Las Vegas Business Press

*****************************************************************
01/23/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.21
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: U.S. Settles on Plan to Recycle Plutonium
2 Austrians flock to anti-nuclear petition
3 Austrian president steps in to Czech nuclear spat
4 Nuclear Ministry Wants To Retake Konversbank
5 UK: Blair considers nuclear changes
6 US: NRC: Press Conference of Chairman Richard Meserve
7 International Trade Commission backs uranium levies -- 
8 US: Reid: Nuke insurance plan bad
9 UK: Blair embroiled in nuclear row
10 Myanmar to seek Russian nuclear help 
11 US: USEC tax exemption foes do not trouble sponsors 
12 Trade ruling favors USEC over uranium importers 
13 US warns Burma on nuclear reactor
14 US: Trade Commission Rules on Uranium 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 US: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia 
16 US: TVA nears decision on Unit 1
17 US: TVA nears decision on Browns Ferry nuclear plant 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
18 US: How Vulnerable Are Nuclear Plants?
19 UK: Radioactivity from Sellafield 150 times worse in north east 
20 UK: Ruling opens veterans' way to sue MoD                  
21 India to Adopt Tighter Nuclear Transport Pact
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
22 US: State to Allow Radioactive Debris at Regular Landfills
23 US: Nuclear Fuel Storage Pact Eyed
24 US: Nuclear Plant Cited in Waste Handling
25 US: Toxic material disposed of 'just like ordinary waste' 
26 Nuclear safety body seeks Sellafield reassurances 
27 UK: Safety regulators give Dounreay the all-clear
28 US: Yucca Mountain progress will generate jobs
29 US: Australia Probes Radioactive Spills
30 US: NRC Proposes Probability Limits for Excluding Unlikely Events 
31 N-WASTE: Bulgaria, Moscow Talk Trade
32 US: <title>Las Vegas Business Press</title>
33 US: Fed s Seek Dismissal of Utah Claim in Nuclear Waste Suit
34 Norway keeps up Sellafield pressure
35 US: Ferraro urged to exit pro-Yucca campaign 
36 UK: Dounreay claims to meet safety recommendations
37 US: Goodman takes anti-Yucca drive to D.C.
38 US: Letter: Yucca Mountain all about politics
39 US: NRC proposing change in rules governing Yucca
40 US: Duratek Lays Off 130 Workers 
41 US: + Nuclear facility cited for problems with low-level radioactive
42 AU: Greens claim victory over nuclear waste dump plans
43 US: Petition to Dump Yucca Mountain
44 Australian nuclear waste dump plan reportedly scrapped
45 US: Plant to get MOX funds 
46 US: Ferraro Criticized for Support of Nuclear Dump; Nineteen Groups 
47 US: Letter to The Honorable Geraldine Ferraro RE: support of the pro
48 US: Editorial: Finally, Movement On Yucca
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
49 US: Suicidal Nuclear Threat Is Seen at Weapons Plants
50 US: US Customs chief raises nuke threat on containers
51 Kursk sinking 'not collision'
52 Asia's Nuclear Pandora's Box
53 US: Nuclear Arms Plants' Security Lax, Report Says 
54 US: Gibbons Holds First Meeting of Nevada Homeland Security Advisory
55 US: Statement of Gen. John Gordon (Ret. U.S.A.F.) Administrator of 
56 New Zealand and America to discuss nuclear tests
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
57 Rocky Flats to ship plutonium
58 Grand Junction DOE Workers OK'd for Payments
59 Y-12 given approval for warheads work
60 McAnally no longer heading K-25 project
61 Secretary Abraham Announces Administration Plan to Proceed with 
62 Workers undergo tests to determine radiation contamination 
63 U.S. Attorney's office closes case of Los Alamos lab's hard 
 

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 U.S. Settles on Plan to Recycle Plutonium

January 23, 2002

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — The Bush administration intends to announce 
a new plan on Wednesday to dispose of surplus American nuclear 
weapons fuel, rejecting in part a 1996 plan by the Clinton 
administration as too costly.

Under the new plan, 34 tons of plutonium will be converted into 
fuel for nuclear reactors. Under the Clinton plan, 8 tons of it 
was to be ruined by mixing it with the waste created when the 
plU.S. Settles on Plan to Recycle Plutonium

January 23, 2002

By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — The Bush administration intends to announce 
a new plan on Wednesday to dispose of surplus American nuclear 
weapons fuel, rejecting in part a 1996 plan by the Clinton 
administration as too costly.

Under the new plan, 34 tons of plutonium will be converted into 
fuel for nuclear reactors. Under the Clinton plan, 8 tons of it 
was to be ruined by mixing it with the waste created when the 
plutonium was produced. The Clinton administration decided to 
pursue both routes because it was not certain that either one was 
technically feasible and it was eager to ensure that it had at 
least one method. But a senior administration official said this 
evening that dropping the second method would save almost $2 
billion.

The decision was a blow to opponents of nuclear proliferation, 
who say that using recycled plutonium in power reactors will send 
the wrong message to countries the United States is trying to 
dissuade from purifying plutonium. 

Most plutonium is produced in power reactors, and if it is 
purified from spent fuel, it can be used in reactors again, but 
it can also end up as weapons fuel. 

Others say the plan will at least preserve the heart of an 
agreement with the Russians to destroy a like amount of their 
bomb fuel. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to argue 
that the new strategy is central to enhancing national security 
and advancing nonproliferation goals, the senior official said, 
and that it is technologically possible and affordable.

At the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonprofit group based here 
that seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons materials, 
Tom Clements, an expert on plutonium, said that turning the 
material into reactor fuel would put plutonium into the 
commercial world, a security risk. And it will make it harder to 
discourage other countries from recovering plutonium and reusing 
it, Mr. Clements said. His organization and others have said that 
the conversion raises technical and environmental challenges and 
that the Energy 

Department has a poor record of solving such problems. But it may 
solve a political problem. In South Carolina, Governor Jim 
Hodges, a Democrat, said the plan "sounds promising." Last 
summer, believing that the department was planning to ship 
plutonium to Savannah River, near Aiken, S.C., without a plan to 
dispose of it, Mr. Hodges threatened to use state troopers to 
turn the Energy Department's trucks around at the state's 
borders. 

Nearly all the money for the project will be spent in South 
Carolina, which will make the decision popular locally. The 
department plans to pay the Duke Power Company to use two of its 
twin-reactor plants, Catawba, in Clover, S.C., and McGuire, in 
Cornelius, N.C., to take the plutonium as fuel. But to do so, 
Duke must win license amendments from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and it already faces opposition.

Mr. Clements's organization argues that an accident in a plant 
using plutonium fuel could release more dangerous materials than 
one at a plant using uranium fuel. 

The senior Bush administration official said that "while people 
may be enthralled with immobilization, if you want to do 
something that keeps the Russians to their commitment, this is 
the way to do it."

Cost estimates have varied wildly. The 1996 estimate was $2.3 
billion, but by last summer the estimate was $6.6 billion. The 
administration will say on Wednesday that eliminating 
immobilization will save nearly $2 billion and cut the total cost 
to $3.8 billion, the senior official said.

The Clinton plan was to dispose of 52.5 tons, more than half the 
national stockpile, but that was reduced to 34 tons. Some of the 
plutonium that was to have been mixed with wastes is unsuitable 
for conversion to fuel; the administration will have to find two 
tons of weapons plutonium to satisfy the agreement with the 
Russians.

The new plan is to build two factories at the Savannah River 
site. One will take plutonium "pits," the heart of nuclear 
warheads, remove gallium, an element with which it is alloyed, 
and convert it from a metal to an oxide form. A second will mix 
the plutonium oxide with oxides of uranium and turn that into 
ceramic form, the common form for commercial reactor fuel. The 
product, mixed oxide fuel, known as MOx, is used in Europe and 
Japan, but plants have had technical problems, and MOx is far 
more expensive than uranium.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information 
*****************************************************************
 2 Austrians flock to anti-nuclear petition

AUSTRIA: January 22, 2002

VIENNA - Nearly a sixth of Austrian voters have signed a petition             
demanding that their country veto Czech membership of the 
European Union unless Prague shuts down a controversial nuclear 
plant, the government says. 

The interior ministry announced yesterday that 915,220 out of 5.8 
million eligible voters - 15.5 percent - had signed the petition 
launched by Joerg Haider's Freedom Party demanding the closure of 
the Temelin plant.

The petition was not legally binding and the result will do 
little more than force Austria's parliament to debate Temelin. 
Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's conservative People's Party, 
which opposed the petition, said there would be no parliamentary 
majority for any attempt to enshrine a veto in law.

"I see no majority against Czech accession to the EU," said 
People's Party General-Secretary Maria Rauch-Kallat.

Prague insists the plant, 40 miles from the border with Austria, 
is safe and says the petition was really aimed at preventing it 
from joining the EU.

The result fell short of the one million signatures which the 
Freedom Party had hoped for.

Schuessel will feel vindicated by the fact that 85 percent of 
voters failed to sign the petition, despite near-universal 
opposition to nuclear power in Austria.

But the issue is likely to provoke increased public squabbling 
within the two-year-old coalition and could in time trigger early 
elections.

It will also ensure that EU enlargement, expected in 2004, 
remains a contentious political issue in Austria.

Haider, who dominates the Freedom Party although he is no longer 
leader, said earlier after partial results were known that the 
petition had been a "significant success".

"The population must now be listened to," he said in a statement. 

"This vote must be taken seriously and acted upon."

Haider added that the results showed that talks with Prague over 
the safety of its Temelin plant had been insufficient.

A Czech government spokesman had no immediate comment on the 
petition. Support for the petition is likely to have been boosted 
by weekend comments by Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman 
describing Haider as a "populist pro-Nazi" and suggesting that 
only an idiot would sign it.

Austrian President Thomas Klestil expressed his indignation over 
the remarks in a call to Czech President Vaclav Havel.

Relations between the two neighbours have generally been amicable 
in recent years.

But populist politicians on both sides periodically try to stir 
up historical resentment over the Nazi occupation of 
Czechoslovakia or the post-war mass expulsion of German-speakers 
from the country. 

Story by Richard Murphy 

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE 
*****************************************************************
 3 Austrian president steps in to Czech nuclear spat

AUSTRIA: January 22, 2002

VIENNA - Austrian President Thomas Klestil telephoned his Czech 
counterpart Vaclav Havel on the weekend to try to halt a war of 
words between the two countries over the controversial Czech 
nuclear power plant, Temelin. 

Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman described far-right Austrian 
politician Joerg Haider as a "populist pro-Nazi" in excerpts of 
an interview released on the weekend, intensifying the row 
between the Czech government and Haider's Freedom Party which 
began last week. The Freedom Party has launched a petition 
demanding Austria veto the Czech Republic's entry to the European 
Union, expected in 2004, unless Prague closed the Temelin plant, 
60 km (40 miles) from their common border.

"Klestil and Havel agreed that the mutual attacks are only 
exacerbating the problems between the two neighbours and not 
solving them," a statement from Klestil's office said on Sunday.

The Czech head of state had agreed to make a public statement and 
talk to Zeman personally about the matter, it added.

The Czechs insist the Temelin plant is safe and say the 
non-binding petition is an attempt to prevent them from joining 
the EU. In the interview with Austria's Profil magazine, Zeman 
called Haider a "populist pro-Nazi politician who understands 
nothing but talks about everything".

Haider, best known internationally for controversial remarks 
about Austria's Nazi past for which he later apologised, stepped 
down as leader of the Freedom Party in May 2000 after leading it 
into a ruling coalition with conservative Chancellor Wolfgang 
Schuessel. 

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE 
*****************************************************************
 4 Nuclear Ministry Wants To Retake Konversbank
 
Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2002. Page 5 

Combined Reports 

Still smarting from a series of legal defeats that ceded control 
of its pocket bank, Konversbank, to MDM, the Nuclear Power 
Ministry on Tuesday took the unusual step of appointing a shadow 
CEO, board of directors and chief accountant -- and petitioned 
the Central Bank to let it retake the helm. 

The ministry, which once owned or controlled more than 75 percent 
of Konversbank and channeled an estimated $500 million a year 
through it, has seen its ownership in the bank shrink from 75 
percent to what is believed to be less than 25 percent over the 
last year. 

The beneficiary has been MDM Bank, which last year snapped up, 
through affiliated companies, 44 percent of the bank, including 
19.2 percent and 6.18 percent stakes from Nuclear Power Ministry 
"subsidiaries" Tekhsnabexport and Rosenergoatom, respectively.
 
According to Interfax Ratings Agency, as of Oct. 1, MDM is the 
12th-largest bank in Russia with assets of $1.15 billion and 
Konversbank is No. 25 with nearly half a billion dollars in 
assets.
 
Through an additional share emission last year, Konversbank's 
eighth, MDM picked up another 25 percent of the bank for 1 
billion rubles (about $40 million that time). An Aug. 31 
shareholders meeting that followed the share emission confirmed 
MDM board chairman Andrei Melnichenko CEO of Konversbank. Other 
MDM representatives were elected to the board and the Central 
Bank approved all of their appointments. 

Melnichenko, backed by then-Nuclear Power Minister Yevgeny 
Adamov, was appointed Konversbank CEO in December 2000, and the 
share emission that gave him complete control of Konversbank 
began before Adamov was fired by President Vladimir Putin in 
March. His replacement, current Nuclear Power Minister Alexander 
Rumyantsev, opposed the deal and asked the Central Bank to annul 
it, which it did a few weeks ago.
 
Since the Aug. 31 board meeting that confirmed Melnichenko, the 
ministry has been using every legal possibility to stop MDM from 
gaining further control of Konversbank, including holding 
alternative shareholders meetings. But each time MDM has emerged 
victorious.
 
However, the recent annulment of last year's emission and the 
results of a recent inspection of Konversbank by the Central 
Bank, which found assets being moved to MDM, seems to have given 
the ministry new hope.
 
The inspection found multiple violations in transactions between 
MDM and Konversbank last year, including the transfer of 
Konversbank's $9 million headquarters on Kotelnicheskaya 
Naberezhnaya to the balance sheet of MDM.
 
Despite the finding and recent moves by the Nuclear Power 
Ministry, a spokesman for MDM said the bank was not worried. The 
ministry declined to comment, and Konversbank has not had a press 
service since its takeover.     (MT, Vedomosti)
 
http://www.moscowtimes.ru

*****************************************************************
 5 UK: Blair considers nuclear changes

BBC News | UK POLITICS | 

Tuesday, 22 January, 2002, 

[Hunterston nuclear power station]                      

Experts say it could be difficult to replace plants like 
Hunterston 

Changes to the nuclear power industry that experts say would 
throw the future of nuclear energy into doubt are being put 
before Prime Minister Tony Blair. A report from the Performance 
Innovation Unit examining the UK's future energy needs, forecasts 
a continuing shift to gas power and an increase in renewable 
power and energy conservation. 

For the foreseeable future nuclear power has a part to play in 
Britain's energy needs
   	 		
Brian Wilson                      

Energy Minister Brian Wilson said Mr Blair would not necessarily 
follow the recommendations of the government-commissioned report. 
Mr Wilson, who has the Hunterston nuclear power plant in his 
Cunninghame North constituency, said nuclear power had a role to 
play for the foreseeable future. 

Investment fears 

A final draft of the report seen by BBC Radio 4's Today programme 
says it will be up to the private sector to decide whether to 
build new nuclear plants. But the industry should "internalise" 
all its costs, meaning it would take the burden of disposing of 
radioactive waste rather than receive government help. A nuclear 
industry spokesman told BBC News that change would make it a 
"challenge" to find investors willing to invest in nuclear power. 
	 		 			

[Andrew Stunnell, Liberal Democrat MP] Stunnell says nuclear is 
uneconomical and unsafe
 		 		 		  
Jason Goddard, utilities analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, 
said current plants would be able to continue making small 
amounts of profit but remaining "rather precarious". 

"But it would mean that new investment in new plants in the UK 
would be pretty much impossible," said Mr Goddard. 

Mr Wilson said there had been "endless leaking and spinning on 
the basis of selective extracts" from the PIU report, which set 
out "fairly and positively" arguments on the future of nuclear 
power. 

"For the foreseeable future nuclear power has a part to play in 
Britain's energy needs," Mr Wilson told Today. 

"I haven't heard any logical or thought-through position which 
says that it isn't." 

The minister argued the only way the UK could have a secure 
energy supply without using nuclear - which currently supplies 
25% of UK electricity - was to become 70% dependent on gas. 

Some 90% of that gas would have to be imported, he added. 

Conservative energy spokesman Robert Key said doubted the 
government would follow the report's recommendations about 
helping companies with decommissioning and waste costs. 

"It would be a world first if the government said: 'We have no 
responsibility for nuclear waste and we are going to put it out 
to the market.'" 

