund would also be replenished with a percentage of every bet. I'd propose 5 percent because after all the state's trying to raise money, and there are worse rakes throughout the casino. The $1 game would be simple, line up three atoms and you hit the progressive. Line up three glowing green cherries and you get your $3 back. Fail to play all three coins on any spin and you win nothing. For incentive there could be a few other happy symbols, like mushroom clouds, nuclear reactors and haz-mat suits to line up for other awards. I've got to think that someone feeling a little guilty about gambling might opt for a game with a conscience. Tourists would get a kick out of it and heck, if it works, forget about Internet licensing with the city or state seal -- a machine just might solve the state's perpetual budget shortfall. In the meantime, here's how you can really bet with $1. Send it the Nevada Protection Fund, Agency for Nuclear Projects, 1802 N. Carson St., Suite 252, Carson City, NV 89701. Call (775) 687-3744 or donate online at www.state.nv.us/nucwaste For a buck, you can't beat it. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Tax Radioactive Waste The Salt Lake Tribune -- Saturday, April 20, 2002 In "An Open Letter to the Citizens of Utah" (Tribune, April 9) Kenneth L. Alkema, president of Envirocare of Utah Inc., sets forth a series of claims intended to persuade us not to sign an initiative petition that will allow the registered voters to decide whether to collect higher fees for radioactive waste hauled into Utah from other states. Without disputing Mr. Alkema, it is obvious that his claims are slanted heavily in favor of Envirocare, a company that has made enormous profits for many years, has contributed large sums of money to the campaign funds of many prominent politicians, and has enjoyed amazing success in lobbying at the State Capitol for its special interests. Because the Utah Legislature has been unwilling to charge a reasonable fee for accepting radioactive waste from other states, the voters of Utah deserve a chance to say "yes" or "no" on this important issue. I urge all registered voters, when given the opportunity, to sign the "Radioactive Waste Restriction Act" petition. BOYER JARVIS Salt Lake City © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 30 Officers prepare to block plutonium Augusta Georgia: Metro: Web posted Saturday, April 20, 2002 By Brandon Haddock [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] Staff Writer South Carolina law enforcement officers will practice their plutonium quick-draw Monday. The state's Highway Patrol and transport police will conduct an exercise to prepare to block shipments of the radioactive metal at the state's border, the South Carolina Department of Public Safety announced Friday. The trial run will be at 10 a.m. at U.S. Highway 278 and South Carolina Highway 19 in New Ellenton, said Sid Gaulden, a spokesman for the Public Safety Department. South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges will attend the exercise, said his spokeswoman, Cortney Owings. The announcement was the latest volley in Mr. Hodges' showdown with the U.S. Department of Energy over planned shipments of plutonium to Savannah River Site. The governor has pledged to block any shipments until the Energy Department provides a legally binding guarantee that the plutonium will be treated at SRS and removed from his state. The feud has simmered since last spring. On April 11, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham presented a deal that Mr. Hodges found agreeable, but now the two sides cannot agree on how to implement it. Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or bhaddock@augustachronicle.com [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] . [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 31 Senator criticizes Hodges' stand Augusta Georgia: Metro: Web posted Saturday, April 20, 2002 By [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] Staff Writer U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici is the latest player in the politics of plutonium. Mr. Domenici, R-N.M., criticized South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges in a Thursday speech from the Senate floor. The senator took Mr. Hodges to task for his opposition to plutonium shipments to Savannah River Site. The governor's hesitance is endangering agreements by the United States and Russia to rid themselves of tons of plutonium, a radioactive metal used in nuclear weapons, Mr. Domenici said. "The Russians will not go along to reduce their plutonium inventory unless we do," the senator said. "A failure in this program means more material may end up on the black market where terrorists could have access to it." In response, Mr. Hodges' spokeswoman said the governor's first responsibility is the safety of his constituents. "Governor Hodges is in charge of protecting the health and welfare of South Carolinians, first and foremost," Cortney Owings said. "He believes he's doing an excellent job of what the people in the state elected him to do." Mr. Domenici's speech followed criticism by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who accused Mr. Hodges of playing political games to block the shipments. The plutonium would come from the U.S. Department of Energy's Rocky Flats site in Colorado. The U.S. Department of Energy has announced intentions of beginning shipments some time after May 15. New plants at SRS would turn the plutonium into nuclear-reactor fuel. Mr. Hodges said his state would become a permanent storage site for plutonium if the federal government abandoned plans to build the plants. He has vowed that no plutonium will enter the state until the Energy Department signs a binding agreement to remove the metal from SRS if the new plants fall behind schedule. Mr. Hodges and the Energy Department reached an agreement in principle April 11, but since have argued about how to make the plan legally binding. Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] . AugustaChronicle.com is a proud member of [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 32 Former EU environment chief takes Sellafield post Irish Newspapers - A FORMER director-general of the European Commission's Environment Department has accepted a non-executive directorship with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), operators of Sellafield, it emerged last night. Labour Party spokesman Emmet Stagg last night called for the immediate resignation of Jim Currie from the BFNL board. Mr Currie left the EU Commission last October and has been reported as joining BNFL since March at an annual salary of £32,000. "Jim Currie held the second-most senior position with the Environment Department, reporting only to the commissioner herself," Mr Stagg said. "He signed staff regulations obliging him to exercise 'integrity and discretion' when taking up positions after leaving the Commission. I do not believe Mr Currie has exercised such integrity and discretion in accepting this particular position." The Commission's environment services began investigating radioactive discharges from the Sellafield plant in late 1999 and Mr Currie was ultimately responsible for directing these investigations, he pointed out. "These ongoing investigations could now be compromised by Mr Currie's new role within BFNL," Mr Stagg said. If Mr Currie refused to resign, then the commission should step in to stop the payment of his severance package worth £100,000. Meanwhile the European Parliament's petitions committee heard yesterday the commission did not see nuclear fuel as a sustainable energy source because of problems caused by waste. Senan Molony, Political Correspondent © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 33 Group says state owns Yucca By JUSTIN POST, Staff Writer ELKO -- The state of Nevada owns the proposed site of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste repository and the federal government has no right claiming stake to the property, Elko residents were told Thursday night. That was the message to approximately 35 people from throughout the state who attended a meeting of the Committee for Full Statehood at the Bull Pen in the Stockmen's Casino and Hotel. "The feds have no right to any jurisdiction," said O.Q. "Chris" Johnson, committee chairman. He urged the group to write letters and spread word about the matter. "I think everyone needs to know what we are talking about and approach the legislative council and let them know we are watching them," Johnson said. "We need to keep up a barrage