'Pro-nuclear lurch' 

Mr Wilson's remarks prompted an attack from Liberal Democrat 
energy spokesman Andrew Stunnell. 

"The government's pro-nuclear lurch must be condemned," he said. 

"They do not even have the courage to accept the findings of 
their own think-tank, which has carried out a thorough study on 
their behalf and acknowledged a continuing shift to gas, 
renewable power and conservation. "Nuclear cannot be the future 
of Britain's energy needs. It remains uneconomical, 
environmentally unsafe and politically unsound." 

*****************************************************************
 6 NRC: Press Conference of Chairman Richard Meserve
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Press Conference of Chairman Richard Meserve
 
National Press Club Luncheon
 
Thursday, January 17, 2002
 
Washington, D.C.
 
The press conference commenced at 1:00 p.m. at the National Press 
Club, 529 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., Richard Ryan, 
President, presiding. 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
 (1:05 p.m.)
 
MR. RYAN: Good afternoon, and welcome to the National Press Club. 
My name is Richard Ryan and I am Senior Washington Correspondent 
for the Detroit News and President of the National Press Club. I 
just wanted you to know that today is my last luncheon that I 
will moderate as President of the Press Club, as we're having a 
transition taking place here tomorrow.
 
I'd like to welcome Club Members and their guests in the audience 
today and those of you who are watching on C-SPAN or are 
listening to this program on National Public Radio. The video 
archive of today's luncheon is provided by Connect Live and is 
available to the National Press Club website at press.org. 
National Press Club luncheons are also carried live by many sites 
on the world wide web.
 
Press Club Members may also access transcripts of our luncheons 
at our website. 

Non-members may purchase transcripts, audio and video tapes by 
calling 1-888-343-1940.
 
Before introducing our head table, I'd like to remind our Members 
of some upcoming speakers. Next Tuesday, January 22nd, Franklin 
Reins, Chairman and CEO of FannieMae will be here to address the 
Press Club.
 
On Monday, January 28th, Javier Gonzalez, President of the 
National Association of Counties will discuss a report from the 
front lines, "Safeguarding America's Communities from Terrorism."
 
And on Thursday, January 31st, Dr. John C. Brown, Director of the 
Los Alamos National Library will be our guest.
 
If you have any questions for our speaker, please write them on 
the cards that are provided for you at your tables, but please 
remember to write legibly, because if I can't read the question, 
I'll never be able to ask it and then I will ask as many 
questions as time permits.
 
I'd now like to introduce our head table guests and ask them to 
stand briefly when their names are called, but please hold your 
applause until all head table guests are introduced. From your 
right and my left, Matt Wald, Reporter, New York Times; Stephanie 
Ingergoll, Energy Reporter, Bureau of National Affairs; Bill 
Miller, Homeland Security Reporter, Washington Post; William 
Beecher, Director of Public Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; Margaret Ryan, Editorial Director, McGraw-Hill 
Nuclear Publications; Mike Childs, Chief of Staff to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve; Frank Okifer, 
Chairman of the National Press Club Speaker's Committee and a 
former president of the National Press Club. And skipping our 
speaker for a moment, Barbara McLoud, president, McLoud 
International Network and the Speaker's Committee Network who 
organized today's luncheon. Thank you, Barbara.
 
William Travers, Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission; Brett Lieberman, Washington Correspondent, 
Harrisburg Patriot News; and Joe Ebert, Energy Writer, Associated 
Press.
 
(Applause.)
 
Richard Meserve, our guest speaker today, was sworn in as 
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in October of 1999. 
The Commission is an independent federal agency responsible for 
licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials.
 
At his Senate confirmation hearing, the late Senator John Chafee 
of Rhode Island told Mr. Meserve, the President has chosen 
wisely. You are well prepared for the job. But nothing, no amount 
of experience could have prepared Meserve, or anyone else for 
that matter, for the horrific events of September 11th when 
suicidal terrorists flew commercial airliners into the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon. Until then, the greatest danger at 
nuclear plants had come from accidents and human error, such as 
the near meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the 1986 
meltdown at Chernobyl.
 
But since September 11th, Mr. Meserve has spent much of his time 
trying to make sure that the nation's 103 operating nuclear 
plants are safe from terrorists. He called attacks in New York 
and Washington a wake up call. He has order a top to bottom 
review of all safeguard and security measures, including a 
reevaluation of the design basis of nuclear plants to determine 
if they are able to withstand a direct hit from a large, fully 
fueled commercial jetliner.
 
Not only do the plants themselves provide a tempting target for 
terrorists, but the tons of highly toxic, radioactive waste 
stored at the plants could be utilized as weapons.
 
Mr. Meserve was born 57 years ago in Medford, Massachusetts. He 
received his Bachelor's degree from Tufts University in 1966, a 
law degree from Harvard in 1975 and a Ph.D. in Applied Physics 
from Stanford University in 1976. As a young lawyer, he clerked 
for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmon. From 1977 to 1981, 
he served as a legal counsel for the President's Science Advisor, 
where he was responsible for policies related to energy, response 
to nuclear accidents and industrial innovation.
 
Before President Clinton appointed him to a 5-year term on the 
NRC and selected him as Chairman, Mr. Meserve was a partner in 
the Washington Law Firm of Covington & Burling, a firm he joined 
in 1981. During his legal career, he has focused on a wide range 
of issues of law, science and technology including environmental 
law, nuclear licensing and nonproliferation and the counseling of 
high technology companies in scientific societies.
 
Mr. Meserve also knows a bit about the news business. He's the 
older brother of CNN anchor and reporter, Jane Meserve. So please 
join me in welcoming Richard Meserve to the National Press Club.
 
(Applause.)
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you, Dick, for that very generous 
introduction. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to 
address you.
 
I suspect that you have a strong interest in security at nuclear 
power plants. I hope to provide you with a summary of how the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission approaches security matters with a 
description of some of the actions taken in the aftermath of the 
September 11th attacks and with a survey of some of the major 
challenges ahead.
 
Let me make a few general points at the outset. First, and first 
most important, since September 11th, there have been no specific 
credible threats of a terrorist attack on nuclear power plants. 
In light of the high general threat environment, nonetheless, we 
and our licensees have maintained our highest security posture.
 
Second, the physical protection at nuclear power plants is very 
strong. I know that there have been a lot of discussions 
concerning the adequacy of security in light of the sensitivity 
of these facilities. But let me assure you that nuclear plants 
are not soft targets. For decades, security against sabotage has 
been an important part of the NRC's regulatory activities and our 
licensees' responsibilities.
 
The plants are among the most formidable structures in existence 
and they are guarded by well-trained and well-armed security 
forces. The security at nuclear plants and has always been far 
more substantial than that at other civilian facilities and it 
has been augmented since September 11th.
 
Third, I want to assure you that the NRC is responding to the 
terrorist threat in a comprehensive fashion. September 11 has 
served to alert America to the need for reexamination of past 
practices. As a result, the NRC is undertaking a top to bottom 
review of our security program to ensure that we have the right 
protections in place for the long term.
 
Let me start by providing you with a more detailed description of 
our security requirements. Each licensee has a responsibility to 
defend its nuclear power plant subject to regulatory scrutiny by 
the NRC. Under our existing regulatory system, we require that 
our licensees demonstrate a high assurance that they can defend 
their facilities against a so-called design basis threat. 

Although the details of that threat are classified, it basically 
involves a commando attack by several skilled attackers, armed 
with automatic weapons and hand carried explosives and 
incapacitating agents. And with assistance by an insider, the use 
of a 4-wheel dry vehicle and vehicle bomb. Our licensees defend 
against such a threat by the establishment of a fence perimeter, 
usually a double fence, topped with concertina wire. Intrusion 
detection devices, layers of access barriers, heavily armed and 
carefully trained guard forces, armored defensive positions and a 
comprehensive defensive strategy.
 
The adequacy of the defenses is subject to detailed inspection by 
the NRC including periodic force upon force exercises designed to 
probe for weaknesses so that corrections can be made.
 
The design basis threat does not include an aircraft attack. In 
the aftermath of September 11, many have asked about the 
consequences, if a large, aircraft, fully loaded with jet fuel, 
had crashed into a nuclear power plant. We had to say candidly 
that we were not sure. 

We know that reactor containments are extremely robust, typically 
being constructed with 2 to 5 feet of reinforced concrete with an 
interior steel lining. The plant benefits from redundant and 
safety equipment so that if any active component were unavailable 
there is another means to satisfy its function. 

The operators are trained to respond to unusual events and 
carefully designed emergency plans are in place. 

Nuclear power plants are certainly far more capable to respond to 
an aircraft attack than other civilian facilities. But the NRC 
has never previously had reason to perform a detailed engineering 
analysis of the consequences of a deliberate attack by a large 
airliner. We are performing those analyses now.
 
I am sometimes asked whether terrorists might be able to gain 
employment at a nuclear plant. Let me describe some of the 
regulatory requirements that bear on this issue.
 
At the time of employment, every potential employee will have 
access to safety equipment. He's required to pass various 
background checks including examination of past employment, 
references, credit history and an FBI criminal record check, as 
well as to undergo psychological testing. During the course of 
employment, each employee is also subject to fitness-for-duty 
requirements which include random drug and alcohol testing.
 
Behavioral monitoring of employees is also required so as to 
ensure that any aberrant actions receive appropriate attention. 
Of course, access to the plants is controlled and there are 
portal protectors for metals and explosives. We are examining 
whether these requirements should be supplement in the course of 
our talked about review.
 
Let me turn now to the events on September 11 and the NRC's 
subsequent actions. Shortly after the second crash into the World 
Trade Center, the NRC activated its Headquarters Emergency 
Operations Center and the parallel Incident Response Centers in 
each of the NRC's four regional offices. We immediately called 
for our major licensees to go to the highest level of security 
which we have maintained since that time and augmented as 
circumstances warranted.
 
This heightened security stance generally includes, among other 
resources, increased patrols, augmented security forces and 
weapons, additional security posts, heightened coordination with 
law enforcement and military authorities and additional 
limitations on access of personnel in vehicles.
 
The NRC safeguard analysts have worked continually with the 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies to assess the general 
threat environment as well as information about specific targets. 
In order to assess whether terrorists may have been conducting 
surveillance of nuclear facilities, we with the assistance of 
federal, State and local law enforcement have carefully examined 
unusual incidents such as flyovers, threats and a possible 
probing of defenses.
 
NRC investigators have also examined incidents over the past two 
years that might have seemed innocent or odd at the time, but 
that in retrospect might suggest a pattern that should be 
referred to the FBI for follow up.
 
As you might expect, there have been extensive interactions with 
other government agencies. We work closely with the new Office of 
Homeland Security, the FBI, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the military and the 
Department of Energy, among others. And I have communicated with 
the Governors of 40 States to as to ensure that any State 
defensive assets, that is National Guard or State Police, are 
used as needed to augment our licensees' defensive strategies.
 
Let me turn now to some longer term challenges. The Commission 
has not yet had the opportunity to complete its consideration of 
some of these issues, so these comments should be seen as my own. 

I shall first discuss the context for examining the security of 
nuclear plants. As you know, there have been numerous discussions 
about the potential vulnerability of nuclear plants from 
terrorist attack. Some argue that the only acceptable response to 
the risk is to shutdown the nation's reactors.
 
Others contend that we can continue with nuclear power which 
provides about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, so long as 
appropriate security measures are in place. The crimes of 
September 11th were designed to shock the American people in part 
by the very fact that they involve such large and imposing 
targets.
 
In the effort to ensure that no such horror ever occurs again, 
there's a danger of drawing the wrong lesson from the attacks, of 
blaming the victim so to speak. The destruction of a skyscraper 
does not suggest it is a mistake to build skyscrapers any more 
than the dissemination of anthrax spores through the mails proves 
that it is an error to operate a postal service.
 
If we allow the threats of terrorists to determine what we build 
and what we operate, we would be headed into the past, back to an 
era without suspension bridges, harbor tunnels, stadiums, 
hydroelectric dams, let alone skyscrapers, liquid natural gas 
terminals, chemical factors or nuclear power plants.
 
The problem is not the terrorists' targets, but the terrorists 
themselves. It is they who need to be eliminated, not the 
creations of a modern, industrial society. It is thus my view 
that a strategy of risk avoidance, the elimination of the threat 
by the elimination of potential targets does not reflect a sound 
response, rather, the evaluation of the terrorists' threat to 
infrastructure, including nuclear plants should include a careful 
and realistic examination of risks and benefits and the 
development of appropriate defenses in light of those risks and 
benefits.
 
September 11th has made clear that our society must increase the 
vigilance with which we defend ourselves against terrorist 
attack, but the reality is that as a society we do not have 
infinite funds to spend for this purpose. Accordingly, we must 
allocate our defense resources in a fashion that serves to 
minimize the total risk. As a result, any policy regarding the 
defense of nuclear facilities should be integrated with the 
overall response to the threat to infrastructure of all kinds.
 
Clearly, this is not a task that the NRC can undertake alone. We 
have sought and will continue to seek appropriate security at 
facilities subject to our jurisdiction. We also look forward to 
working with the Office of Homeland Security and others to ensure 
that our strategy is coordinated with the nation's overall 
defensive posture. I see this as a great challenge, however, 
because the task is large and the extent of infrastructure 
involves government at all levels.
 
The second policy issue that I would like to discuss relates to 
public and private roles in the defense against terrorism. This 
is an issue that the events of September 11th have brought 
clearly to the fore.
 
As I have explained, the NRC licensees must defend nuclear power 
plants against the design basis threat. September 11th obviously 
revealed the type of attack, a suicidal assault using a large 
commercial aircraft, that has not been part of the NRC's planning 
or that of any other agency with similar responsibilities. 
Moreover, the event has demanded that the NRC and its licensees 
reevaluate the scope of potential assaults of all types.
 
There are limits, however, as to what should be expected from a 
private guard force, even as assisted by local law enforcement. 
For example, if it were determined that nuclear plants should be 
defended against aircraft attack, I cannot conceive that the NRC 
would expect licensees or local law enforcement to acquire and 
operate antiaircraft weaponry. Rather, this obligation would be 
one for the military. Similarly, there might be other types of 
attacks that should properly involve governmental response 
putting aside the assumed attacking force or the equipment that 
must be employed in defense. 

As a result, in its development of policy, the NRC must be 
prepared to differentiate the defensive obligation it has borne 
by licensees from that which must be undertaken by the 
Government. If part of the top to bottom review that I mentioned 
earlier, the NRC is examining the new threat environment in 
coordination with various other agencies.
 
There may also have to be an additional discussion with the 
military, the States and local law enforcement about the 
provision of government assets at appropriate times. I do not 
expect that assigning the appropriate boundary between the public 
and private sector in the defense of nuclear facilities will be 
easy. 

The third issue relates to the balance between security and 
openness. The NRC has sought to achieve public confidence through 
a variety of means, but perhaps the most effective tool has been 
a policy of transparency. We recognize that decisions made behind 
closed doors may be viewed with suspicion. We have therefore 
sought to assure open decision processes that would enable the 
public to be fully informed of the issues before us. We cannot 
aspire to a world in which all will be satisfied by our 
decisions, but we have hope that all would see that our decisions 
were reached through fair processes.
 
September 11th has made clear that we need to rethink just how 
open we can and should be with respect to physical security 
issues. In this process, we must give due regard to two vital, 
but competing interests. The first is the public's right to know, 
a right that is grounded in law and that is one of the most 
cherished principles of our democracy. The other is the need to 
keep sensitive information away from those whose purpose is to 
destroy that democracy. We are striving to strike an appropriate 
balance between openness and security.
 
The final challenge I would like to mention is the need to 
accomplish security reform at a time of major transition in the 
energy sector. Over the past year or two we have seen a quiet 
renaissance in the nuclear business. The nuclear generating 
companies have become leaner and meaner, more efficiently run 
with far fewer outages and greater reliability.
 
In the past decade, the average capacity factor which is a 
measure of plant utilization has jumped from 70 percent to nearly 
90 percent. Not surprisingly, as the electrical production of the 
average plant has increased, the cost of the electricity has 
declined. As a result, the production costs of electricity from 
nuclear plants is less than that from its principal competitors, 
coal and natural gas. And nuclear is not burdened with emission 
constraints and concerns about global warming that attend fossil 
fuels.
 
Most importantly, by all objective measures, the safety 
performance of nuclear plants has improved in parallel with 
economic performance. The NRC tracks significant events, safety 
system failures, unanticipated plant responses, degradation of 
key systems or components, operator errors. The number of 
significant events has declined 99 percent in 15 years. It is not 
an accident that safety performance and improved economic 
performance should be linked to each other. Both are furthered by 
preventive maintenance, better training of operators, and the 
fostering of a safety culture.
 
Just a few years ago, some pundits claimed that restructuring in 
the electricity business would leave to the premature shutdown of 
nuclear plants. But as a result of this strong economic and 
safety performance, we are instead seeing interest among our 
licensees in expanding their activities. Generating companies are 
seeking the renewal of the licenses for existing plants so as to 
allow operation beyond the initial 40-year term. And some are 
even contemplating new plant construction.
 
License renewal involves a careful examination of the systems of 
a plant that are subject to aging, so as to ensure that safety 
margins are maintained over an extended operating period. We have 
renewed the licenses for eight plants in four sites already and 
either have applications or expect applications from literally 
the entirety of the remaining 95 plants. We are committed to a 
thorough expeditious review of each application.
 
New construction offers the promise of improvements in both 
safety and in economics, but new construction presents a 
significant challenge for many reasons, including that new 
construction might involve designs that are completely different 
from existing facilities. For example, there are discussions of 
reactors that are cooled by helium, rather than water. We have 
started to prepare for the possibility of new applications so as 
to ensure that we have the appropriate regulatory and analytical 
tools in place.
 
I mention these developments because even before September 11th, 
the NRC was an agency that was confronting significant 
challenges. Fortunately, we have used the past quarter century to 
good advantage improving our processes and preparing to 
accommodate technological and economic developments. If society 
decides to expand reliance on the nuclear option, the NRC is 
prepared to perform its role of protecting public health and 
safety. 

Let me note in conclusion that we live in very uncertain times. 
And it's difficult at this juncture to predict how the security 
and other challenges I have mentioned will be finally resolved. I 
hope I have left you with the awareness that the NRC takes its 
obligations very seriously.
 
Thank you for allowing me to join you. I would be happy to 
respond to questions.
 
(Applause.)
 
MR. RYAN: Thank you. During your speech you described a training 
scenario in which a force was repelled from attacking a nuclear 
power plant, but this question notes that there are recent 
reports that 50 percent of the licensees have failed these tests 
in this mock scenario. What's your response to that?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I think that one could quibble about the 
statistics, but really the fundamental point is that our 
force-on-force activities to test defenses are very hard tests 
and we're hard graders. 

Let me explain a little bit about why we view them as hard tests 
and that in these exercises, the attacking force is given 
information about the entirety of the defensive strategy of the 
facilities, so the tasks are designed to probe weaknesses that 
full knowledge of the defensive strategy would give the adversary 
and the purpose of the test, of course, is to evaluate whether 
those weaknesses are real or not and to assure that the plants 
are revised and their behavior is revised in order to be able to 
deal with those threats if it ever should arise. So these are 
very hard tasks and they're ones that we see that should be 
reassuring the public because before September 11, we had in 
place a system to try to make sure that there was adequate 
security at these plants.
 
MR. RYAN: Do the guards at nuclear facilities now have the 
authority to shoot to kill and if not, is this being considered?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: We do have legislation that is pending before 
the Congress to try to federalize the requirements for the use of 
deadly force by the guard forces. At the moment, the guard forces 
are governed by State law and what those requirements impose with 
regard to the use of deadly force do vary from State to State.
 
We want to make sure and through federal legislation seek to have 
the authority that those guards are under a federal system so 
that they can take appropriate actions without any concerns about 
State law issues.
 
MR. RYAN: A questioner wants to know what kind of incentives 
might be offered to private industry to get them to shore up 
security on nuclear plants and then a follow-up question to that 
would be should State and local governments be asked to help pay 
for this extra protection?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, let me say that the requirements for the 
defense of the facilities are ones that are regulatory 
requirements and as I indicated in a response to the last 
question, there are requirements that are subject to our testing 
and regulatory scrutiny. So we have a system in place that 
doesn't require special incentives to shore up the plants in that 
we have a regulatory system in place that is intended to assure 
adequate protection. And of course, the licensees, themselves, 
have a very significant asset at these facilities and it is in 
their interest as well to assure that these facilities are 
protected.
 
The question with regard to the payment by State and local for 
the defense of facilities is the sort of issue that really needs 
to be examined. As I have mentioned in my comments, we see a need 
for drawing a line between the licensee obligations and those of 
the Government in responding to events. We don't see this as 
necessarily being a situation in which there would be State or 
federal assets, a necessity that would be permanently assigned to 
the facilities. We would see that this would be assets that would 
be deployed as the circumstances warrant, just as the police 
would come to your home as the circumstances warrant.
 
MR. RYAN: A couple of questioners had asked sort of what's your 
thought about the legislation that has been introduced in 
Congress to federalize the work forces at the nuclear power 
plants and do you think this is a good idea?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: As the question indicates, there is some 
legislation in Congress that would take the private guard forces 
that exist at nuclear plants today and would make them federal 
employees and the NRC has very strenuously opposed this 
legislation.
 
First, we don't see that there's a problem today. The private 
guard forces that we have in place at these facilities are not 
rent-a-cops. They're not the kinds of forces in which we're all 
familiar that have existed in the past at airports. These are 
people who take their job very seriously. They're comparatively 
well paid. There is high retention rate in the industry for these 
people. They receive training, of course, on the job in order to 
make sure that they can fulfill their responsibilities.
 
They also have experience. About two thirds of them, as I 
understand, have previously worked in law enforcement, in 
military security or in industrial security. So this is a guard 
force that is already very experienced and in place. It's not a 
guard force which we have the sorts of problems that people have 
discussed with regard to airport security.
 
The second point I would make is that if we were to federalize 
the guard force, we then put the NRC in the position in which 
we're required to exercise regulatory scrutiny over the 
facilities with regard to the safety of operations, but that we 
would be the management authority with regard to security in the 
facilities and we sort of come into a bit of a conflict 
situation.
 
In fact, if we were to assume the entire nuclear guard force, 
we'd have far more guards who would be our employees than we have 
of the kinds of people we have today to fulfill our regulatory 
functions. So we would really become a security agency, far more 
than we would be a safety agency. I believe that's a deflection 
of our mission.
 
The third point I'd raise and this is really a fundamental point. 
You create a conflict situation. If you had an emergency that 
were to arise at a nuclear power plant, you have a license who 
would be obliged to take steps to deal with the safety of the 
plant and that a management structure that would report to us 
that has responsibility for assuring security. You can understand 
the command and control problems in our emergency circumstances 
that you would create by having two parallel structures that have 
to operate in the same place at the same time and obviously there 
could be conflicts there that arise, could be very difficult to 
deal with in those circumstances.
 
So we don't see that the current system is one that creates a 
problem. We see difficulties if, in fact, we were to federalize 
the guard forces and so we have not seen this as an appropriate 
step.
 
MR. RYAN: This question notes that Congressman John Dingle from 
Michigan has requested an investigation into NRC security 
provisions. Do you think that this investigation is warranted?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, let me say I think that the Congress 
obviously has an important oversight responsibility for the 
entirety of the Federal Government. There obviously are concerns 
that the public has had as to the adequacy of security at nuclear 
facilities in light of their sensitivity. And so that I think 
this is the sort of action that Mr. Dingle has initiated that is 
an appropriate for a Congressman to take in an area that's of 
public concern.
 
I have indicated to you the types of activities that are in place 
at the facilities. We've done a lot of things post-September 11th 
to strengthen those facilities and I'm confident that will come 
out of this kind of examination with an indication that the NRC 
has been doing its job.
 
MR. RYAN: You mentioned after the September 11th attacks you 
ordered a top to bottom review of power plant security. When do 
you expect that this review will be completed?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I see this is a continuing activity. When I say 
a top to bottom review, we are looking at the entirety of our 
activities, not only the regulatory requirements dealing with 
licensees, but the mode of our interaction with other agencies, 
the means by which we have to handle classified information, 
communicate that to our staff and handle it. There's a whole 
series of issue that have to be addressed, things that we've 
learned as a result of September 11th events.
 
I don't see that there's going to be any magic end date for this. 
We have as continuing activities there's a whole series of steps 
we've taken already. There's steps that we're going to be taking 
in the months ahead, and at this juncture it's hard for me to see 
exactly when the entire process will end. It's not going to be a 
magic moment when we're going to say that this activity is over.
 
MR. RYAN: This question may be somewhat similar, but the 
questioner asks what is taking so much time for the Commission to 
agree upon a revised design basis threat? Is the Commission 
waiting for Congress to take the lead?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, let me say that this has been an issue 
that has been -- the fundamental question concerns the adequacy 
of the defenses at nuclear facilities and this has been something 
that has been of continuous examination by the NRC, to some 
extent before September 11th and with great vigor after September 
11th.
 
We have, as I indicated in my talk, required our licensees to 
take a large number of additional actions to strengthen the 
defenses of their facilities after September 11th and that is a 
matter that is under continuing discussion by us and continuing 
evaluation. So this has been not been something that has been 
activity that has lacked for attention. This has been something 
we have been continually examining and there are a number of 
steps that we've already taken and there are a number of things 
that we're examining for the longer term.
 
MR. RYAN: You said in a speech last November in Atlanta that you 
sometimes feared that press accounts about the threats to nuclear 
plants may actually invite terrorist attacks. Do you still 
believe that?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, the concern I have is really quite simple 
is that I've explained to you the nature of the defenses that 
exist at the facilities and the concern that we have is by 
suggesting that a facility is vulnerable you might invite 
somebody who would not otherwise consider attacking the facility 
to attack it. I'd rather not have the defenses at nuclear plants 
be actually challenged by real events. I'd like to have it all be 
our force-on-force exercises.
 
The concern has been by suggesting that there is light defenses 
at nuclear plants or any other structure in the United States you 
may be suggesting a vulnerability that a terrorist might seek to 
exploit.
 
MR. RYAN: I think a number of States, including Maryland, have 
begun or agreed to start stockpiling potassium iodide as a 
treatment for a potential nuclear attack or an attack on a 
nuclear facility. Is this a good idea?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: For the benefit of everyone in the audience, I 
might explain that potassium iodide that one could take 
immediately before or immediately after an exposure to 
radioactive iodine and if one has consumed potassium iodide that 
the potassium iodide would saturate the thyroid and provide 
protection from the iodine that arising from the radioactive 
exposure.
 
Long before September 11th, in fact, it was January of last year, 
the NRC imposed an obligation on States which have the primary 
responsibility for implementing protective emergency response 
plants at nuclear plants, to consider the use of potassium iodide 
to supplement the traditional tools which are the evacuation of 
people or the sheltering of people if there's a nuclear event. So 
in January a year ago, we had requested the States or actually 
required the States to consider stockpiling potassium iodide and 
making it available to people in the emergency planning zone 
which is the region, the vicinity of the plant that might be 
exposed.
 
We have been awaiting guidance from the FDA as to dosages which 
in that guidance we've been working with them and that guidance 
was issued in December of last year. The NRC has made available 
funds to the States so that if a State comes to us and would like 
to stockpile potassium iodide, the NRC will take responsibility 
for the initial purchase of potassium iodide for people in the 
emergency planning zone.
 
So this is something that we have seen as a useful supplement to 
evacuation and sheltering in particular situations. It's 
something we want the States to consider and we have tried to 
facilitate it by providing funds and actually providing potassium 
iodide to States that were interested in taking up this offer.
 
MR. RYAN: I remember the President's budget, the energy budget, 
put emphasis on new development of nuclear plants. Has the events 
of September 11th actually slowed this down and by how much?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: The NRC's responsibility, of course, is 
assuring the safety of the plants. We don't make the decisions as 
to whether someone should decide to construct a new plant. So I 
don't have any reason to have any first hand knowledge of the 
climate, other than the fact that the licensees that have had 
interest in pursuing this have continued to have interest and so 
from all the indications that we receive which is obviously not 
complete, is that the interest in possible new construction has 
remained strong after September 11th.
 
MR. RYAN: On that same line, do you have any predictions when we 
might see nuclear power plants, new ones in this country?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, I think there's a number of things that 
have to be put in place before that occurs and the chief one, of 
course, is having some assurance to the economics of the plants, 
particularly of the new designs. I know that there are companies 
that are interested in exercising some of the regulatory options 
that we have in place for dealing with new construction and that 
is have early site permit so that a site would be available. We 
already have certified some advanced designs and there is a large 
number of interest among companies that would like to fabricate 
nuclear power plants to come to us and have advanced 
certification of the safety of the designs.
 
So we have -- and that has certainly continued and I would expect 
that if there were new construction that somebody would use the 
benefit of the early site permit and use a certified design and 
come to us as that of being a vehicle for new construction. There 
are other options that are available.
 
We see that the interest is continuing. There have been some that 
have been quite optimistic and have talked about the prospects 
for being able to come to us and talk within a year or two of 
possibly submitting a license application.
 
MR. RYAN: We've all read about the thousands of tons of nuclear 
waste that are being piled up around plants. A couple of 
questions asked what is being done to protect that nuclear waste 
and how could that waste be used by terrorists if they should 
somehow get a hold of it?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, the principal waste that people are 
concerned about is the spent fuel which is removed from the 
reactor and today it's either stored in spent fuel pools at the 
reactor sites or is put into dry cask storage. We believe that 
both of those methods for storing nuclear fuel are safe. In fact, 
we believe they're safe for decades.
 
There has been concern that's been expressed, particularly after 
September 11th about the potential vulnerability, in particular, 
of the spent fuel pools. I perhaps ought to put this in context 
by explaining that the spent fuel pool is typically on the 
reactor site, so that it has -- it's always on the reactor site, 
so it has the benefit of the security forces and the defenses 
that I've described for the nuclear power plants.
 
The structures are five or six feet of reinforced concrete with a 
steel liner, so these are not particularly vulnerable structures. 
What one worries about is an event in which there is a drain down 
of the fuel, the water that is in a spent fuel pool were to drain 
away and somehow we would get to a situation where there could be 
a fire. Well, the structures are very robust and the likelihood 
of a drain down event is one that is -- there's some confidence 
that the structure could withstand an attack, have the guard 
forces that are there as well.
 
If you did have a drain down event, you have the opportunity to 
put water back in the pool, be able to restore the cooling. So 
this is an issue that is obviously one that we're examining. It's 
obviously one that we're considering in the post-September 11th 
world, but this is an area where the physical nature of 
structures is one that should give some assurance.
 
The concern, I guess, would be that a terrorist, number one, 
would do something that would cause -- the question was how could 
this material be used by terrorists. One concern is that it just 
might be blown up in place or set on fire somehow in place in 
what I have described and therefore you would have a radioactive 
-- what I have described is how we would confront that situation.
 
Another possibility that some have suggested is that the material 
might somehow be removed from the spent fuel pool and taken 
someplace else and then perhaps dispersed by nature of explosive 
or something of that kind. Well, the reason this material is in a 
spent fuel pool is that it's highly radioactive and so that there 
would be great danger to a terrorist if he were to handle this 
material. And they're not particularly physically simple to move 
around. These are large structures. So this is not something 
that's sort of easy for someone to acquire and to be able to use.
 
MR. RYAN: This questioner would like to know if the waste 
material is actually tagged so that if it should fall into the 
wrong hands, if you could identify where it came from?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Waste material is tagged?
 
MR. RYAN: Is tagged, yes. Some sort of identification of the 
material from Calvert Cliffs or from some other plant.
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, the material is maintained under very 
strict scrutiny at the facilities so that there is no particular 
labeling at the facilities, but there has to be security and 
inventorying of the materials at the plants to make sure that 
it's the material of spent fuel is where it's supposed to be. So 
that this is -- this is not something that's part of the 
regulatory system if there were to be a disappearance of spent 
fuel, we and the licensee would know about it as it was 
happening, I'm sure, because it would require someone to get 
through the defenses to get to the material in the first place.
 
MR. RYAN: This questioner notes that there was an FBI advisory 
sent out last night about terrorists potentially getting 
information off of the web. How does this affect the NRC and 
these nuclear power plants?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: The questioner is correct, the FBI issued an 
advisory last night that many of you may have seen that there was 
uncorroborated evidence that Al-Quaeda may have been probing 
websites to gain information among a variety of different types 
of facilities, including nuclear power plants.
 
This is the sort of information that we pass along to our 
licensees and in the case of threat advisories to inform them 
that this sort of thing is going on. Let me say that with regard 
to the NRC that immediately after the September 11th events, we 
brought down our website because of concerns that it contained 
information that might be of value to terrorists and we have been 
repopulating that website over time as we've been satisfied that 
the information is something that we can adequately release.
 
And similarly, our licensees have done the same thing, that most 
of them have screened their websites to assure that there is not 
information that's on the website that could be of significant 
use to a terrorist attack. But we have this information. It's 
uncorroborated information, at least, and the advisory as it 
existed last night and it's the sort of thing we do inform our 
licensees about through a threat advisory system.
 