of letters and phone calls informing them of their mistakes and hopefully we will have some results." Believing the effort would attract national news coverage, the group will consider organizing an eight- to 10-day cattle drive across the state, en route to the 64th annual Nevada Day Parade slated Oct. 26 in Carson City. "Why don't we get the legislative council and drive them," Christopher Hansen of Henderson joked. In the end, lobbying the state legislature might be the group's strongest tool in its fight for ownership of Yucca Mountain, said David Schumann of Minden. The committee has enough manpower, he believes, to lobby the representatives during the next 120-day legislative session which begins in 2003. The legislature has ignored the ownership issue, Johnson said. "We waive our rights to sovereignty if we don't recognize it ourselves and if we can't get our legislature to recognize it as it is: Yucca is sitting on land being managed by the feds and is owned by the state of Nevada and deserves to be under the control of the legislature and the state of Nevada," Johnson said. Because the state could recycle the waste for resale, owning the site would be a boon for Nevada, he added. "That would be a greater financial boon than the gambling halls or the gold mine," Johnson said. However, many Nevadans are leery of transporting the radioactive waste, regardless of the money it could generate. On the other hand, the radioactive material which has created the scuttlebutt is regularly transported to nuclear facilities throughout the country without accidents, Schumann, a Pennsylvania native, said. "I have never heard of a transportation accident and this stuff is all over the place," he said. "New York has reactors, Pennsylvania has reactors and this stuff has been getting there for 50 years." Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, some people believe that transporting the waste could be risky. U.S. Senators Harry Reid, the assistant majority leader, and John Ensign requested this week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide all information at their disposal of transportation records of past nuclear waste shipments. The government estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 truck shipments or 10,000 to 20,000 rail shipments and nearly 1,600 barge shipments would be required to transport the high-level nuclear waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository near Las Vegas. Still, the spent fuel would be "extremely valuable" if the state of Nevada owned the Yucca Mountain facility, said Steven Miller, managing editor of the Nevada Policy Research Institute -- a free-market think tank based in Las Vegas. But procuring ownership would be tough. "Nevada has never owned (Yucca Mountain)," he said, adding that by the time Nevada entered the union on Oct. 31, 1864, during the Civil War, congress was asserting conditions for statehood such as relinquishing land to the federal government. "That is what happened in Nevada," Miller said. "Republicans wanted to use the federal government to promote pork." Now, the feds own approximately 87 percent of the state, he said. "That reduces Nevada to a few little spots," Miller said. "There is a whole issue of who owns "public lands" and it appears that the Supreme Court has allowed western states to be treated with a lesser standard of sovereignty than other states." Winning state ownership of Yucca Mountain would require a "strong attorney general fighting for it," he said. Miller doubts Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa could get the job done. "Del Papa would never fight for (Yucca Mountain) on behalf of the state," he said. In 1975, the state legislature had asked the feds to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada to generate jobs, but later passed a law asserting ownership over all land in the state, Miller said. "Del Papa sabotaged that law and in fact sided with the federal government," he said. "My sense of the odds is that Nevada will not win." ***************************************************************** 34 The future of Yucca Mountain SCENARIOS Columnist Peter Schwartz ruminates on the problem of nuclear waste disposal. By Peter Schwartz April 22, 2002 Earlier this year, seven colleagues and I rode an open train into one of the biggest holes in the world, bored into the face of Yucca Mountain. This five-mile network of tunnels is where the U.S. government intends to store the nation's nuclear waste for the next 10,000 years. Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been the leading candidate for long-term nuclear waste storage for years. In January, Spencer Abraham, the U.S. secretary of energy, recommended the approval of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. By the time you read this, it's almost certain that Kenny Guinn, the governor of Nevada, will have vetoed the project, although Congress can override the veto. Yucca Mountain's tunnels, cross drifts, and alcoves are part of the Exploratory Studies Facility, a research program intended to prove the repository's long-term safety; the government has spent $8 billion on the facility so far. If the plan is approved, another 60 miles of tunnels will be created to store the hot waste. What's the urgency to get Yucca Mountain online? The nuclear weapons program and the country's 104 nuclear plants have produced 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel to date, and that figure will rise to 105,000 metric tons by 2035. Most of that waste is currently stored in 33 states, at a few U.S. Department of Energy sites, and at 72 nuclear power plants in what are euphemistically called swimming pools--football field-size pools rapidly filling with nuclear waste. These were designed as temporary storage sites, and the risks of dangerous failures increase over time. Even if the Yucca Mountain plan is approved, the U.S. General Accounting Office has said it will be 2015 before any waste goes underground there. This is very big science and truly great engineering at the service of bad politics. At Yucca Mountain, we met remarkably creative people who have spent much of their working lives in harsh conditions trying to solve one of our country's toughest problems: nuclear waste disposal. That the problem is insoluble is not their doing. Politicians who are for and against the Yucca Mountain site, and proponents and opponents of nuclear power, have engaged in the politics of illusion at great cost to the American people. Opponents of the facility want nuclear waste to be safely isolated for 10,000 years, but this cannot be achieved realistically--it's merely their way of blocking nuclear power. So the proponents in turn design a deceptive process to validate the achievement of an unattainable goal. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere, but where? We could leave it scattered around the country in temporary facilities, which is risky. We could recycle the fuel for reuse, but most recycling processes yield plutonium that can be used for weapons, so fears of weapons proliferation have stopped nuclear fuel reprocessing. Or, as currently planned, we can store it all somewhere, either at Yucca Mountain or someplace else. No one wants nuclear fuel around, but Yucca Mountain has a few advantages: it sits at the edge of the Nevada nuclear weapons testing site, and isn't exactly prime development real estate. There are several possible scenarios for the future of Yucca Mountain. Opponents of the plan could block it indefinitely. It's easy to imagine people lying across the tracks while trains full of nuclear waste make their way to Nevada. It could end up unused, like some other federal energy-related projects. Something else would have to come along, like cheap, safe recycling, to make this an enduring scenario. Of course, we could put the waste into Yucca Mountain, and it could remain there uneventfully for tens of thousands of years. However, something could go wrong relatively soon, say in the next 1,000 years. Perhaps the heat and the radioactivity will cause the storage vessels to break down and leak into the groundwater. And, of course, there's the risk of earthquakes. Or, as I think most likely, we will put nuclear waste into Yucca Mountain and then, someday, take it out. Why? Because it's likely that we will become so concerned about the consequences of burning hydrocarbons, like climate change, that we will want to revive nuclear power. We may eventually want to reuse the fuel buried in the waste. Technology for fuel reprocessing and for nuclear plants is