MR. RYAN: Keeping with this on-line, a couple of questioners 
would like to know when does the NRC plan to reinstall on-line 
plant security report and if so, when. And this questioner notes 
that plants status and incident reports are no longer available 
on the web. And how will you plan to keep the public informed 
about these discussions, unless they are posted on the web?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: This was really a concrete example of the 
policy issue that I mentioned in my remarks, that we have a 
serious challenge in trying to find the appropriate balance 
between the interest of security to make sure we don't provide 
information that could assist a terrorist attack, while 
simultaneously meeting the need to assure the public has 
information in which it's interested that relate to the 
facilities.
 
In these reports of the types of things that we have been 
considering in trying to find out at least what aspects of them 
we could provide on an 

on-going basis to our licensees and the public and contractor, 
the challenge of course is to make sure they don't contain 
information in them that would reveal a vulnerability even if 
only a short-term vulnerability at the plant.
 
MR. RYAN: How does the threat of cyber terrorism impact the 
nuclear power industry. I suspect that means if you disrupt the 
computers at the plants.
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: One of the aspects of course, of the September 
11th world is you need to look at attacks of all types. And cyber 
attacks, both on the NRC's own computers and on the licensee 
facilities are something that you do need to have concern about.
 
We have some confidence in this area because of the large number 
of measures that were put in at the time of the millennium 
turnover to make sure that we had systems in place that provided 
us with adequate confidence on our safeguards of our security 
system. And our licensees have done the same. But this is 
something that deserves continuing attention by both licensees 
and the NRC and that is current.
 
MR. RYAN: President Bush is expected to release the new budget on 
February 4th. What do you think we'll find int hat budget to 
prevent or help prevent terrorism at nuclear facilities?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Although the NRC is an independent agency, I 
don't have the authority or the inclination to release the budget 
before the President does.
 
(Laughter.)
 
So I'm afraid that's not a question I can answer at this time.
 
MR. RYAN: Secretary of Energy Abraham I think announced last week 
that he decided that Yucca Mountain would be the repository for 
the spent fuel we've been talking about. How long away is that 
going to be and do you think that actually will happen? I know 
there has been a great deal of opposition from Nevada officials 
about that.
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, let me say that the whole issue of Yucca 
Mountain is one that will be increasingly before the NRC if the 
whole series of events take place. The way the statutory system 
is structure, the Secretary of Energy is obligated to make a 
recommendation to the President and what was announced last week 
was Secretary Abraham having announced an intention to recommend 
to the President that the Yucca Mountain project proceed and that 
he establishes a repository. There's a 30-day period once the 
Secretary makes that announcement before the actual 
recommendation can be submitted to the President. It's a 
statutory requirement. 

The President then has an opportunity to make a decision and 
after he makes a decision, then the State of Nevada, in fact, the 
Indian Tribes or other States can register their objections and 
if they do, it then goes to the Congress for a determination as 
to whether the project should go forward.
 
If the project succeeds in passing all of those hurdles, then the 
Department of Energy has the opportunity to prepare a license 
application which it then would submit to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and by statute we have a 3-year period which can be 
extended for us to complete a licensing action and make a 
decision as to whether this facility is adequately protective of 
the public health and safety and therefore can be constructed and 
operated.
 
Our processes involve a public hearing process and so we would 
anticipate that if a decision is made to go forward that there 
will be a very major administrative hearing that no doubt will 
involve Nevada and no doubt others in opposition to the granting 
of a license amendment.
 
So there is a whole series of decisions that need to be made 
before we even get to the stage where a license amendment can -- 
a license application can be filed. And then there's a long 
process that will occur before the facility could be licensed, 
the NRC serving as the regulator for the facility.
 
I think all that means is one ought not to expect that this is a 
facility that's going to be open in the near term.
 
MR. RYAN: This questioner wants to know that the Enron 
disclosures that we've heard so much about lately have caused you 
to rethink NRC's move to increasing reliance on self-regulation 
by licensees and energy managers.
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Well, I'm a little bit puzzled by the question 
in that we are not moving to self-regulation by licensees. We 
have obligations that we fulfill and that our -- we need to be 
able to do.
 
We have changed our regulatory philosophy somewhat in that in 
recent years we've tried to move toward a paradigm for regulation 
that we call risk-informed regulation and that is we try to use 
risk considerations to guide us on where our regulatory emphasis, 
where our inspection emphasis should be. And that has meant that 
there are some areas that we've determined are not of particular 
regulatory significance and may be getting less scrutiny than 
they have in the past because things that have regulatory 
significance and have risk significance are getting greater 
scrutiny.
 
So we have sort of moved to a different paradigm in how we do our 
business with regard to inspections. We're using the same 
philosophy to look at our regulations themselves in trying to use 
risk insights to see how we should adjust the regulatory system. 
Where the burdens are excessive and serve no purpose, we should 
be prepared to be able to cut back. Where risk insights say were 
not doing the job as thoroughly as we should, we should be 
prepared to increase the requirements, using sort of as risk as 
the tool by which to examine the entirety of our regulatory 
program and to refocus our efforts where we think they should be.
 
MR. RYAN: A question of relative importance, from my home State 
of Michigan. What impact will the Freedom Car Program have for 
nuclear power? It says can nuclear power be used to supply the 
hydrogen, thereby minimizing greenhouse gas emissions?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: The Freedom Car, of course, is a Presidential 
Initiative to use fuel cells powered by hydrogen as a means for 
the motivating force and in vehicle transportation. This is not 
an initiative that direct involves the NRC. I'm aware of it 
because I read the materials that all of you prepare and publish.
 
But the reality is, of course, that viewed from a whole cycle 
point of view, if the purpose is to eliminate fossil emissions, 
one needs to look at the source of the electricity that is going 
to be used to generate the hydrogen and so you'd be interested in 
considering whether there are non-fossil sources for that 
electricity and in order to ensure that the full benefits of the 
Freedom Car would be achieved. So that is certainly an aspect to 
the issue, but it's not been one that has directly involved the 
NRC.
 
MR. RYAN: Before I ask you the last question, I have a little bit 
of business I'd like to do up here. The first thing is to present 
you with a certificate of appreciation for your appearance here 
today at the National Press Club.
 
And of course, the famous National Press Club coffee mug or what 
other kind of mug you'd like to use it for, I'd like to present 
it to you and then finally as the last question and we're nearing 
the end so I think you can probably make this one short. The 
questioner asks since September 11th are you more nervous about 
visiting nuclear facilities and if not, why not?
 
CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I am certainly not more nervous about nuclear 
facilities. I've never been nervous visiting nuclear facilities. 
I have the advantage of having learned a great deal about them 
and am confident that they are facilities that are operating 
safely and I'm very comfortable being in the vicinity of them.
 
Thank you very much. I have very much appreciated the opportunity 
to meet with you today. 

MR. RYAN: Thank you, Dr. Meserve.
 
(Whereupon, at 2:06 p.m., the press conference was concluded.)
*****************************************************************
 7 International Trade Commission backs uranium levies -- 

The Washington Times
 
January 23, 2002

From combined dispatches

A U.S. trade panel yesterday said companies in four European 
countries are hurting USEC Inc., the largest supplier of enriched 
uranium, by using government subsidies to sell the metal in the 
United States below cost.

The International Trade Commission ordered punitive duties of up 
to 32 percent on enriched uranium from Britain, France, Germany 
and the Netherlands.

The ITC said in a statement that it made "affirmative 
determinations" in a final ruling in anti-dumping investigations 
into uranium used for nuclear-power generation.

"The U.S. government's decision will help ensure that the U.S. 
enrichment market remains open for strong, healthy competition," 
said William Timbers, chief executive of Bethesda-based USEC. 

The ITC, a quasi-judicial panel, upheld the findings of the 
Commerce Department last year that uranium was being sold at 
unfairly low prices to the United States.

The ITC did not include details of its ruling, but USEC, the 
company that brought the complaint, said the final ruling called 
for a duty of 32.1 percent on imports from Eurodif, a French 
government-controlled firm, and 2.23 percent on imports from 
Urenco, a British-Dutch-German consortium.

USEC said that using the industry standard unit of measurement, 
this translates into estimated duties on the value of Eurodif 
imports of 53.5 percent and on the value of Urenco imports of 
3.72 percent.

In a statement from its headquarters in Britain, Urenco said it 
disputed the finding and was considering an appeal.

"We do not agree with the [countervailing] duty as determined by 
the Commerce Department in December and certainly do not accept 
that long-past subsidies could be regarded as causing or 
threatening material injury to USEC. The troubles of USEC are of 
its own making," said Urenco Chief Executive Klaus Messer.

The ruling will add to trade tensions between the United States 
and European Union over issues ranging from a European Union win 
at the World Trade Organization against a $4 billion U.S. tax 
break for companies, to the looming U.S. threat of restrictions 
on steel imports.

In December, European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy threatened 
to complain to the WTO about the uranium case, saying USEC, as a 
previously government-owned company, benefited from subsidies.

The duties will be levied by the U.S. Customs Service beginning 
next month, once the final ruling is sent to the Commerce 
Department.

All site contents copyright © 2002 News World Communications, 
Inc.
*****************************************************************
 8 Reid: Nuke insurance plan bad
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: January 23, 2002 at 11:05:58 PST 
 
By Benjamin Grove 
<grove@lasvegassun.com [grove@lasvegassun.com] >

 WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., today criticized the 
nuclear power industry insurance plan that potentially leaves 
taxpayers liable for catastrophic accidents -- including one at 
the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository.

 "The nuclear power industry went through its troubled teenage 
years during the 1970s and the 1960s, moved through adolescence 
and has now settled into a comfortable middle age," Reid said. 
"It no longer needs the federal government to nurture it."

 Reid held a hearing on the nuclear insurance plan on the opening 
day of this year's session of Congress. He assembled a panel of 
industry experts, plus model and anti-nuclear activist Christie 
Brinkley, who lent her "star power" to the hearing, Reid said.

 At issue is whether Congress should re-authorize the 
Price-Anderson Act, first crafted by Congress in 1957, which 
lawmakers have routinely renewed.

 According to the act, the owner of a nuclear reactor would pay 
up to $200 million in case of a catastrophic accident, and owners 
of the nation's other 105 nuclear reactors -- three are 
inoperative -- would pitch in up to $88 million more per reactor.

 That would pool roughly $9.5 billion to pay for environmental 
and human damages. If the accident cost more than that, Congress 
-- and the taxpayers -- would be left to pay the difference.

 The act is of interest to Nevadans because it also establishes 
rules for accident coverage for Department of Energy nuclear 
facilities. That would include the proposed -- but not yet 
approved -- national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 
miles northwest of Las Vegas, as well as waste transports to the 
site.

 Department of Energy contractors would be largely shielded from 
paying for accidents in many cases, leaving taxpayers to pay for 
cleanup.

 A nuclear accident could cost up to $600 billion, say some 
anti-nuclear activists, leaving taxpayers with a huge bill.

 But nuclear industry officials said that estimate is grossly 
inflated. The nation's worst accident, at Three Mile Island in 
1979, resulted in payouts of just $70 million, they said.

 "The cost of Price-Anderson coverage is included in the cost of 
electricity; it is not a subsidy," said Marvin Fertel, senior 
vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's 
leading trade group. "In the history of the law, no taxpayer 
funds have been paid out for commercial losses under 
Price-Anderson."

 But critics argue the act amounts to a subsidy for an industry 
the private sector won't insure.

 "The time has come to shift the liability burden from the 
taxpayers to the nuclear industry where it belongs," Jill 
Lancelot of Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense said in a 
press release.

 The legislation expires Aug. 1, 2002. If Congress does not renew 
it, existing reactors would still be covered, but not any future 
nuclear plants.

 Industry leaders have set an ambitious goal of constructing as 
many as 50 new nuclear power plants in the United States in the 
next 20 years, even though new plants have not been ordered since 
the 1970s.
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 9 UK: Blair embroiled in nuclear row

 Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

 Ministers argue over energy policy             
 Terry Macalister and Paul Brown
Wednesday January 23, 2002

The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]                
 		
Prime minister Tony Blair was desperately trying to forge a 
compromise last night over future energy policy as conflict raged 
between government ministers over the future of nuclear power. 

The controversy has grown since the energy review was initiated 
through the cabinet office's performance and innovation unit 
nearly eight months ago and could lead to delays in publishing a 
report. 

Brian Wilson, the openly pro-nuclear energy minister who has a 
power station in his Ayrshire constituency of Cunninghame North, 
has been fighting to retain a role for the atom industry and has 
clashed with Michael Meacher, the environment minister, and 
others on the review body. 

Yesterday Mr Blair was given a copy of the long-awaited report 
which effectively condemned nuclear, but Mr Wilson made clear he 
had not given up. "I certainly think that for the foreseeable 
future nuclear power has a part to play in meeting Britain's 
energy needs. I haven't heard any logical or thought-out position 
which says it isn't. 

"The only way we could have security of supply [without nuclear 
power] would be to become 70% dependent on gas, 90% of which 
would be imported, some of it from places which I don't think we 
would probably wish to stake our children's future on," he said. 

The review was due to be published in 10 days' time after 
obtaining Mr Blair's approval, but the conflict may delay it for 
up to a month. The report was meant to be the basis of a future 
white paper on government energy policy. It was called for by Mr 
Blair at a time when North Sea oil output was in fast decline and 
domestic gas reserves falling, but there is increasing pressure 
to use climate-friendly sources of power. 

While the report backs a big push on energy efficiency, it has 
mainly turned into a straight fight between the nuclear - which 
needs to modernise most of its plants to catch up with other 
countries - and the renewables industry, led by wind, which is 
considered by many as the cheapest option. 

The problem for Mr Wilson is that the economics of nuclear power 
make it impossible for the industry to compete in a free market 
without government support. The recommendations put to the prime 
minister yesterday were that no more subsidies should be allowed. 
Any nuclear stations planned in the private sector should be made 
to foot the whole bill for new-build stations, including the cost 
of decommissioning stations and storing and disposal of spent 
fuel, the review says. 

The Association of Electricity Producers, which represents 100 
generating firms, urged the government not to delay the process. 

"The sooner we know the government's views on the report the 
better," AEP chief executive, David Porter, said. "We are anxious 
to see what the report says because this is an industry with a 
lot of capital involved and with long-term planning horizons." 
	
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
*****************************************************************
 10 Myanmar to seek Russian nuclear help 

The Indian Express : International
 
January 23, 2002   

YANGON, JANUARY 22: Myanmar’s ruling military has confirmed for 
the first time that it is planning a nuclear reactor with Russian 
help, in a move it says is purely for peaceful purposes. Deputy 
Foreign Minister Khin Muang Win said the reactor would be used to 
meet demands for radio isotopes for health care, agriculture and 
education.

Myanmar’s had previously declined to confirm the negotiations 
with Russia but said they had never tried to hide their interest. 
‘‘We officially informed the IAEA (International Atomic Energy 
Authority) Director General of our idea and asked for his advice 
’’ Muang said.
 
IAEA officials have confirmed discussions with Myanmar and say 
the reactor is unlikely to be suitable for the production of 
nuclear weapons. 

But they expressed concerns over safety and the ability of the 
nation to cope with such high-maintenance technology.
 
Myanmar, ruled by the military for the last four decades and one 
of the poorest nations in the world, has limited infrastructure. 
The country has been isolated politically and economically from 
most of the Western world for its human rights record and alleged 
involvement in the illicit drugs trade. (Reuters)
   
© 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 11 USEC tax exemption foes do not trouble sponsors 

The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Wednesday, January 23, 2002

By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
FRANKFORT, Ky.--A bill to exempt enriched uranium produced at the 
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant from the state sales tax met with 
opposition Tuesday, but supporters don't think the measure is 
dead. 

House Bill 294 was approved by the House Appropriations and 
Revenue Committee on a 14-4 vote. Rep. Frank Rasche, D-Paducah, 
who managed the bill, said the measure is needed as USEC Inc. 
considers moving the shipping operation from its closed plant in 
Portsmouth, Ohio, to Paducah. 

The four who voted against the measure represent districts in 
northeastern Kentucky, just across the Ohio border from 
Portsmouth. 

Rep. Rocky Adkins, D-Sandy Hook, said his district was hurt by 
last summer's closing of the production facilities at the 
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Relocating the shipping 
operation will cost another 400 jobs. 

"If passing of this bill means the loss of more jobs at 
Portsmouth, then I can't be for it," Adkins said. "We consider 
that (Portsmouth) part of Kentucky." 

The Paducah plant is the nation's only facility that enriches 
uranium for use as fuel for nuclear power plants. Uranium 
enriched in Paducah is sent to Ohio because the Paducah plant 
doesn't have the equipment to prepare it for shipment to 
customers. 