likely to improve. But it appears that the balance of risks and the least-regrets scenario is to store the waste at Yucca Mountain and invest in better recycling technology to create future options for our children. Peter Schwartz is chairman of the Global Business Network; he is also a partner at the venture capital firm Alta Partners. Previously he headed scenario planning for Royal Dutch/Shell in London. Write to [letters@redherring.com] . [http://www.atomz.com] Copyright 2002 Red Herring Magazine ***************************************************************** 35 Irish Sellafield resignation call FRIDAY 19/04/02 16:34:19 Emmet Stagg has called for the immediate resignation of Jim Currie as a non-executive director with British Nuclear Fuels. The Labour Party spokesman on the environment said that former senior Europen environment official, Jim Currie, held the second-most senior position with the environment department - and his new role in BNFL could compromise ongoing investigations into radioactive discharges from the Sellafield plant in late 1999. Deputy Stagg said Mr Currie was "ultimately responsible for directing these investigations" and had not exercised the "integrity and discretion" equired in his former role as environmental official. He said: "Mr Currie still has obligations to uphold commission policy. I do not see how this is compatible with the position of a Director with BNFL." Mr Stagg pointed out that the former director-general of the commission`s environment department left the commission last October and has been reported as accepting the position of non-executive Director with BFNL since the beginning of March on a salary of Euro 32,000 p.a. "The European Parliament`s petitions committee yesterday heard from environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom that the commission did not see nuclear energy as a sustainable source of energy because of the problems caused by waste. "The same hearing also heard that up to 1,000,000 deaths worldwide could result on a terrorist attack on Sellafield." ***************************************************************** 36 A Transit Crossroads Eyes Yucca Mountain April 20, 2002 By MICHAEL JANOFSKY George Frey for The New York Times Evanston's mayor, William R. Davis, says the people of his town are becoming mindful of the Yucca Mountain debate. George Frey for The New York Times In Evanston, Wyo., a Wal-Mart is sandwiched by I-80 and Union Pacific tracks. Both may someday carry nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. EVANSTON, Wyo., April 17 — This is a town that has always kept America moving. Pioneer trails appeared in the early 1800's, followed by the pony express, stagecoaches, railroads and then a major Interstate. Now, on any given day, as many as 50 freight trains and 5,000 trucks rumble by, headed toward one coast or the other. People here in Wyoming's far southwestern corner say they have not thought much about what passes through Evanston on I-80 and the Union Pacific rail lines. But like many Americans living near other tracks and highways, they are starting, now that the Bush administration has approved a plan to ship high-level radioactive waste to southern Nevada for disposal at Yucca Mountain. "I can't say it's come up in many conversations I've had around town," said Evanston's mayor, William R. Davis. "But people know about it. They're starting to learn." Until now, the fight over Yucca Mountain has been waged largely in Nevada. Its governor, Kenny Guinn, a Republican, has filed a "notice of disapproval" that by law vetoes the project. But Congress can override the veto, and is set for debate starting in May. In a broader effort to convince Americans that the Yucca Mountain project is a bad idea, Nevada's two senators — Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican — along with a coalition of environmental groups, are expanding the campaign to cities and towns along the routes that the government proposes using to move the waste. The government says shipments from 131 temporary storage sites in 39 states could start as early as 2010. With a fund of $4 million approved by the Nevada Legislature and several million more from Clark County, Nev., and from private donations, the state has begun advertising on television stations and in newspapers around the country to argue that the shipments would be vulnerable to accident and terrorist attack. The first television commercials appeared today, in Burlington, Vt. Additional efforts are under way in other states. In Utah, the State Elections Office has approved a request by Utahns for Radioactive Waste Control that it accept signatures for a ballot initiative that would forbid transporting nuclear waste through the state. Utah's two major Interstates, 15 and 80, offer a direct route to Yucca Mountain. According to the Energy Department's own report, the shipments would move through 43 states, 109 cities with populations of more than 100,000 each and thousands of smaller places like Evanston, a town of some 11,500. Though no advertisements from the Nevada effort have yet appeared in Evanston's chief paper, the twice-weekly Uinta County Herald, residents say they are beginning to contemplate trains and trucks carrying casks of spent nuclear fuel through town: What if a truck overturns? What if a train derails? What if terrorists attack? "I think it's a terrible idea," said Linda Heltzel, a former teacher who runs a coffee shop in town. "States should keep their own waste. Nevada's only getting it because they don't have enough people to vote against it. But we're a throwaway society, so we always want to put it someplace else." Others were less concerned, in part because the routine of life in Evanston already includes other hazardous materials' whizzing through by truck and rail, some to the Energy Department's low-level-waste disposal site in New Mexico, and the occasional accident in the nearby oil and gas fields. "I'm not going to lie awake at night worrying about trains and trucks having an accident," said Wayne Knopf, a retired college administrator. Joe Davis, an Energy Department spokesman, said nuclear material had been moving along America's highways and rails for 30 years without a fatal accident, a harmful release or a terrorist attack. Mr. Davis said the Yucca Mountain project would involve "only 175 shipments a year" for 24 years, the time the government estimates it will take to fill the repository with the 70,000 metric tons of waste authorized to be stored there. "And with our track record," he added, "people shouldn't get too excited." But some people have grown excited, and angry, over the way the Energy Department is proceeding. For example, the 6,000-page, 90-pound report recommending approval of the Yucca Mountain site is so big that no more than several dozen copies were printed. It is available on the Internet, but is nonetheless hard to navigate because of its size and organization. Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant to Nevada and other states, argues that the department created that difficulty on purpose, to keep public opposition to a minimum until Congress votes on the plan, an accusation that the Energy Department calls absurd. Mr. Halstead also disputed Mr. Davis's estimate of annual shipments, citing the report's own numbers. It posed six scenarios, in which the number ranged from 580 to 2,865. But Mr. Davis said those numbers would apply only if the government was allowed to increase the repository's capacity far beyond the 70,000 metric tons currently authorized by Congress. Here in Evanston, the numbers did not seem to concern anyone so much as the possibility that the operation of Yucca Mountain would give town leaders one more problem to prepare for. Several people remembered a toxic spill here some years ago, and blustery winter weather has been known to blow a truck or two off I-80. Mayor Davis recalled an accident in a natural-gas field 20 years ago in which several men died after exposure to hydrogen sulfide, a deadly component of the gas pulled out of the ground. "There are just as many other real hazards as with radioactive material," said Russell Megeath, an investigator for the Evanston Fire Department. "We have loads of cesium going through here, and nobody says anything. So if things are regulated properly and controlled, we'll be more than O.K." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 37 Nations Review Nuke Treaty Las Vegas SUN April 19, 2002 UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Nations reviewing the keystone Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty said Friday the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms even more imperative, and urged Iraq to open its country to U.N. arms inspectors. The report, adopted by 137 nations, also expressed concern at the U.S. decision to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - another basic arms control pact - and build a missile shield, saying it could lead to a new arms race that could extend into outer space. The two-week meeting at U.N. headquarters was the first to prepare for a major review in 2005 of implementation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - the cornerstone accord aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. It was the first meeting since the Sept. 11 attacks and the first since President Bush took office. "The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 have given an even greater sense of urgency to the common efforts of all states in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation," said the report by the conference chairman, Sweden's Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament Henrik Salander. "Reinforcing of the non-proliferation regime (is) imperative to prevent the use of nuclear materials and technologies for criminal purposes," the document said. Iraq, it said, should allow weapons inspectors back as soon as possible to verify the Arab country has not developed weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes. Baghdad - which signed the NPT - is under sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and they cannot be lifted until inspectors certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been eliminated. Iraq has refused to let inspectors back, insisting it has complied with the U.N. resolutions. The treaty reviewers called on the four states that are not part of the NPT - Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan - to join the pact. India, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons. If they joined the accord, they would have to give the weapons up. The review also urged the United States and China to ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prevents all nuclear testing. Although the United States signed the pact, the Bush administration no longer supports it and said it has no intention of sending it to the U.S. Senate for ratification. "If the United States does not take seriously its own treaty commitments, it risks undermining the NPT's vital role in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons," said Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Policy. The institute is a non-profit organization that monitored the two-week conference. Many states also were deeply concerned about the Bush adminstration's review of U.S. nuclear policy which spoke of plans to develop new nuclear weapons and new uses for nuclear weapons - such as an earth-penetrating warhead. The U.S. nuclear review published in January indicated that following Sept. 11 the United States is keeping all its options open, including the possible testing of new nuclear weapons. William Peden of the environmental group Greenpeace charged that the nuclear weapons states - Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States - have done nothing to reduce their nuclear arsenals, and called the two-week meeting "a spring cleaning exercise." Unless the five big nuclear states take the lead, Peden said, how can they exhort India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapons. The Subcontinent nations say they need nuclear arms for defense. Johnson accused the Bush administration of using the horror of the Sept. 11 tragedy to push through a hard-line unilateral foreign policy, noting Washington had left the multilateral Kyoto climate treaty, the ABM pact with Russia, and intends not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The next session to prepare for the 2005 review conference will be held in Geneva from April 28 to May 9, 2003. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Commentary - Japan's plutonium stockpile alarming Japan Today Japan News - Andrew Monahan A prominent Japanese politician remarked last week that Japan could easily make thousands of nuclear weapons, drawing on the vast plutonium reserves from its civil nuclear power program. Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa made the remarks in a speech delivered in Fukuoka, and said that he had made similar comments to the visiting deputy chief of staff of the Liberation Army of China. "If China gets too conceited, the Japanese will get hysterical," the provocatively-inclined Ozawa said. It could encourage conservatives more aggressively nationalistic than himself to pursue a nuclear weapons program to counter the Chinese threat. He later insisted that he had merely intended to warn against excessive Chinese military buildup, and that he himself would view a nuclear arms race between the two Asian powers as "a tragedy for both countries." Ozawa is a politician who captured the public imagination in the early 1990s, both in Japan and abroad, with his book "Blueprint for a New Japan," that rightly advocated an array of forward looking political and economic policies that a decade and a faltering reformist poster-boy prime minister later, Japan still badly needs to implement. The incident, however, typifies a self-defeating tendency of some Japanese leaders, who speak menacingly about the consequences of perceived future threats, while leaving the historical fact of past unprovoked Japanese aggression largely silent. Such antics illustrate the surest way to fail in achieving a Japan divested of its former hindrances. The Chinese People's Daily ran an unusually measured, strong criticism of Ozawa's bluster, dismissing the politician as out of touch with the anti-nuclear sentiment of his own country, a sentiment that translated into electoral-power makes points concerning weapons capability moot. China and Japan's other Asian neighbors, furthermore, could be counted on, diplomatically, to nip a weapons program in the bud. The merest hint of any possible revival of Japanese militarism plays very poorly from Seoul to Kuala Lumpur, among all the countries Japan depends on for a wealth of trade and human capital. These countries still smolder with indignation over past Japanese aggressions and the continuing Japanese refusal to thoroughly acknowledge those crimes. Tellingly, the People's Daily article on Ozawa ran beside another article detailing a recent contribution of forty-one photos to the Memorial Hall of the Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanjing, and startlingly not known at all among some segments of the Japanese youth, kept ignorant by leaders who turn history textbooks into exercises in revisionism. The newly donated photos, like the exhibit on the Nanjing Massacre that opened last December at San Francisco's St Mary's Cathedral and then toured other U.S. cities, document exactly what politicians like Ozawa should want the young Japanese to acknowledge and vow clearly never to repeat. Blueprints bypassing any trace of this past cannot lead to a new Japan, or at least not to the strong and internationally involved Japan that Ozawa, myself, and many others would like. For the moment, though, we had better not wait for the old guard of the Japanese political elite to have a change of heart. Their shortcomings will likely pass when they themselves pass from power. Ozawa's comments, however, highlight a more pressing problem: Japan's huge plutonium stockpile. If the political life of the revisionist right in Japan seems long, consider the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium. Japan's first encounter with this extremely toxic element came in the horrific bombing of Nagasaki on Aug 9, 1945. Unlike the uranium bomb that had been dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier, the Nagasaki bomb was made with plutonium. The 6.2 kilograms used in that bomb, however, pale in comparison to the 30,000-plus kilograms that Japan has accumulated through its plutonium-based civil power production program. This plutonium could, as Ozawa noted, be used for nuclear weapons. It poses a huge threat to nuclear proliferation, as only a small quantity is necessary to produce a bomb. It is an easy target for terrorist groups, who covet it, stolen or purchased on the black market. Certainly bureaucratic inertia, more than any sinister or secretive design, keeps the uneconomical and dangerous plutonium program alive, if but barely. Nonetheless, it compromises Japan's status as a key nation in the nonproliferation regime at a crucial moment. Ozawa and others rightly recognize a Chinese nuclear buildup as undesirable, but the problem demands more than knee-jerk reactionism. Suspicions over the plutonium program already run high, and politicians here are mistaken to think that wielding such suspicions as a deterrent will work. A better approach is suggested by the former director of the Nuclear Energy Division of the Foreign Ministry, Kumao Kaneko, who has been a leading spokesperson for the move to create a EURATOM equivalent in Asia. This ASIATOM would likewise function to allay anxieties in the region over the proliferation concerns of the member nations' nuclear materials and facilities involved in civic programs, including of course Japan's. It would aim to include operable inspection and verification machinery to pave the way for the confidence necessary to establish a nuclear-free zone in the area. Constructive Japanese moves in this direction, coupled with thorough apologies for its destructive past, would assuage Asian anxiety, and substantially elevate Japan's diplomatic voice. Such a voice, if only leaders braver than Ozawa can assume it, will have the strength to challenge the silence, and offer instead the good sense to support an international system that seeks to prevent another Nanjing or Hiroshima from occurring. The writer is a Fulbright Fellow at the Institute for Peace Science in Hiroshima. April 17, 2002 ***************************************************************** 39 Stop nuclear hide and seek IHT: Nayan Chanda International Herald Tribune Saturday, April 20, 2002 NEW HAVEN, Connecticut The resumption of talks between North Korea and the United States carries the possibility of a repeat of the hide-and-seek game that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear crisis in 1994. But if North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, feels tempted to use such tactics again, he would do well to resist the urge. This opening to the Bush administration provides him with an opportunity to examine whether Pyongyang's nuclear card is really helping its national interests. North Korea could make a dramatic break with the past, and encourage trade and investment, if it removed suspicions about its nuclear intentions. By signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985, Pyongyang agreed to account for past nuclear activities. But a claim that it had only 90 grams of plutonium was false. When the International Atomic Energy Agency sought in 1993 to resolve the anomaly, North Korea reacted by barring inspectors. Its moves to cover suspect nuclear waste sites with dirt and trees were seen by U.S. spy satellites. Finally, Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nonproliferation treaty, precipitating the 1994 crisis. By threatening to become a nuclear rogue state, North Korea succeeded in gaining a deal with the Clinton administration that gave it several benefits in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear weapons program. Under this 1994 agreement, the North was promised two electricity generating plants powered by light water reactors, costing more than $4 billion. The deal allowed the North to maintain some secrecy over its nuclear sites for a limited period. In exchange, Pyongyang froze its existing nuclear reactor and reprocessing plants and allowed the IAEA to seal off nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb. Implementation of the agreement has gone fairly smoothly. Fuel rods from frozen reactors that would have yielded enough plutonium for about six Hiroshima-sized bombs are now in sealed vats, and IAEA inspectors are allowed to make routine inspections of declared sites. But so far North Korea has rejected calls for expediting inspection of remaining hidden sites. Installation of two nuclear power reactors, although slow, is on track. In August, concrete will be poured on the foundation structures. The IAEA estimates that inspection will take three to four years. It is for this reason that U.S. officials want North Korea to start opening its doors now. Unless this happens, they argue, Pyongyang will not be in full compliance by mid-2005 when the light water reactor project will be ready to receive key components. Pyongyang's refusal to come clean stems from practical concerns. If it is found to have processed more plutonium than it claims, it would be required to hand the material over to the IAEA. The time of reckoning is approaching. In the post-Sept. 11 world, there is more concern about nuclear and bio-terrorism and less patience with the kind of game North Korea has been playing. By lifting the final veil from its nuclear program, Kim Jong Il can earn the international trust he needs to rebuild North Korea rather than run it into the ground through a policy of nuclear blackmail. The writer is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. NEW HAVEN, Connecticut The resumption of talks between North Korea and the United States carries the possibility of a repeat of the hide-and-seek game that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear crisis in 1994. But if North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, feels tempted to use such tactics again, he would do well to resist the urge. This opening to the Bush administration provides him with an opportunity to examine whether Pyongyang's nuclear card is really helping its national interests. North Korea could make a dramatic break with the past, and encourage trade and investment, if it removed suspicions about its nuclear intentions. By signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985, Pyongyang agreed to account for past nuclear activities. But a claim that it had only 90 grams of plutonium was false. When the International Atomic Energy Agency sought in 1993 to resolve the anomaly, North Korea reacted by barring inspectors. . Its moves to cover suspect nuclear waste sites with dirt and trees were seen by U.S. spy satellites. Finally, Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nonproliferation treaty, precipitating the 1994 crisis. . By threatening to become a nuclear rogue state, North Korea succeeded in gaining a deal with the Clinton administration that gave it several benefits in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear weapons program. Under this 1994 agreement, the North was promised two electricity generating plants powered by light water reactors, costing more than $4 billion. The deal allowed the North to maintain some secrecy over its nuclear sites for a limited period. In exchange, Pyongyang froze its existing nuclear reactor and reprocessing plants and allowed the IAEA to seal off nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb. Implementation of the agreement has gone fairly smoothly. Fuel rods from frozen reactors that would have yielded enough plutonium for about six Hiroshima-sized bombs are now in sealed vats, and IAEA inspectors are allowed to make routine inspections of declared sites. But so far North Korea has rejected calls for expediting inspection of remaining hidden sites. . Installation of two nuclear power reactors, although slow, is on track. In August, concrete will be poured on the foundation structures. The IAEA estimates that inspection will take three to four years. It is for this reason that U.S. officials want North Korea to start opening its doors now. Unless this happens, they argue, Pyongyang will not be in full compliance by mid-2005 when the light water reactor project will be ready to receive key components. . Pyongyang's refusal to come clean stems from practical concerns. If it is found to have processed more plutonium than it claims, it would be required to hand the material over to the IAEA. The time of reckoning is approaching. In the post-Sept. 11 world, there is more concern about nuclear and bio-terrorism and less patience with the kind of game North Korea has been playing. . By lifting the final veil from its nuclear program, Kim Jong Il can earn the international trust he needs to rebuild North Korea rather than run it into the ground through a policy of nuclear blackmail. . The writer is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. NEW HAVEN, Connecticut The resumption of talks between North Korea and the United States carries the possibility of a repeat of the hide-and-seek game that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear crisis in 1994. But if North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, feels tempted to use such tactics again, he would do well to resist the urge. This