Since it is shipped from Ohio, it is subject to Ohio tax laws 
that exempts it from sales tax there. Rasche said the measure 
will not cause a decline in Kentucky tax revenue "because we 
aren't collecting any taxes on it now." 

David York, USEC director of legislative affairs, said USEC is 
considering upgrading the Paducah plant so it can ship directly 
to customers. The upgrade would cost about $13 million. The tax 
exemption is one of several economic issues to be considered in 
deciding when that work is done. 

The original plan was to move the shipping operation to Paducah 
in 2004 or 2005, but that could be accelerated to 2003, according 
to company officials. Rep. Charles Geveden, D-Wickliffe, primary 
sponsor of the bill, said he doesn't think the opposition will 
cause problems for the bill. "I don't think they fully understand 
it," he said. 

Rasche added that the final shipping operation is expected to be 
moved from Ohio, with or without the tax exemption. "It could be 
moved to some neighboring state that is closer to Paducah," he 
said. "Rather than shipping it 200 or 300 miles to Ohio, they may 
be able to ship it 15 miles to Metropolis, Ill." 

York said moving the operation to Paducah will create only a few 
new jobs because it already has a crew involved in shipping the 
finished product to Portsmouth. 

The measure goes to the full House, where it could come up for a 
vote later in the week. 

*****************************************************************
 12 Trade ruling favors USEC over uranium importers 

The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Wednesday, January 23, 2002

The ruling means two European firms will be assessed higher 
import duties to make their prices more competitive with USEC. 

By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
USEC has won its yearlong trade battle claiming that low-enriched 
uranium imports from Europe are harming the uranium enrichment 
industry in this country and the 1,500-employee Paducah plant. 

The International Trade Commission ruled unanimously Tuesday that 
the imports have or threaten to materially harm USEC, the 
nation's sole supplier of enriched uranium. 

"The U.S. government's decision will help ensure that the U.S. 
enrichment market remains open for strong, healthy competition," 
said William Timbers, USEC president and chief executive officer. 
"We believe this is in the long-term interests of our industry, 
our customers and the nation's energy security." 

The ruling ends a probe of USEC claims of unfair pricing by two 
European competitors — Eurodif, S.A., controlled by the French 
government; and Urenco Ltd., a British-Dutch-German consortium. 

‘‘Obviously we are disappointed. We think the decision is 
wrong,’’ said Gary Fox, executive vice president of the U.S. arm 
of Cogema Inc., the majority owner of Eurodif. 

‘‘We do believe that the duty that was assessed on us still is 
not justified,’’ said Maurice Lenders, a managing director at 
Urenco. 

The Commerce Department ruled last month that France subsidized 
Eurodif and that Britain, Germany and the Netherlands subsidized 
Urenco. The agency also found Eurodif guilty of dumping, which 
means it sold low-enriched uranium at below the fair value. 

The Commerce Department is expected to receive the commission's 
ruling Feb. 4 and soon issue final orders in the case. 

As a result, the two European firms will be assessed higher 
import duties to make their prices more competitive with USEC. 
The duties are about 53.5 percent on the value of units of 
enriched uranium from Eurodif and 3.72 percent on those from 
Urenco, USEC said. 

About $1.1 billion of low-enriched uranium is sold annually in 
the United States. 

The market price of the nuclear fuel has increased from about $80 
per unit just before USEC filed the trade case to about $100 now. 

‘‘We believe that a return to rational pricing was needed for the 
nuclear industry,’’ USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said. 

But John Longenecker, a consultant specializing in nuclear energy 
issues, predicted consumers would feel the effect of any further 
increase that results from Tuesday’s ruling. 

‘‘The increased cost of nuclear fuel will go directly to the rate 
payer,’’ he said. 

Stuckle disagreed. ‘‘The amount of difference as portrayed in 
fuel-cost prices is small, and by the time it gets translated 
into an individual customer’s bill it’s almost negligible,’’ she 
said. 

The higher duties are expected to help protect jobs at the 
Paducah plant as well as about 300 workers at the Honeywell plant 
in Metropolis, Ill., which produces raw product for Paducah. 

(The Associated Press contributed to this report.) 
*****************************************************************
 13 US warns Burma on nuclear reactor

Radio Australia News - 

Burma has been warned it must honor its obligations under the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, after Rangoon signalled its intention 
to build a nuclear reactor with Russian help.

America's State Department says it expects Burma's government to 
live up to its obligations and not pursue production of weapons 
grade fissile material.

The military-ruled state is often the target of U-S anger for 
suppressing Burma's pro-democracy movement as well as its human 
rights record.

In a statement issued on Monday, Burma's Deputy Foreign Minister 
Khin Maung Win (kin mowng win) said the junta had informed the 
International Atomic Energy Agency of its intention to construct 
the reactor which would be used for peaceful purposes.
 
23/01/2002 1:01:35 PM | ABC Radio Australia News
 
*****************************************************************
 14 Trade Commission Rules on Uranium 
                                        
  Politics - AP     

Tue Jan 22, 6:17 PM ET 

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON - The International Trade Commission ruled Tuesday 
that the only U.S. producer of low-enriched uranium is threatened 
by the trade practices of its European competitors.

The unanimous ruling means the Department of Commerce can impose 
duties of about 32 percent on the nuclear fuel produced by 
Eurodif of France, and 2 percent on Urenco, a European 
conglomerate.
 
The American company, USEC Inc. of Bethesda, Md., and its two 
European competitors supply nuclear fuel to all the nation's 
commercial nuclear power plants.
 
The ruling is expected to keep the price of nuclear fuel from 
dipping to the low levels in place prior to the filing of the 
trade case by USEC. It wraps up a yearlong investigation by the 
government.
 
"The U.S. government's decision will help ensure that the U.S. 
enrichment market remains open for strong, healthy competition," 
USEC President and CEO William Timbers said in a statement.
 
"Obviously we are disappointed. We think the decision is wrong," 
said Gary Fox, executive vice president of the U.S. arm of Cogema 
Inc., the majority owner of Eurodif.
 
"We do believe that the duty that was assessed on us still is not 
justified," said Maurice Lenders, a managing director at Urenco.
 
The Commerce Department ruled last month that France subsidized 
Eurodif and that Britain, Germany and the Netherlands subsidized 
Urenco. The agency also found Eurodif guilty of dumping, which 
means it sold low-enriched uranium at below the fair value.
 
The International Trade Commission plans to submit its written 
determination to the Commerce Department by Feb. 4, after which 
Commerce is expected to impose the previously determined duties 
on the imported European fuel.
 
About $1.1 billion of low-enriched uranium is sold annually in 
the United States.
 
The market price of the nuclear fuel has increased from about $80 
per unit just before USEC filed the trade case to about $100 now.
 
"We believe that a return to rational pricing was needed for the 
nuclear industry," USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said.
 
But John Longenecker, a consultant specializing in nuclear energy 
issues, predicted consumers would feel the effect of any further 
increase that results from Tuesday's ruling.
 
"The increased cost of nuclear fuel will go directly to the rate 
payer," he said.
 
Stuckle disagreed. "The amount of difference as portrayed in 
fuel-cost prices is small, and by the time it gets translated 
into an individual customer's bill it's almost negligible," she 
said.
 
USEC is a former government enterprise that was spun off in 1998 
in a $1.9 billion stock deal. It enriches uranium at a plant in 
Paducah, Ky.

On the Net:
 
International Trade Commission: http://www.usitc.gov/ 
[http://www.usitc.gov/] 

International Trade Administration: http://www.ita.doc.gov/ 
[http://www.ita.doc.gov/] 

USEC Inc.: http://www.usec.com/ [http://www.usec.com/] 

  Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The 

Boston Globe
*****************************************************************
 15 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia 
 
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:03:58 -0500 (EST)

 
http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/
======================================================


[Federal Register: January 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3241-3242]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ja02-120]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]

 
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; 
City of Dalton, Georgia; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; 
Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating Licenses; Nos. DPR-57 
and NPF-5 for an Additional 20-year Period

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(the Commission) has issued (1) Renewed Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-57 (the Unit 1 license) and (2) Renewed Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-5 (the Unit 2 license), to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
Inc., operator of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and 
Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric 
Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensees). 
The Unit 1 license authorizes operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1, by the licensees at reactor core power levels not in 
excess of 2763 megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of 
the Unit 1 license and its Technical Specifications. The Unit 2 license 
authorizes operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, by 
the licensees at reactor core power levels not in excess of 2763 
megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of the Unit 2 
license and its Technical Specifications.
    The Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Plant Hatch), are 
pressurized water nuclear reactors located near Baxley, in Appling 
County, Georgia.
    The application for the renewed licenses complies with the 
standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 
(the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made 
appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's 
regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in each license. 
Prior public notice of the action involving the proposed issuance of 
these renewed operating licenses and of opportunity for hearing 
regarding the proposed issuance of these renewed operating licenses was 
published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000 (65 FR 17543--
17544).
    For further details with respect to these actions, see (1) the 
Southern Nuclear Operating Company's License Renewal Application for 
Plant Hatch, dated February 29, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated 
May 31, July 26, August 11, August 21, August 29, August 31, October 
10, and December 15, 2000, and February 9, 2001; (2) the Commission's 
Safety Evaluation Reports dated February 7 and October 5, 2001 (NUREG-
1803); (3) the licensees' Safety Analysis Report; and (4) the 
Commission's Final Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 4), dated May 2001. These items are available at the NRC's 
Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, first floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852, and can be viewed from 
the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room at <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html">http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/
index.html</A>.
    Copies of the Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and 
NPF-5, may be obtained by writing to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of 
Regulatory Improvement Programs. Copies of the Safety Evaluation Report 
(NUREG-1803) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 4) may be purchased from the National Technical Information 
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161-0002 (telephone number 1-800-553-
6847, (<A HREF="http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow">http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow</A>), or the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 (telephone number 202-512-1800, (<A HREF="http://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs">http://
www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs</A>). All orders should clearly identify the NRC 
publication number and the requestor's Government Printing Office 
deposit account, or VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date.


[[Page 3242]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of January 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William F. Burton,
Project Manager, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, 
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-1632 Filed 1-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 16 TVA nears decision on Unit 1

January 24, 2002                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 					   						
 By Dennis Sherer 
Staff Writer 
 
MUSCLE SHOALS - A decision on whether to restart the idle Unit 1 
reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant could be made by midyear, 
TVA officials said Tuesday.
 
Tennessee Valley Authority Chairman Glenn McCullough Jr. said 
several studies exploring the feasibility of restarting the unit 
are nearing completion, and board members should have the issue 
presented to them for a vote soon after.
 
"We could be ready to make a decision by mid-'02," McCullough 
said in response to a question asked during a news conference 
after the board's meeting Tuesday at the TVA Reservation in 
Muscle Shoals.
 
Studies have explored the environmental impacts, demand for 
electricity in the region and cost of restarting the reactor, 
which has not produced electricity for more than 15 years.
 
TVA is also reviewing ways for the agency to pay for the project, 
which carries an estimated cost of $1.4 billion.
 
McCullough said TVA will explore several options, including 
forming a public-private partnership. Several investors have 
proposed loaning the money to TVA in exchange for reaping a share 
of the profits earned by selling electricity produced by the 
reactor.
 
McCullough said a decision about how to pay for the project won't 
be necessary until the board determines whether to restart the 
unit. "We don't have anything to finance today," he said.
 
TVA voluntarily shut down the reactor in March 1985 because of 
safety concerns.
 
Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry were also shut down in 1985 but 
were restarted in 1991 and 1995, respectively, after major 
renovations.
 
Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for 
Clean Energy in Knoxville, Tenn., contends restarting the reactor 
could cause TVA to raise power rates in order to pay for the 
project.
 
Smith said the additional electricity would not be needed if TVA 
would promote energy conservation.
 
Numerous federal and local elected officials in north Alabama 
have contacted TVA board members recommending the project because 
of the jobs it would create.
 
More than 2,500 workers could be needed to prepare the reactor 
for restart.
 
The construction process will take about five years.
 
TVA has not determined how many permanent jobs would be created 
by the restart, but officials say about 200 more workers would be 
needed.
 
Elected officials also contend the restart is needed to ensure 
TVA has enough power for expected growth in the Tennessee Valley.
 
When operating at capacity, the reactor can produce enough 
electricity to supply 200,000 homes.
 
Proponents of the restart also argue that the it would reduce 
TVA's dependence on its coal-burning plants that are under attack 
by environmental groups.
 
Board member Skila Harris said the board will consider the role 
Unit 1 would play in TVA's mix of power sources before a decision 
is made.
 
A TVA committee studying the issue is expected to recommend this 
spring that the board ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
extend Browns Ferry's operating license for 20 years and allow 
the Unit 1 restart.
 
The operating license for Unit 1 is scheduled to expire in 2013, 
with Unit 2's ending in 2014 and Unit 3's expiring in 2016.
 
The original operating licenses are for 40 years.
 
A committee studying the impact of extending the life of the 
nuclear plant reported that preliminary analysis shows the 
restart is in TVA's best interests.
 
The committee has also considered allowing the licenses to expire 
and closing the plant or extending the life of Units 2 and 3 by 
20 years while leaving Unit 1 idle.
 
The environmental impact study should be completed in March, 
officials said. They say its results will play a key role in 
making a decision on the restart.
 
McCullough said Tuesday that board members will base their 
decision on sound business principals.
 
In other business, the board:
 
-- awarded a contract to Smooth Cut Lawn Care of Lenoir City, 
Tenn., for grounds maintenance and herbicide services at several 
TVA properties, including John Sevier, Bull Run and Kingston 
fossil plants in Tennessee.
 
-- approved raising the ceiling on a contract with Framatome ANP 
for engineering, testing and support services required to 
implement tritium production at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant by $3.25 
million to a total of $8 billion. The Department of Energy, which 
is a partner with TVA on the project, will pay the additional 
cost.
 
-- honored Russell Patterson of Whitwell, Tenn., as TVA's 
Engineer of the Year for developing innovative ways to protect 
TVA's transmission system.
 
Dennis Sherer can be reached at dennis.sherer@timesdaily.com 
[dennis.sherer@timesdaily.com] or 740-5746.

Copyright © 2002 TimesDaily | Privacy Statement                                                                               
*****************************************************************
 17 TVA nears decision on Browns Ferry nuclear plant 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 12:38 p.m. on Wednesday, January 23, 2002

MUSCLE SHOALS, Ala. (AP) -- The Tennessee Valley Authority may 
decide whether to restart an idle Browns Ferry nuclear reactor by 
midyear, officials said Tuesday.

 TVA studies of the project to fire up the idle Unit 1 reactor 
are nearing completion, and board members would vote on it soon 
afterward, TVA Chairman Glenn McCullough Jr. said.

 "We could be ready to make a decision by mid-'02," McCullough 
told the TimesDaily of Florence after the TVA board's meeting in 
Muscle Shoals.

 The TVA is evaluating environmental impacts, demand for power in 
the region and costs before holding a vote.

 The Unit 1 reactor hasn't produced electricity for more than 15 
years, and it would need an estimated $1.4 billion to become 
fully operational.

 TVA could enter into a public-private partnership with investors 
to raise money, McCullough said. Investors have proposed loaning 
money to TVA in exchange for later profits from reactor 
electricity sales.

 But money worries won't become serious unless the TVA board 
approves the project, McCullough said.

 "We don't have anything to finance today," he said.

 TVA voluntarily shut down the reactor in March 1985 because of 
safety concerns. Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry also stopped in 
1985 but were restarted in 1991 and 1995 after major renovations.

 Critics say TVA would have to raise power rates in order to pay 
for the project.

 The North Alabama and lower Tennessee region wouldn't need 
another nuclear plant if TVA did a better job of promoting energy 
conservation, said Stephen Smith, executive director of the 
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville, Tenn.

 But others say restarting the reactor could create more than 
2,500 jobs over five years. Officials say about 200 workers would 
be retained full time if the plant became operational. TVA wants 
to ensure the region has enough power for expected growth. The 
Unit 1 reactor could provide enough electricity for 200,000 homes 
when running at capacity.

 An environmental impact study should be completed in March, 
officials said.

 TVA, the nation's largest public power producer, provides 
electricity to about 8.3 million people in Tennessee, Georgia, 
Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi.

 On the Net: TVA:  [http://www.tva.gov] 

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 18 How Vulnerable Are Nuclear Plants?
       
January 23, 2002
Nuclear Reactors as Terrorist Targets (January 21, 2002)

To the Editor:

Re "Nuclear Reactors as Terrorist Targets" (editorial, Jan. 21): 
There is much more than enough radioactive material at the Indian 
Point nuclear power plant to require the permanent evacuation of 
a 50- mile radius around it, should the material be released into 
the atmosphere. 