opening to the Bush administration provides him with an opportunity to examine whether Pyongyang's nuclear card is really helping its national interests. North Korea could make a dramatic break with the past, and encourage trade and investment, if it removed suspicions about its nuclear intentions. By signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985, Pyongyang agreed to account for past nuclear activities. But a claim that it had only 90 grams of plutonium was false. When the International Atomic Energy Agency sought in 1993 to resolve the anomaly, North Korea reacted by barring inspectors. . Its moves to cover suspect nuclear waste sites with dirt and trees were seen by U.S. spy satellites. Finally, Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nonproliferation treaty, precipitating the 1994 crisis. . By threatening to become a nuclear rogue state, North Korea succeeded in gaining a deal with the Clinton administration that gave it several benefits in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear weapons program. Under this 1994 agreement, the North was promised two electricity generating plants powered by light water reactors, costing more than $4 billion. The deal allowed the North to maintain some secrecy over its nuclear sites for a limited period. In exchange, Pyongyang froze its existing nuclear reactor and reprocessing plants and allowed the IAEA to seal off nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb. Implementation of the agreement has gone fairly smoothly. Fuel rods from frozen reactors that would have yielded enough plutonium for about six Hiroshima-sized bombs are now in sealed vats, and IAEA inspectors are allowed to make routine inspections of declared sites. But so far North Korea has rejected calls for expediting inspection of remaining hidden sites. . Installation of two nuclear power reactors, although slow, is on track. In August, concrete will be poured on the foundation structures. The IAEA estimates that inspection will take three to four years. It is for this reason that U.S. officials want North Korea to start opening its doors now. Unless this happens, they argue, Pyongyang will not be in full compliance by mid-2005 when the light water reactor project will be ready to receive key components. . Pyongyang's refusal to come clean stems from practical concerns. If it is found to have processed more plutonium than it claims, it would be required to hand the material over to the IAEA. The time of reckoning is approaching. In the post-Sept. 11 world, there is more concern about nuclear and bio-terrorism and less patience with the kind of game North Korea has been playing. . By lifting the final veil from its nuclear program, Kim Jong Il can earn the international trust he needs to rebuild North Korea rather than run it into the ground through a policy of nuclear blackmail. . The writer is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. NEW HAVEN, Connecticut The resumption of talks between North Korea and the United States carries the possibility of a repeat of the hide-and-seek game that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear crisis in 1994. But if North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, feels tempted to use such tactics again, he would do well to resist the urge. This opening to the Bush administration provides him with an opportunity to examine whether Pyongyang's nuclear card is really helping its national interests. North Korea could make a dramatic break with the past, and encourage trade and investment, if it removed suspicions about its nuclear intentions. By signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985, Pyongyang agreed to account for past nuclear activities. But a claim that it had only 90 grams of plutonium was false. When the International Atomic Energy Agency sought in 1993 to resolve the anomaly, North Korea reacted by barring inspectors. . Its moves to cover suspect nuclear waste sites with dirt and trees were seen by U.S. spy satellites. Finally, Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nonproliferation treaty, precipitating the 1994 crisis. . By threatening to become a nuclear rogue state, North Korea succeeded in gaining a deal with the Clinton administration that gave it several benefits in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear weapons program. Under this 1994 agreement, the North was promised two electricity generating plants powered by light water reactors, costing more than $4 billion. The deal allowed the North to maintain some secrecy over its nuclear sites for a limited period. In exchange, Pyongyang froze its existing nuclear reactor and reprocessing plants and allowed the IAEA to seal off nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb. Implementation of the agreement has gone fairly smoothly. Fuel rods from frozen reactors that would have yielded enough plutonium for about six Hiroshima-sized bombs are now in sealed vats, and IAEA inspectors are allowed to make routine inspections of declared sites. But so far North Korea has rejected calls for expediting inspection of remaining hidden sites. . Installation of two nuclear power reactors, although slow, is on track. In August, concrete will be poured on the foundation structures. The IAEA estimates that inspection will take three to four years. It is for this reason that U.S. officials want North Korea to start opening its doors now. Unless this happens, they argue, Pyongyang will not be in full compliance by mid-2005 when the light water reactor project will be ready to receive key components. . Pyongyang's refusal to come clean stems from practical concerns. If it is found to have processed more plutonium than it claims, it would be required to hand the material over to the IAEA. The time of reckoning is approaching. In the post-Sept. 11 world, there is more concern about nuclear and bio-terrorism and less patience with the kind of game North Korea has been playing. . By lifting the final veil from its nuclear program, Kim Jong Il can earn the international trust he needs to rebuild North Korea rather than run it into the ground through a policy of nuclear blackmail. . The writer is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 40 Idaho, U.S. Battle Over Nuclear Waste Dump Summary For several decades, the United States has been burying plutonium-contaminated radioactive waste in shallow pits atop a Snake River aquifer in Idaho. Activists and the state are concerned that it will leach into the water and want it moved somewhere else. Federal officials insist it's okay where it is. Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News April 2, 2002 "Save the Snake River Aquifer" may seem like a strange rallying cry. But activists in Idaho are working to create a ground swell of public opinion to sway the Department of Energy (DOE) on a decision about buried nuclear waste. At issue are 10 to 12 acres (4 to 5 hectares) of radioactive nuclear waste buried in shallow pits and trenches at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the second largest nuclear facility in the United States. [Nuclear waste] Low-Tech Dumping Since this October 1969 photo was taken at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), disposal of radioactive and chemical wastes has been made subject to much more intensive regulations designed to ensure protection from contamination. Photograph by INEEL The federal government began burying the plutonium-contaminated waste in Idaho beginning in the 1950s and continued doing so until 1970. The state wants the federal government to come dig it out and move it somewhere else. DOE is thinking about leaving it where it is. "Plutonium is dangerously radioactive, and stays that way for 240,000 years," said Margaret Stewart, central Idaho coordinator for the Snake River Alliance, a group leading the campaign. "And there's around 2,300 pounds of plutonium buried in those fields." The radioactive waste is buried on ground that sits atop the Snake River aquifer. Activists and the state are concerned that the plutonium will leach into the aquifer. The concern is not unfounded. In 1965, the federal government estimated that it would take 80,000 years before contamination from the burial ground would reach the aquifer. In 1995, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences revised the estimate downward to 30 years. "It's not too late. We still have 23 years left," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "But we have to start now. If we don't do preventive action now, the problem will be irremediable. There will be no fix, even with vastly improved technology." Potatoes, Beer, and Trout The Snake River aquifer is huge—about 10,000 square miles (25,000 square kilometers)—and provides both drinking water and irrigation water to several hundred thousand people. Water for agriculture is critical to the state. Idaho produces 30 percent of the potatoes grown in the United States and 25 percent of the barley used by the nation's beer breweries. The aquifer also supports the state's trout farming industry, which supplies 75 percent of all commercial rainbow trout in the United States. Starting in 1954, radioactive waste—known as transuranic, or TRU waste—generated at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapon complex in Colorado was shipped to INEEL. TRU waste generally consists of protective clothing, equipment, soils, and solidified sludges that contain more than 100 nanocuries of radioactive elements such as plutonium, americium, neptunium, and californium. These wastes are called transuranic because they are heavier than uranium. The dumping at INEEL was not a high-tech operation. A truck backed up to a large pit and emptied its load of radioactive waste—contained in barrels, cardboard boxes, and wooden crates, many of them breached before they hit the ground—into shallow, unlined trenches and pits. Once full, the pits were covered with dirt and the ground compacted using heavy machinery. After several floods, during which holes were shot in the floating barrels containing radioactive waste to make them sink, a berm was built to prevent future flooding. In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission determined that burying radioactive waste in shallow unlined trenches was not a good idea. Since then, radioactive waste at INEEL has been stored above ground. Low-level waste continues to be buried at INEEL. Water samples taken from on-site monitoring wells in October 2000 by state and federal officials were found to be contaminated by plutonium. Officials said this doesn't necessarily mean that the buried waste is to blame, that it may be the result of cross-contamination in the field or the lab, or the result of fallout from nuclear atmospheric testing in the 1950s. Buried Waste in Idaho The INEEL has 88 acres (36 hectares) of shallow burial grounds for waste; 12 acres are the major cause of concern. The battle between the state and the federal government is complex. In 1995, Idaho's governor and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed an agreement under which the state of Idaho agreed to accept and provide interim storage for spent nuclear fuel from the Navy and foreign countries. In return, nuclear waste generated during the Cold War would be removed from the state. DOE claims that the agreement doesn't cover the buried waste; Idaho said it does. The net result, activists say, is that INEEL is spending $60 million a year to move safely stored waste to a permanent repository in New Mexico, while leaving the more dangerous waste in the ground. "It makes no sense," said Stewart. "Money is being spent to ship waste stored in sealed, monitored containers in state-of-the-art buildings out of the state, while at the same time accepting waste that is six times more radioactive." Brad Bugger, a spokesman for INEEL, said the 1995 agreement "was never intended to override the process agreed upon in 1991" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund. "That agreement was between the state, DOE, and EPA," he said. "EPA wasn't a party to the 1995 agreement, and it would have had to have been to supercede the process agreed upon in 1991." The state disagrees. "It is the state's expectation that DOE is responsible for the removal of all transuranic waste, regardless of location," said Kathleen Trever, head of the state's INEEL oversight office. "The governor has made it clear to the secretary [of DOE] that all TRU waste must be removed from Idaho," she said, adding that the state's congressional delegation was working to ensure that DOE addresses environmental priorities. Digging Out the Waste By law, DOE has to hold public hearings this year and make a decision about what to do with the buried waste by the end of the year. Options range from leaving the waste where it is and capping the pits with concrete, to digging it all up, treating it, and shipping it out of the state. The state's nuclear activists want it all dug up and stored safely on site. The state wants it dug up and removed from the state. The fact that no one wants to get close to the highly radioactive waste is a huge stumbling block. Any digging operation must be performed remotely to avoid worker exposure. There are serious questions as to whether the technology to conduct such an excavation is available. Plans to excavate a pie-shaped block of soil, barrels, and boxes out of one of the burial fields, known as Pit 9, have encountered numerous setbacks. The cost of digging out this fraction of the waste is estimated at $80 million and projected to be completed in 2004. So far, more money has been spent on litigation than cleanup, said Makhijani. "All indications are that the favored option at DOE is to leave it where it is and put a cap on it—essentially fill the pits with concrete and tell us it's not as dangerous as they thought it was," said Makhijani. Capping the pits with concrete is the least expensive option being considered. In the meantime, activists are traveling throughout the state informing citizens about the issue and encouraging them to make their voices heard at hearings DOE plans to hold in September. Adding urgency to the campaign is the belief among nuclear activists across the nation that as goes Idaho, so goes the nation. Radioactive waste buried in shallow pits and trenches is also a problem at federal facilities in Savannah, Georgia; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Hanford, Washington; and the Nevada Test Site. "We just want to help DOE make the right decision on what to do about buried waste," said Stewart. "The time is now, the place is here." Join the National Geographic Society, the world's largest nonprofit scientific and educational organization, and help further our mission to increase and diffuse knowledge of the world and all that is in it. Membership dues are used to fund exploration and educational projects and members also receive 12 annual issues of the Society's official journal, National Geographic. Click here for details of our latest subscription offer: Go>> National Geographic ***************************************************************** 41 Troopers to simulate plutonium stop The Beaufort Gazette: Saturday, April 20, 2002 • Beaufort, South Carolina Gazette Columbia bureau COLUMBIA -- State troopers will gather at New Ellenton, a couple miles from the Savannah River Site, on Monday to simulate how they would stop a truckload of plutonium from entering the state. The exercise shows the continuing tensions between Gov. Jim Hodges and the federal Department of Energy, which have increased since DOE gave the state notice Monday that it could begin shipping the plutonium no earlier than May 15. Hodges' office is looking at the S.C. Department of Public Safety, the courts and other, unnamed options as ways to force the DOE to make a binding promise not to store the plutonium at SRS indefinitely. "They have offered promises and no enforceable agreement," Hodges said Thursday. While DOE has offered an agreement to get rid of the weapons-grade plutonium if it is not converted into mixed-oxide fuel for nuclear reactors, Hodges has said that's not good enough. Such agreements could be ignored, leaving South Carolina as a permanent storage facility for the toxic, radioactive material. Congressmen John Spratt and Lindsey Graham are working with the DOE to create legislation that would bind the department to its promises, but Hodges said he wants an agreement before the plutonium is shipped. "Let's make sure the legislation has teeth in it and make sure the legislation passes before shipments begin," Hodges said. The Monday morning exercise will include at least a dozen officers of the S.C. Highway Patrol and State Transport Police, who will try to stop a truck posing as a DOE vehicle carrying plutonium. "It's going to be an exercise to see what we can and cannot do to stop weapons grade plutonium from entering the state," DPS spokesman Sid Gaulden said. Gaulden said the procedure is one of several options being looked at for stopping plutonium from entering the state. Hodges called off a similar demonstration last August. Hodges' spokeswoman Cortney Owings said "a roadblock would only be used as a last resort." Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler, a Republican candidate for governor, said Thursday, "It looks like Governor Hodges can't take 'yes' for an answer. It boils down to this: Children lie down to get their way and leaders stand up and do something." Hodges last year threatened to lie down in front of DOE trucks to stop the transport. The plutonium is headed to South Carolina by way of a 2000 U.S.-Russian agreement to each dispose of 34 metric tons of the plutonium used in nuclear weapons. That material would be converted at SRS into MOX fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors, taking it out of the country's weapons inventory. Options While DOE has offered to gradually remove the plutonium if the site is not producing MOX by 2009, Hodges wants a more binding agreement. That could be done through Congress, which could change the agreement later, or through an agreement between South Carolina and DOE overseen by a court. DOE rejects the court route because that would give courts oversight over national security issues and give MOX opponents an opening to have a say in the issue. Graham said lawmakers continue to work on a legally-enforceable agreement to make sure the plutonium doesn't stay in South Carolina indefinitely. His goal is to have an agreement within 30 days, which he believes could pass Congress very quickly afterward. "If all parties will be reasonable, we can accomplish this, and I would ask that no shipments be made until we can come together on a statute that protects South Carolina," he said. Graham said he's gotten no assurances from DOE that it would delay the shipments. "Going to court is probably the least attractive alternative because South Carolina's position in court is questionable, and a long court fight puts in jeopardy the program to convert the plutonium, which is very important for world security," Graham said. Copyright © 2002 The Beaufort Gazette • Use of this site indicates ***************************************************************** 42 State officials question plan for Paducah plant Lexington Herald-Leader | 04/19/2002 | AGENCY SEEKS TO SKIRT RESPONSIBILITY IN CLEANUP, CRITICS SAY ASSOCIATED PRESS PADUCAH - State officials are skeptical of a move to revamp the U.S. Energy Department's cleanup plan for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and critics say the government is trying to dodge responsibility for fouling nearby water, soil, air and wildlife. For years, the plant processed uranium for nuclear weapons. The Energy Department has described its plan to overhaul the cleanup in positive terms, saying the work would accelerate "through streamlining and risk reduction." The plan proposed to start with a "clean slate." "That bothers me a lot. ... The clean slate and acceleration don't match," said James Bickford, Kentucky's natural-resources secretary. The 12-page outline of the new cleanup plan has yet to be made public. It was presented by the department at a March 21 meeting in Lexington with state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials, and The Courier-Journal obtained it. Energy Department officials refused several requests to answer questions about the changes, such as what is meant by "clean slate," how the agency intends to speed up complex projects that have yet to yield measurable results, and how programs first estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars now appear to be far cheaper. ***************************************************************** 43 Plutonium production delays cited Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 04/19/02 From staff and wire reports Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico might be lagging in its effort to build plutonium pits, which fuel nuclear weapons, a federal report says. The lab is behind schedule in about half the things it needs to do to make the grapefruit-sized metal balls, says the report prepared by the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. The report, released this week, cites bad management and planning that relied on a problematic computer program. Progress has been made since the report was prepared, said Everet Beckner, the DOE's deputy administrator for defense programs. The lab is now only behind in 14 of the 40 manufacturing processes need to make the pits, he said. The United States has not built new, weapons-grade pits in more than 10 years. The DOE made the Los Alamos lab responsible for making new pits seven years ago. The possibility of delays has not caused any problems with the work schedule at Pantex, said Brenda Finley, DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration spokeswoman. Through Finley's office, Del Kellogg, leader of the production operations team said, "At this point, we don't foresee any impact at the plant." The lab has made pits, but they have not been certified, or guaranteed to work as good as the old ones. Only certified pits can be placed in nuclear weapons. A pit is squeezed by high explosives. The pit then explodes in a fusion blast. The report says it will cost $1.7 billion to prepare the first pit. Chris Paine of the Natural Resources Defense Council questioned how the lab had failed to make a certified pit, especially given how much money the lab has spent. "I think it's ridiculous," he said. "You spend a billion dollars over a decade and you say you can't certify a pit. You're either incompetent or you're lying." The Associated Press and Amarillo Globe-News Business Editor Greg Rohloff contributed to this report. [http://www.amarillonet.com/copyright.html] ***************************************************************** 44 Editorial: Sacrificing for Security's Sake in Higher Education The Daily Californian Friday, April 19, 2002 The U.S. government has been of late negotiating a nebulous course between increasing security and violating individual liberty. As the Bush administration considers each new policy, it plays a dangerous game that requires careful consideration. A specific Homeland Security committee charged with recommending methods to make the international student visa program less exploitable has been floating controversial ideas. The committee has been considering the possibility of barring "certain international students" from receiving education in areas sensitive to national security, especially involving weapons of mass destruction. Such considerations have been met with a hail of criticism from professional educators, who have been conspicuously left off the committee, mostly composed of law-enforcement, intelligence, National Science Foundation, and Departments of Health and Energy representatives. The committee claims to possess respect for the role of international students in the United States, stating that the country shall "continue to foster and support" them. But with educators missing from the considerations, the community these regulations would affect the most is left wondering and voiceless. Professional educators must be consulted when judging any such policies to ensure the committee correctly gauges the value of international students to not just the university, but also to the country as a whole. It is not a stretch, considering past plans of Homeland Security, to interpret "certain international students" to mean students from countries the United States doesn't get along with. But approaching security in any such sweeping manner would be both unsuccessful and an unacceptable abuse of international students. As restrictions tighten in the name of Homeland Security, however, it would be easy to object blindly to any possibility of violating individual liberty. But the sad truth is security concerns are very real, and national security is at stake. One of Saddam Hussein's nuclear advisors went to MIT, and the head of Iraq's unofficial nuclear program went to Michigan State University. While no decisions have been made yet, the committee stands at a crucial intersection of competing interests. On one hand, the need for national security has rarely appeared more pressing. But on the other hand, locking down too tightly risks sacrificing the very liberty for which this country intrinsically stands. The best solution is to work to tighten security only around information specifically deemed part of national security. Tighten restrictions around such information, but don't restrict anyone based on nationality. Berkeley, California Email: dailycal@dailycal.org ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************