When one considers the dire consequences that visited the economy 
with the destruction of 16 acres of office space in Lower 
Manhattan, the result of losing every single bit of 
infrastructure, and every job, in the New York metropolitan area 
is too horrible to contemplate for long. 

But since that is the worst-case scenario with Indian Point, we 
must ask ourselves: Is the destruction of an entire metropolitan 
area, and probably the entire American economy, a risk worth 
taking? 

MARYJANE SHIMSKY

Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Jan. 21, 2002
• 
To the Editor:

While you acknowledge in a Jan. 21 editorial that it is 
impossible for our country's 103 nuclear power plants to ever be 
completely safe from terrorist attacks, you do not point out 
other troubling aspects of this failed industry. 

Nuclear-generated electricity is a very expensive form of power 
when all taxpayer subsidies and operating costs are considered. 
Nuclear power produces radioactive wastes that remain hazardous 
to the environment and public health for thousands of years. The 
nuclear industry has yet to determine how to safely dispose of 
the 50 years' worth of waste that has accumulated, and is faced 
with increased nuclear weapons proliferation should these 
materials fall into the wrong hands.

Increased conservation and energy efficiency, reduced consumption 
and the expedited development of alternative energy sources are 
the only safe and sustainable energy options for the future. 

KATHLEEN WHITLEY-BARTELL
Westbury, N.Y., Jan. 21, 2002

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information 
*****************************************************************
 19 Radioactivity from Sellafield 150 times worse in north east 

Irish News

RADIOACTIVE contamination from Sellafield found in seaweed is 150 
times higher on the north east coast of Ireland than in seaweed 
on the south and west coasts. 

The disclosure was made yesterday by the State's nuclear 
watchdog, which demanded that British Nuclear Fuels provide any 
evidence that controversial storage tanks at the plant can 
withstand a major terrorist attack.

Highlighting new concerns about the safety of tanks holding 
liquid high-level radioactive waste, the Radiological Protection 
Institute of Ireland (RPII) warned the risk of a terrorist attack 
there had increased since September 11.

The RPII has also revealed the consequences of an accident 
stemming from the storage of the liquid waste have not been 
properly assessed, and that this represents a serious threat for 
the country. 

In its annual report published yesterday the RPII said the 
discharge of radioactive waste from the Sellafield reprocessing 
plant is still "the dominant source of contamination in the Irish 
marine environment."

The RPII said levels of technetium-99 radioactivity in seaweed 
were 150 times higher on the north-east coast than in seaweed on 
the south and west coasts.

However, it said that radioactive doses from Sellafield are very 
small and did not constitute a significant health risk. 
Technetium-99 levels in fish and shellfish continued to be very 
low.

People were advised that it was safe to eat seafood landed at 
Irish ports and to enjoy the maritime recreational amenities such 
as swimming, walking on the beach or fishing.

But while the levels of technetium-99 had begun to decrease they 
were still considerably above pre-1994 levels and remained "a 
significant cause of concern."

It warned: "Any contamination of the Irish Sea arising out of 
practices at Sellafield is highly objectionable from an Irish 
viewpoint."

The report said the most significant radioactive contaminants 
from Sellafield are mainly carried across the Irish sea to the 
Irish coast, but have even been detected on the Norwegian coast 
and in Arctic waters.

Although plutonium is deposited in sediment in the Irish sea, it 
can be released from the seabed and this has become an important 
contributors to the contamination in the western Irish sea, it 
says.

The radiation dose to consumers who eat substantial quantities of 
seafood each day was estimated to be less than two microsieverts, 
with a small extra dose from recreational activities such as 
swimming, walking on beaches or fishing. The size of the dosage 
was put in context by the RPII: the annual dose to an individual 
rom all sources of radiation can range from 2,000-20,000 
microsieverts or higher in cases of high exposure to radon gas.

The RPII also said that radiation from the Chernobyl disaster is 
still affecting sheep grazing in upland areas, although regular 
consumption was not a significant health hazard. There was a 
"small but continuing" upward trend for krypton-85 radioactive 
gas coming from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at 
Sellafield, and at La Hague in France and in Russia. 

However the doses, monitored at Clonskeagh in Dublin, were still 
very small and not a health hazard, according to the RPII.

Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent

© Copyright Unison
*****************************************************************
 20 Ruling opens veterans' way to sue MoD                  

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search
 
Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Guardian
Wednesday January 23, 2002

A high court judge opened the way yesterday for thousands of 
ex-servicemen, barred by a 1947 law from suing the Ministry of 
Defence, to launch compensation claims for injuries suffered 
years ago. 

Mr Justice Keith ruled that the law barring legal claims by 
veterans injured through negligence, before servicemen won the 
right to sue in 1987, clashed with the Human Rights Act, which 
guaranteed the right to a fair hearing. 

The judge made a rare "declaration of incompatibility" allowing a 
claim by Alan Matthews, an electrical engineer in the Royal Navy 
between 1955 and 1968, to go ahead. Mr Matthews claims that he 
developed an asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to 
fibres on navy ships. 

Lawyers said the ruling could lead to thousands of claims by 
ex-servicemen injured by negligence on the job between 1947 and 
1987, and by families of those who were killed. 

Before 1947 the crown was immune from legal action. In that year 
legislation gave a right to sue the crown but servicemen were 
excluded. In 1987 they won the right to sue but it was not made 
retrospective. 

Yesterday's ruling will pave the way to claims by victims of 
asbestosis and deafness, by the servicemen who allege that they 
were experimented on at Porton Down in the 1950s, and by those 
exposed to nuclear tests on Christmas Island. The judgment will 
also boost the prospects for traumatised veterans of the 
Falklands war and pre-1987 service in Northern Ireland whose 
group action against the MoD goes to the court in March. 

Clifford Poole, from Mr Matthews's solicitors, Bond Pearce in 
Exeter, said:

"We've been dealing with claims for civilian employees of the MoD 
for years... but because these other people were servicemen they 
were barred by blanket immunity." 

Mr Justice Keith said the outcome of a number of large group 
actions depended on Mr Matthews's challenge. He therefore 
approached the case "with a keen sense of its importance". 

Under the 1947 Crown Proceedings Act, the crown could not be sued 
if the secretary of state issued a certificate stating that the 
injury or death was attributable to service, giving rise to a war 
pension. This created a type of no-fault scheme, said the judge, 
but "the benefits are modest when compared with modern levels of 
awards of damages". And benefits were not payable until the 
claimant retired from service. 

The MoD said it would take the case to appeal and was asking for 
an expedited hearing.                
 		      		      		   
[UP]    	 	 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 
*****************************************************************
 21 India to Adopt Tighter Nuclear Transport Pact
                                        
Sources:  Reuters  |  AP  |  The New York Times  |  ABCNEWS.com  | 
OneWorld.net  
 
Tuesday January 22 9:53 AM ET 
 
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India's cabinet agreed on Tuesday to adopt 
an international convention aimed at tightening security on the 
transport of nuclear material to prevent it falling into the 
wrong hands.

``This decision reinforces India's commitment to international 
legal instruments against terrorism in general and nuclear 
terrorism in particular,'' the cabinet said in a statement.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convention on the 
physical protection of nuclear material requires the security and 
safety of material during international transport but does not 
deal with movement within a country. About 70 countries, 
including Japan, Russia and the United States have already signed 
the convention. Some critics are pushing for it to be widened to 
cover domestic shipments.

India is embroiled in a tense military stand-off with nuclear 
rival Pakistan that has raised fears of war over the disputed 
Himalayan region of Kashmir and Kashmiri separatists operating 
from Pakistan. 

Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited
*****************************************************************
 22 State to Allow Radioactive Debris at Regular Landfills
 
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:13:38 -0800 (PST)

 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-000002988jan12.story?coll=la%2Dnewsaol%2Dheadlines

State to Allow Radioactive Debris at Regular Landfills
Environment: Group that fought nuclear waste dump in
Mojave Desert files suit over new disposal policy.
By GEOFFREY MOHAN
TIMES STAFF WRITER

January 12 2002

A little more than two years after the state abandoned
plans to open a nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley in
the Mojave Desert, officials are set to allow shipment
of radioactive debris to ordinary landfills never
designed to safely store such material.

Under a policy finalized in November by the state
Department of Health Services, dirt and debris from
decommissioned nuclear power plants and other
mothballed facilities could be disposed of without the
oversight, licensing and monitoring that have long
been required of all radioactive waste.

Although Ward Valley would have been closely
monitored, the site, about 20 miles from the Colorado
River, raised fears that radioactive particles could
migrate to the river or into other drinking water
sources. Now, critics of the latest policy fear that
similar radioactive waste will instead wind up in
poorly designed landfills, where it could emit
radiation at levels more than 10 times higher than
would have been permitted at the Mojave Desert site.

"There are 170 municipal waste facilities in the state
and no one knows if they'll become nuclear waste
sites, and it's all happened overnight and under cover
of dark," said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee
to Bridge the Gap, which opposed the Ward Valley site
and is suing the state over the new disposal policy.

The state's top radiologic health official countered
that a provision of federal law has always allowed
disposal in landfills of radioactive debris and soil
from decommissioned nuclear sites.

The official said his agency has adopted recently
toughened federal standards for how much radiation can
remain at dismantled nuclear facilities before they
are freed from regulation and material from them is
eligible for disposal elsewhere.

"It could have been released a few years ago at much
higher [radiation] levels," said Edgar Bailey, chief
of the Radiologic Health Branch of the state
Department of Health Services.

Nonetheless, just more than two years ago, Bailey
informed Safety-Kleen Inc., an industrial waste site
operator in Kern County, that accepting any material
with the most minimal amounts of radiation "would be a
violation of California law." Safety-Kleen had been
accepting material from a former Manhattan Project
site in New York.

The new state policy, however, applies only to
material from sites that have been "released for
unrestricted use," which had not happened at the New
York site that sent its material to Safety-Kleen.

In California, at least half a dozen power plants and
laboratory sites are poised for decommissioning. If
the sites are given a clean bill of health by
regulators, they can be used for a variety of
purposes, even for new housing or parks.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows
unrestricted use of a decommissioned facility if what
remains at the site won't expose a hypothetical
resident to more than 25 millirems of radiation
annually--roughly equal to about 2 1/2 chest X-rays.

"Nothing on the site can exceed that amount," Bailey
said.

"To get that dose, you have to be living on the site,
you have to grow your crops there, and you have to
drink from the wells there."

But the 25-millirem exposure level is not a measure of
the radioactivity of specific waste matter or chunks
of soil. It is a measure of the intensity of radiation
that would percolate out on hypothetical pathways, and
is based on factors that include soil densities and
the type of development expected in the area.

Activists and landfill regulators worry that
truckloads of dirt or individual items of debris could
be both "hotter" than would have been allowed at Ward
Valley and much more exposed to the public at
municipal landfills, which are not equipped or
licensed to isolate radioactive waste.

Bailey acknowledged that there is "a remote
possibility" that some debris from a decommissioned
site could be more radioactive than the overall
average for the site.

"It's astounding that [the Department of Health
Services], not even having a clue on how municipal
landfills are set up, makes a rule that affects all
the landfills in the state," said David Roberti, a
member of the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, which oversees the operation of municipal
landfills statewide.

The Ward Valley facility, near Needles, was to have
radiated no more than 2 millirems per year--less than
one-tenth of the 25-millirem level the Department of
Health Services now would allow a decommissioned site
to radiate.

A closer look at the federal regulations adopted by
the state, however, shows that exceptions can be
granted that would allow decommissioned sites to
radiate at levels many times higher than 25 millirems.

Antinuclear activists warn that such a scenario is
likely. This week, they said, the Department of Energy
decided it would clean up the former Rocketdyne site
in Simi Valley only to its department standards and
not to the stricter levels required by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. That difference in
standards can translate to a steep increase in the
statistical odds of cancer in populations exposed to
hazardous chemicals.

Bailey said material from the former Rocketdyne
facility could be sent to landfills, but only after it
has been cleaned up to a promised level of 15
millirems.

"All of the waste that is leaving that is above 15
millirems is presently going to a low-level waste
site, and it probably would go out of state anyway
because it's a Department of Energy project," Bailey
said. 
If you want other stories on this topic, search the
Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information
about reprinting this article, go to
www.lats.com/rights. 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
*****************************************************************
 23 Nuclear Fuel Storage Pact Eyed

ctnow.com: CONNECTICUT
       
January 23, 2002 
By GARY LIBOW, Courant Staff Writer 

HADDAM -- Confronted by a Feb. 6 federal court-imposed deadline, 
the board of selectmen and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. 
have proposed a settlement sanctioning construction of a spent 
nuclear fuel storage complex at the company's preferred Haddam 
Neck site.

The board of selectmen todayplans to decide whether to approve 
the pact, which was disclosed Tuesday before close to 100 
residents at Haddam-Killingworth High School. 

Under the pact, a dry cask storage complex the size of a football 
field would be sited on a 15-acre parcel about three-quarters of 
a mile from the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power 
plant.

The fuel would be stored outside the power plant's footprint, 
near an old landfill and firing range.

In exchange for allowing Connecticut Yankee to site the facility 
on residentially zoned land, outside the boundaries set by the 
town in the early 1960s, Haddam would receive an $800,000 cash 
payment. Haddam would also receive 10 years of annual minimum 
payments of $1 million-plus as long as the plant's spent nuclear 
fuel is stored at the site.

Those proposed decade-long payments, increasing by 2.5 percent 
annually, total several hundred thousand dollars more than 
Haddam's projected annual assessments of the property.

In addition, Connecticut Yankee has agreed to pay the town 
handsomely should it sell a portion of its decommissioned land to 
a firm interested in operating a gas-fired electric plant there. 
The town would receive either $1.4 million or 10 percent of the 
sale price, under terms of the settlement.

But perhaps the most critical component of the proposed deal is 
assurances by Connecticut Yankee that only its spent nuclear fuel 
can ever be stored on company acreage. Many town residents had 
voiced fear that the site would become a regional dumping ground 
for contamination. 

However, the federal government is not bound by those conditions 
and could mandate that outside fuel be stored there.

To safeguard the community against leaks, the proposed pact calls 
for Connecticut Yankee to regularly monitor water runoff and the 
air for radiation. The company has agreed to have an extra 
transportable cask on-site should a problem be detected.

The company would also protect the fenced-in site with 
round-the-clock security and a vehicle barrier system.

The proposed settlement, if sanctioned by the selectmen, would 
terminate federal litigation filed by Connecticut Yankee against 
the town. The company has charged the town with illegally 
preventing it from siting its spent nuclear fuel at the best 
possible site on its property. The town had countered that 
Connecticut Yankee was bound to site its storage facility within 
the plant footprint.

Had the two parties not resolved their disagreement, town legal 
counsel expressed fear that a federal court decision could force 
the town to accept the fuel storage facility without the 
negotiated financial incentives and safeguards.

First Selectman Tony Bondi, noting the judge has placed the town 
under significant pressure to settle by Feb. 6, said he was 
unsure whether he would vote in favor of the settlement. 

ctnow.com is Copyright © 2002 by The Hartford Courant
*****************************************************************
 24 Nuclear Plant Cited in Waste Handling
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
day: January 23, 2002 at 6:30:18 PST 

FORT WORTH, Texas- The Comanche Peak nuclear power plant has been 
cited by federal regulators for repeated, improper handling of 
low-level radioactive waste, authorities said. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said contaminated clothing and 
maintenance equipment were left outside a controlled area 11 
times between Jan. 24, 2000, and May 24, 2001. 

The alleged violations were the first at Comanche Peak, one of 
Texas' two nuclear plants, since 1993. 

"The contaminated materials weren't dealt with properly," NRC 
spokesman Breck Henderson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 
Wednesday's editions. TXU Energy, owner of the plant 50 miles 
southwest of Fort Worth, said the infractions posed no risk to 
the public or employees. 

Comanche Peak was fined $50,000 after it being cited in 1993 for 
a radioactive water spill in a containment area during refueling. 
It was shut down, and no water escaped. 

Henderson said the new violation could lead to enforcement 
action. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 25 Toxic material disposed of 'just like ordinary waste' 

Irish Newspapers 

RADIOACTIVE material was disposed of as ordinary waste and never 
found, the Radiological Protection Institute annual report 
revealed yesterday. 

The inadvertent disposal by C&C (Ireland) Ltd of three 
significant radiation sources was one of 11 radiation breaches 
highlighted in the report.

Despite extensive investigation the material was never recovered 
as it was not possible to discover where it had been disposed of. 
The company pleaded guilty to unlicensed disposal of radioactive 
substances and was fined a maximum £1,000.

The RPII said the case highlighted the dangers of carelessness in 
management of radiation sources "which could be lethal to an 
innocent individual if found and tampered with".

In other incidents a radioactive package was discovered by a 
member of the public on the conveyer belt at Dublin Airport, and 
a pregnant women was accidently x-rayed at a clinic.

The radiation watchdog agency also raised concerns that the 
Government has failed to implement a year-old EU directive to 
protect dental and medical patients who are exposed to x-rays and 
other radiation during diagnosis or treatment.

RPII Chairman Francis Mulligan said this was leaving patients 
with a lower level of protection than they are entitled to. Mr 
Mulligan said the failure also diminished Ireland's credibility 
"when we demand high standards of others in the area of nuclear 
safety and radioactive contamination of the environment".

The institute also highlighted a legal anomaly whereby they are 
obliged to grant licences for x-ray equipment for chiropractors 
without having any regard for whether the applicant is a 
qualified person. Another major source of concern was the low 
number of households with high radon levels who are undertaking 
remedial work.

However, grants were expected to be made available shortly to 
help homeowners with the cost of radon remediation steps.

Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent

      © Copyright Unison
*****************************************************************
 26 Nuclear safety body seeks Sellafield reassurances 

National - 

Irish News, 


irish news online 


06:38 Wednesday January 23rd 2002


The Radiological Protection Institute has called for British 
Nuclear Fuels to prove that the walls of its storage tanks could 
withstand a major terrorist attack. 


In its annual report, the body responsible for advising the 
Government on nuclear safety, said Sellafield is a high-risk 
target for terrorists and BNFL must prove the plant is secure. 
The Institute also insisted contamination levels in the Irish Sea 
remain unacceptably high, despite a slight decrease. 

© Copyright Unison
*****************************************************************
 27 UK: Safety regulators give Dounreay the all-clear

The Scotsman - Scotland - 

23rd January 2002 

John Ross 

THE Dounreay nuclear plant was yesterday given a clean bill of 
health by regulators, three years after they presented the most 
damning criticism of safety lapses at the site in its 40-year 
history. 

In 1998, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Scottish 
Environment Protection Agency made 143 recommendations for 
improvements at the Caithness site after an urgent safety audit. 

The organisations issued their final report on the exercise, 
saying 89 of the recommendations had been dealt with and 27 would 
be completed in the next few years. The remaining 27 were 
long-term strategies and would be tackled as part of the £4.5 
billion plan to return Dounreay to a near-greenfield site within 
50 years. 

Laurence Williams, HSE director of nuclear safety and HM Chief 
Inspector of Nuclear Installations, added: "I have seen 
considerable progress at Dounreay over the past three years and 
this is a credit to everyone concerned, particularly the staff at 
Dounreay." 

He said there was growing confidence that safety at Dounreay was 
improving but warned that the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) 
must recruit enough properly qualified staff, to be able to 
complete the decommissioning of the plant. 

The audit was brought forward in May 1998, when a mechanical 
digger struck an electricity cable and cut power to Dounreay’s 
fuel cycle area. 

At the time, Mr Williams said that on a scale of one to ten - 
with one being world class and ten being unlicensable - Dounreay 
was a seven. 

The initial report criticised the UKAEA for a lack of progress on 
decommissioning the plant. The UKAEA later halved its original 
100-year time scale for decommissioning. 

Peter Welsh, Dounreay’s director, said the audit was a turning 
point for Dounreay.

©2002 scotsman.com | contact
*****************************************************************
 28 Yucca Mountain progress will generate jobs

Las Vegas Business Press

By David Hare, Staff 
Writer

Nevermind Steve 
Wynn's newest megaresort. 

The biggest employer in Nevada will come online as soon as the 
U.S. government approves Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste 
repository.

According to former Nevada Gov. Robert List, now employed by the 
Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear waste repository at Yucca 
Mountain would bring a "very important economic infusion" to the 
valley. 

List said the number of both white- and blue-collar jobs would 
increase exponentially at the start of site construction. 

Construction at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas, could begin in two to three years, according to List, 
depending on the outcome of the approval process.

According to List, present expenditures in Nevada for the Yucca 
Mountain project range between $300-400 million. 

"As the project proceeds, those numbers will ramp up," he said.

Yucca Mountain repository support staff would include about 2,000 
engineers and scientists, List said, and even more construction 
workers during a six- to eight-year building period.

Construction jobs would entail drilling out tunnels for nuclear 
waste disposal, as well as building facilities west of the 
existing five-mile exploratory tunnel.

"Many of these jobs will use Las Vegas-based building trades, 
organized labor," List said. "We have a ready-made work force who 
are capable and eager for this opportunity.

"These jobs ought to go to Nevadans first."

List estimates annual expenditures directly linked to a Yucca 
Mountain repository are between $800 million and $1 billion, or 
even higher.

"This is the largest public works pr oject in the history of the 
planet," he said.

List said a nuclear waste repository in Southern Nevada could 
also be the answer to how the state funds education and other 
programs in need of cash.

"Nevada is searching for new sources of tax revenue. We're 
looking for a stable and diversified economy," he said. "Here we 
have at our doorstep a 900-pound gorilla that offers that opportu 
nity if it comes."

List said he continues working with the local business community 
and the private sector making sure the Yucca Mountain project is 
understood. 

"Making sure certain myths are dispelled," he said. "I do that 
every day."

Meanwhile, out at the Nevada Test Site, a few miles east of Yucca 
Mountain, officials there are continuing simulation drills at a 
national weapons of mass destruction and emergency management 
training center."

Kevin Rohrer of Nevada's National Nuclear Security Administration 
said to date, about 1,200 firefighters from around the country 
have received training at the facility. He said another 2,400 
firefighter and emergency personnel will be trained there within 
the year.

According to Rohrer, in the last few months, the Nevada Test Site 
received about $25 million of government funding for the training 
f acility, including $15 million from the U.S. Justice 
Department.

"We have a lot of building infrastructure not being used," he 
said. "We can bring people here and simulate urban and rural 
environments where nuclear and chemical weapons might be used by 
terrorist groups.

"We can also train personnel in non-terrorist emergency activity, 
such as staging a leak in a gas line or a chemical spill."

During the test site's peak days in 1989, prior to th e morato 
rium on underground nuclear testing enacted in 1992, the annual 
budget was about $700 million. Today, the total annual budge is 
about $450 million.

"We were the heroes of the cold war when we had our weapons 
testing out here," Rohrer said. "The training we're doing out 
here now is the next chapter in this kind of work."

 Las Vegas Business Press
*****************************************************************
 29 Australia Probes Radioactive Spills
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: January 23, 2002 at 6:45:12 PST 
 
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Officials investigating a large spill of 
radioactive waste at a uranium mine in the Australian outback 
found there have been 24 other leaks at the site. 

Details of the leaks, which were not publicly disclosed at the 
time, have prompted the South Australian state government to 
review reporting procedures of all such spills, officials told 
The Associated Press on Wednesday. The officials said the leaks 
were not considered harmful to the public. 

Earlier this month, some 15,600 gallons of radioactive fluid 
leaked from a pipe at the Beverley uranium mine, 370 miles north 
of the state capital, Adelaide. The spill was not publicly 
disclosed until more than 24 hours later. 

Mine operator, Heathgate Resources, said the liquid was composed 
of salty ground water, sulfuric acid, uranium and oxygen and was 
"naturally radioactive." A spokesman, Stephen Middleton, said the 
spill was contained in a drain surrounding the complex and had 
posed no threat to the environment, the public or mine workers. 

The Jan. 11 spill brought calls from environmentalists for the 
closure of the mine, located in an isolated, sparsely populated 
desert area. 

A full report into the spill and conditions under which the 
Beverley mine could resume commercial operations would be 
released later this week, said a spokeswoman for the South 
Australia state mines minister. 

Investigations after the spill found there have been 24 other 
leaks at the mine over the last two years, three of which were 
listed as more than 520 gallons, government officials said. All 
the spills were considered minor and were not harmful to the 
public. 

Heathgate Resources, a subsidiary of the San Diego-based General 
Atomics, underlined that the spills caused no environmental 
damage. 

"People are making great issue that there were 24 spills but they 
had no environmental or occupational health and safety 
consequences. It's unnecessarily alarmed a large number of 
people," Heathgate vice president Stephen Middleton told The 
Associated Press. 

But concerned that the leaks went little noticed for so long, the 
state government will review the system for reporting radioactive 
spills at uranium mines, said a spokeswoman for state Mines 
Minister Wayne Matthew. Heathgate Resources fulfilled its 
obligations by informing mines inspectors of the leaks, Middleton 
said. 

The mines ministry said the rules should be revised to require 
that more senior officials be notified. 

Under the current system, "we have technical experts who assess 
the level or risk from any incidents, but it's the government's 
view that ministers also need to be advised every time there is 
one of these incidents," the spokeswoman said. 

Heathgate Resources welcomed the review of reporting procedures, 
which it said are "severe in the extreme." 

"We believe that a better solution might be to establish a 
reporting procedure that classifies spills not only on the 
numbers and the size of them but on the environmental 
consequences," Middleton said. 

Environmental groups said the spills pose dangers to workers and 
the underground water supply and have called for the mine to be 
closed. 

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney said 
the technique used at the mine, known as in situ leach or ISL and 
involving pumping acid underground, was not approved in any other 
of the major industrialized nations and had in the past caused 
serious pollution in eastern Europe. 

"The Beverley mine is fundamentally unsustainable both in the 
product it's mining and the way it's doing it," Sweeney told The 
Associated Press. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC Proposes Probability Limits for Excluding Unlikely Events 
From Consideration at Potential Waste Repository 

 NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 8 - 

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] Public Affairs Web Site   
  
  No. 02-008     January 23, 2002   
  
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its 
regulations regarding a potential nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to set out numerical values for deciding 
when a geological, hydrological or climatological feature, event 
or process is unlikely and therefore need not be considered in 
determining whether the repository would meet radiation dose 
standards for groundwater protection and human intrusion in NRC's 
regulations. Unlikely events would still have to be considered in 
determining whether the repository would meet the overall 
15-millirem radiation limit for protection of individuals.
 
Environmental Protection Agency standards, adopted by the NRC, 
require naturally occurring "unlikely" features, events, and 
processes or sequences of processes (such as volcanoes) to be 
excluded from determining compliance with radiation dose 
standards for groundwater protection and human intrusion (for 
example, if someone drills into the repository).
 
The proposed NRC regulation defines "unlikely" by stating that 
DOE's analysis of the expected repository performance in 
connection with the impacts of human intrusion and degradation of 
groundwater need not include consideration of features, events or 
processes that are estimated to have less than a 10 percent 
chance of occurring within 10,000 years of waste disposal.
 
Interested persons are invited to submit comments within 75 days 
of publication of a Federal Register notice, expected shortly. 
The comments may be mailed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
*****************************************************************
 31 N-WASTE: Bulgaria, Moscow Talk Trade
 
Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2002. Page 7 

The Associated Press 

Senior Russian and Bulgarian economic officials held talks in 
Moscow on Tuesday on trade, oil projects and the possible return 
to Bulgaria of nuclear waste that Russia imports and reprocesses, 
media reports said.
 
Trade between Russia and Bulgaria is expected to increase to $1.7 
billion in 2002, said former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who 
is now president of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
 
"We attach great importance to these talks as Bulgaria is not 
developing its relations with the West at the expense of its 
relations with Russia," Interfax quoted Primakov as saying.
 
Bulgarian Deputy Prime Minister Nikolai Vasilev and LUKoil 
president Vagit Alekperov discussed joint projects, LUKoil said 
in a press release.
 
The 300-kilometer proposed pipeline would stretch from the 
Bulgarian port of Burgas on the Black Sea to Alexandroupolis, 
Greece, on the Aegean Sea. Implementation of the project will 
require closer cooperation between Russia, Bulgaria and Greece, 
Alekperov said.
 
Nuclear waste was also on the agenda, with Russia saying it would 
return the remains of nuclear waste Bulgaria had exported to 
Russia for treatment after several decades, Itar-Tass reported.
 
http://www.moscowtimes.ru
*****************************************************************
 32 <title>Las Vegas Business Press</title>

 CARSON CITY: There's enough blame to go around

By Dennis Myers

On the day federal energy secretary Spencer Abraham announced his 
recommendation that Yucca Mountain be approved as the site of a 
dump for high-level nuclear waste, Nevada Democratic Party chair 
Terry Care issued the first of two statements identifying the 
people to blame: George Bush and Kenny Guinn.

 
It's not easy being guilty when you arrived in town years after 
the crime was committed.

 
Bipartisanship has bee n the hallmark of the targeting of Nevada 
for the waste dump, and if Democrats had not been co conspirators 
all along (including when they held congressional majorities), 
there would have been nothing for Abraham to recommend.

 The decision to begin a search for a single repository instead 
of developing on-site storage was made by Democratic President 
Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

 In 1982, a law launc hing the search was passed with bipartis an 
support. The law required two repositories, one in the East and 
one in the West. Although they paid lip service to a search 
process guided by "science not politics," Democrats in fact went 
right to work undermining the law. So did Republicans, but 
Democrats were better at it.

 For instance, when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) started 
examining a Mississippi site adjacent to property owned by the 
sister of the sta te's Democratic Sen. John Stennis, he hauled 
DOE offi cials before his committee and read them the riot act. 
Nothing more was heard of a Mississippi site.

 
There was Louisiana, which had salt domes in Iberia Parrish, the 
kind used by France for nuclear waste storage. But Louisiana was 
represented in the Senate by Bennett Johnston, a Democrat not 
afraid to throw his weight around at the Energy Department. So, 
DOE officials tiptoed around him and Louisiana was off the ho ok.

 
There was New Engl and, which has lots of granite. New Hampshire, 
which holds the first presidential primary election, is known as 
the granite state. When the DOE announced plans to study nuclear 
waste storage in granite, Maine Democratic Sen. George Mitchell 
slipped through an amendment and all of New England was safe from 
waste storage.

 When the DOE in 1986 announced the list of three states to be 
studied as waste dump sites, none of them were in the Ea st. They 
were Deaf Smith, Texas; Han ford, Wash.; and Yucca Mountain, Nev.

 U.S. House Speaker Thomas Foley, a Democrat, was from 
Washington. Vice President George Bush (the elder), a Republican, 
was from Texas. In one of those heartwarming displays of 
bipartisanship, Congress in 1987 ordered the DOE to eliminate 
Texas and Washington from the search and focus entirely on 
Nevada.

 
Democrats would no doubt argue that for eight years Bill Clinton 
protected Nevada. Bu t what Clin ton protected Nevada from with 
his veto threats was still more congressional legislation to 
subvert the process. He never faced the situation George Bush now 
faces. What if the suitability process had come to an end during 
Clinton's tenure and energy secretary Hazel O'Leary or Bill 
Richardson had brought him a recommendation for approval of Yucca 
Mountain? Does anyone really believe Clinton would have chosen 
Nevada over the huge campaign contributions he w as getting from 
the nuclear power industry? Nor did Clinton ever take ANY action 
to reform the thoroughly political process the waste dump  search 
had become. The energy department remained the same arm of the 
industry it had always been, and Congress received no proposals 
for change from the president. Not that it would have mattered, 
since a majority of Democrats is poised to vote against Nevada is 
the issue ever gets to the floors of Congress.

 The truth is, Democrati c fingerprints are all over Yucca 
Mountain. In the sta tement issued by Care, Clark County 
Democratic Sen. Dina Titus was quoted as saying, "Gov. Guinn and 
the Republicans told Nevadans that the Bush administration would 
be as much against the Yucca Project as the Democrats."

 
Yes, they did, and they are. That's the problem.

Copyright 2002 Las Vegas Business Press
*****************************************************************
 33 Fed s Seek Dismissal of Utah Claim in Nuclear Waste Suit

Wednesday, January 23, 2002   

BY JUDY FAHYS
 THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE 

   Federal lawyers asked a court Tuesday to dismiss the state's 
claim that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no right to 
license a high-level nuclear storage site for the Skull Valley 
Goshute Reservation in Tooele County. 

    U.S. Department of Justice lawyers filed their arguments as 
part of the latest round of legal tussling between the state and 
the waste facility's partners, a consortium of out-of-state 
utilities called Private Fuel Storage, and the Skull Valley Band 
of Goshute Indians, which has leased 125 acres of land for the 
storage site about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. 

    The lawyers cited a federal procedural law called the Hobbs 
Act in asserting that Utah can dispute the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's authority only after regulators have licensed the 
facility. They also asserted the issue belongs in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals -- not the U.S. District Court for Utah, where the 
legal battle began last summer. 

    "This [district] court is without jurisdiction to address 
Utah's counterclaim," said the Justice Department lawyers in 
their brief. 

    Utah's lawyers were not available for comment late Tuesday. 
They originally challenged the commission's authority to license 
the facility as part of a lawsuit by the partners over laws the 
Legislature passed last winter to outlaw the Private Fuel 
Storage-Goshute facility. 

    In comments made to House GOP lawmakers last week, the 
state's lead attorney, Monte Stewart, said the Justice 
Department's involvement in the case now opens the door for Utah 
to rally political allies in federal government who might be able 
to help block the $3.1 billion project. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt 
recently met with some of them Washington, D.C. 

    The waste-storage partners have been trying to win commission 
approval for the facility since 1997. The commission, which has 
tentatively set September for its decision, already has once 
rejected the state's "lack-of-authority" claim through one of its 
branches, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 

    The state is free to challenge that first ruling in an appeal 
to the commission itself, the Justice Department lawyers said. 
The appeals court only has jurisdiction over appeals of 
commission rulings. "The lack of agency action is fatal to Utah's 
claim," the brief stated, "and this court should therefore 
dismiss it as premature." 

    A Private Fuel spokeswoman said the consortium is pleased 
that the Justice Department took its side by agreeing that the 
state's complaint has no place in the district court. 

   fahys@sltrib.com 
    
  © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on 
*****************************************************************
 34 Norway keeps up Sellafield pressure

BBC News | ENGLAND | 
 			 
23 January, 2002

[Sellafield plant, Cumbria]                     

The delegation will meet BNFL managers and workers

Politicians from Norway are visiting Sellafield nuclear plant on 
Wednesday to discuss their fears about emissions. 

They are particularly concerned about the drift of a radioactive 
substance called technicium-99 into the North Sea, which they say 
is damaging Norwegian fish stocks. 

A cross-party group of 18 members from the Scandinavian country's 
major political parties are carrying out a fact-finding mission 
at the plant. But a spokesman at the British Nuclear Fuels 
Limited (BNFL)-run plant said the discharges met UK government 
and Environment Agency limits. 
  
Technicium-99 does not cause any problem to fish stocks or 
aquamarine life
   	 		
   	 	 Jamie Read, BNFL 	 	 	   


In December Norwegain environment minister, Borge Brende, visited 
West Cumbria - the points he raised will again be aired by the 
visiting delegation. Mr Brende said: "We are focusing on 
Sellafield's discharges of technicium-99 and on the level of 
radioactivity going into the Irish Sea. 

"It remains a contaminant for a very long time, and I am very 
concerned about Britain's plans to allow these discharge levels 
to continue unchanged up until 2006. 

"We're now finding technicium-99 in seaweed along Norway's west 
coast, and in Svalbard, in the high Arctic." 

Drastic cut 

But BNFL spokesman Jamie Read, told BBC News Online: "We are 
reducing the amount of technicium-99 into the sea, and the levels 
are at 1% of what they were in the mid-1970s. 

"We adhere to all the discharge limits set out by the government 
and Environment Agency. 

"Technicium-99 has very low radiotoxicity level as far as 
radio-isotopes go. 
	 		 			
[A woman joins the protest, PA] 

Ireland has also protested about discharges
 		 		 		  
"There is a body of research which shows it doesn't cause any 
problem to fish stocks or aquamarine life." 

The Environment Agency has recommended a drastic cut in the 
amount of technicium-99 discharged into the sea every year, to 
take effect from 2006. The government has still to make a final 
decision on the proposed reduction. Norwegian representatives 
from the Progress Party, the Socialist Left, the Christian 
Democrats, and others, will meet the head of the BNFL site, Brian 
Watson, and officials from Copeland Council. 

They will also talk to community groups and trade unionists at 
the plant, as well as members of the protest group, Cumbrians 
Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core). 

Radioactive discharges are regulated under the Radioactive 
Substances Act 1993, which is enforced by the Environment Agency. 
	         
*****************************************************************
 35 Ferraro urged to exit pro-Yucca campaign 

Wednesday, January 23, 2002
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 

STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- Environmentalists on Tuesday mounted pressure on 
former Democratic congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro to back away 
from her support for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository. 

A letter endorsed by 19 groups opposing Nevada nuclear waste 
burial urges Ferraro to resign as spokeswoman for a pro-Yucca 
campaign headed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

The environmental organizations cited outstanding health, safety 
and transportation questions involved in moving highly 
radioactive waste to Nevada and keeping it safely stored for more 
than 10,000 years. 

"You say that as a mother and a grandmother you are sensitive to 
the legacies we leave our children. Residents of Nevada are 
deeply concerned about the legacy of contamination that the 
proposed repository would leave future generations," the groups 
said. 

Ferraro, who was home ill in New York and could not be reached, 
said through her secretary she had not yet seen the letter. 

The letter was signed by Wenonah Hauter, director of the Public 
Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program, with the 
backing of 18 other environmental groups including four from 
Nevada. 

"We're trying to not only touch political reality with her, but 
also touch the reasoning side, the human mother side," said 
Kalynda Tilges, nuclear issues coordinator for Citizen Alert of 
Las Vegas. 

Ferraro "has done a lot of good work in the past and I'd like to 
see her remembered for the work she did and not for being a 
money-grubbing pawn of the nuclear industry," Tilges said. 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is preparing to send President 
Bush a recommendation to establish a repository at Yucca 
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Ferraro and former Republican New Hampshire governor John Sununu 
are heading a public campaign in favor of building the facility.
 
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002

*****************************************************************
 36 UK: Dounreay claims to meet safety recommendations

THE operators of Dounreay nuclear plant have met all the 
short-term safety recommendations outlined in a wide-ranging 
safety review, it emerged yesterday.

 The Health and Safety Executive said the plant at Caithness 
fulfilled 89 of the 143 recommendations made in the report.

 A further 27 outstanding matters associated with strategic 
decommisioning and waste management issues will take decades to 
address.

 Twenty-seven medium-term recommendations will be introduced over 
the next few years, as part of the normal regulatory regimes of 
both the HSE and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency 
(Sepa).

 Brian Wilson, the UK energy minister, said that nuclear power 
had a part to play in the future of Britain's energy provision 
despite "the constant barrage of propaganda against it".

 Mr Wilson would not be drawn on claims that an impending report 
from the performance and innovation unit on the UK's energy needs 
is suggesting that any future nuclear investors would have to 
pick up the crippling costs of waste disposal.

 The Dounreay provisions include the emptying and securing of the 
notorious shaft and silo at a cost of £215m-£355m and the 
construction of new stores to house the waste as part of 
Dounreay's £4bn decommissioning programme scheduled to last for 
the next 50 years.

 The review of safety was triggered after a number of significant 
breaches at the plant, which culminated in a contractor's digger 
cutting through the main power supply in May 1998.

 A statement from the HSE and Sepa yesterday said: "The only 
recommendations which remain outstanding are those associated 
with strategic decommissioning and waste management issues, which 
will take many decades to address, plus a number of specific 
recommendations, which will be progressed in a medium-term 
programme over the next few years.

 "These outstanding recommendations will be dealt with as part of 
the normal regulatory regimes of both HSE and Sepa."

 Commenting on yesterday's report, Laurence Williams, HSE 
director of nuclear safety and HM chief inspector of nuclear 
installations, said: "I have seen considerable progress at 
Dounreay over the past three years and this is a credit to 
everyone concerned, particularly the staff at Dounreay."

 The report was welcomed by Lorraine Mann, a fierce critic of the 
plant, who said: "Dounreay and its director Peter Welsh should be 
congratulated for the tremendous amount of work that has been 
done in the past three years."

 Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, 
also welcomed the advances in tackling Dounreay's safety record.

 - Jan 23rd
 
*****************************************************************
 37 Goodman takes anti-Yucca drive to D.C.
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
January 22, 2002 
 
By Diana Sahagun 
<diana@lasvegassun.com [diana@lasvegassun.com] >

 Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman will be playing to a new audience 
this week when he pitches his anti-Yucca Mountain message to more 
than 100 mayors representing cities along proposed transportation 
routes for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste.

 Goodman made little headway in convincing government officials, 
including Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, to scrap the plan for 
Yucca Mountain.

 And now, as Abraham stands ready to recommend Yucca to President 
Bush, Goodman will spend a week in Washington -- site of the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors -- to lobby 109 mayors whose cities could be 
affected should the repository be built 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas.

 More than 300 mayors are meeting in Washington and New York to 
discuss homeland security and issues involving economic security.

 Goodman during an hour-long presentation at the Capital Hilton 
on Wednesday will tell mayors that property values will plummet 
and millions will have to be set aside to train emergency workers 
in preparation for a potential radioactive spill.

 The ramifications surrounding a nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain aren't limited to Nevada, Goodman says.

 "When they hear this, they'll realize it will hurt them 
directly, in the pocket-books," Goodman said Monday, before 
boarding a plane to Washington.

 Assistant City Manager Betsy Fretwell said Goodman will include 
in his presentation a recent independent study outlining the 
financial investment cities must commit to should a plan for a 
repository proceed.

 "Many of these other mayors haven't heard the message, that 
there's more to this than just big trucks," she said. "Hopefully, 
we'll make some good connections there and have a stronger base 
across the country in helping our delegation."

 Although Goodman will be surrounded by hundreds of mayors, he 
said he's confident he carries enough clout to convince mayors to 
join Nevada in fighting the dump.

 "I am known amongst the mayors," Goodman said. "I'm the most 
popular mayor there because when I go back everyone wants to come 
to Las Vegas."

 On Thursday Goodman and some of his counterparts plan to meet 
with Bush at a White House breakfast. Goodman said he wants to 
speak with Bush in private about the Yucca issue. He also has 
promised to refrain from additional personal attacks, such as 
those he recently directed toward Abraham and former White House 
Chief of Staff John Sununu, who is lobbying for the Yucca 
repository.

 "I'm not going to call Sununu a jerk and Abraham a fathead," 
Goodman said. "I will tell (the president) that this is a very 
serious issue and he has to be circumspect about the decision."

 Goodman also plans to invite the mayors to Las Vegas for a 
conference on the proposed dump. The conference, he said, will 
deal in "real science," not politics.

 Fretwell said city officials are speaking with Gov. Kenny Guinn 
in regard to playing host to such a seminar this spring. Timing 
is critical, she said, because it is yet unclear as to when the 
president will act on Abraham's recommendation. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Letter: Yucca Mountain all about politics
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: January 23, 2002 at 8:28:06 PST 
 
Do you want to know what I think? Based on my experience as a 
former employee of the Department of Defense and as a retired 
defense industry employee who has survived mass layoffs of half a 
million or more defense workers, I know of the ruthless, 
unstoppable power of the unelected, bureaucratic, unaccountable, 
executive branch of our federal government.

 In spite of multimillion-dollar arm-waving against the nuclear 
waste repository at Yucca Mountain by Nevada's U.S. 
representatives and senators, by Nevada state elected officials, 
by Clark County elected officials, and by Las Vegas city elected 
officials, the federal administration behemoth ruthlessly will 
see to it that Yucca Mountain will become the national nuclear 
waste repository.

 Yucca Mountain is only a "useful" political football for elected 
Nevada officials, who cynically know the ultimate outcome. 
Cunning Nevada politicians know that they always win popularity 
by riding the bandwagon against Yucca Mountain and by eventually 
failing "heroically" in the fight against the mammoth federal 
bureaucracy.

 Of course any Nevada elected official in favor of the Yucca 
Mountain project will be committing political suicide.

 FRANK PELTESON
 
All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 NRC proposing change in rules governing Yucca
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: January 23, 2002 at 10:02:24 PST 
 
By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com [manning@lasvegassun.com] >

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a change in rules 
governing a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

 If adopted, the new rules could make it a little easier for the 
Department of Energy to comply with environmental protection 
standards.

 The NRC is giving the public 75 days to comment on the proposed 
changes, which will be published in the Federal Register in the 
next few days, NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said.

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to recommend Yucca 
Mountain as the burial site for 77,000 tons of radioactive waste 
from commercial reactors and defense activities to President Bush 
after Feb. 10.

 The NRC is proposing to eliminate rules governing what it calls 
unlikely events: a volcanic eruption or humans drilling into the 
waste buried about 1,000 feet beneath the surface of Yucca 
Mountain.

 NRC staff believes those two incidents have less than a 10 
percent chance of occurring within 10,000 years, Gagner said. A 
repository at Yucca Mountain by law must contain the waste's 
radioactivity for 10,000 years.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who with the rest of Nevada's 
congressional delegation has been a vocal opponent of the nuclear 
dump, had not seen the regulation this morning and had no 
comment, his spokesman Nathan Naylor said. Representatives of 
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and 
Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., were not available this morning.

 Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects staff is reviewing the 
proposal, executive director Bob Loux said.

 "We're not sure what effect it will have, but it seems to make 
the standard a little easier to comply with," Loux said.

 The NRC, by law, must license a high-level nuclear waste 
repository before the facility can begin operation.

 If Congress overrides Gov. Kenny Guinn's expected veto of the 
Yucca repository the NRC would need three to four years to 
examine scientific evidence from the mountain. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 40 Duratek Lays Off 130 Workers 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
By Sabrina Jones
 Washington Post Staff Writer
 Tuesday, January 22, 2002; 11:39 AM 

Columbia-based Duratek Inc., a radioactive-materials disposal 
firm, laid off 130 workers, or 10 percent of its work force, at 
its Oak Ridge, Tenn., radioactive waste processing facility. The 
layoffs took place Monday and today, and workers were offered 
severance packages of up to six months, said Diane R. Brown, 
Duratek's director of investor relations. The Oak Ridge facility 
employed about 430 employees.
 
The layoffs came in response to a slowdown in nuclear plant 
decommissioning contracts, which involve the dismantling of 
nuclear facilities, Brown said.
 
"As we're beginning to wind down on these contracts, we needed to 
get the organization back in line with its production 
requirements," Brown said.
 
The company expects the Oak Ridge job cuts, along with a recent 
reduction of 44 workers at its Memphis facility, to generate more 
than $7.4 million in annual cost savings.
 
Duratek earned $921,000 (4 cents per share) on $67.4 million in 
revenue in the third quarter. Last year, the company experienced 
problems in its commercial-waste processing division after it 
suffered unexpected transportation and burial costs for hazardous 
waste at its Tennessee plant. The costs led to losses in the 
fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.
 
Duratek's shares fell 29 cents to close at $4.07 on Friday on the 
Nasdaq Stock Market.
 
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 41 + Nuclear facility cited for problems with low-level radioactive waste 

The Dallas Morning News: Texas/Southwest
 
01/23/2002 

The Associated Press 

FORT WORTH, Texas  The Comanche Peak nuclear power plant has 
been cited by federal regulators for repeated, improper handling 
of low-level radioactive waste.

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the first significant 
safety violations against the North Texas facility in more than 
eight years.

 Some clothing and maintenance equipment contaminated with 
radioactivity were found outside a controlled area at the plant 
near Glen Rose, said Breck Henderson, an NRC spokesman in 
Arlington.

 The commission found 11 instances of violations between January 
24, 2000 and May 24, 2001, he said.

 "The contaminated materials weren't dealt with properly," 
Henderson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Wednesday's 
editions.

 Officials of TXU Energy, the plant's owner and operator, will 
discuss the violations with the NRC at a 1 p.m. public meeting 
Wednesday at Arlington.

 TXU Energy officials said no risk was posed to the public or 
employees by the infractions. They are the first low- to 
moderate-level safety violation at either of Texas' two nuclear 
power plants since the NRC adopted a new system of ranking 
infractions two years ago.

 The Comanche Peak plant was last sanctioned in 1993 after 
radioactive water spilled in a containment area during refueling. 
The plant was shut down at the time and no water escaped, but the 
company was fined $50,000 by the NRC.

 Officials of TXU said they hope to prove to the NRC that safety 
was not compromised at the plant, known as the Comanche Peak 
Steam Electric Station, in Somervell County about 50 miles 
southwest of Fort Worth.

 "None of these materials was released from our controlled 
property. Everything remained on site so the public was not 
exposed to any risk," said Rand LaVonn, TXU spokesman.

 Henderson said the Comanche Peak violation could lead to 
enforcement action.

 (ap.state.online.tx0969 - 06:23:57,23-01-02) 

*****************************************************************
 42 Greens claim victory over nuclear waste dump plans

ABC News - 

Posted :Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:14 AEDT
 
Green groups are claiming victory in their battle to stop plans 
for a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia.

It is understood Swiss firm Pangea has closed its offices in 
Perth and Melbourne two years after vowing it was here for the 
long haul.

Environmentalists have long lobbied to scuttle Pangea's plans and 
say public pressure played a major role in the company's decision 
to pull out of Australia.

But Western Australian MP and former Greens senator Dee Margetts 
says there is no room for complacency.

"Australia hasn't entirely learned their lesson and the community 
is still very concerned in many ways that the production of 
nuclear waste, production of nuclear materials leads Australia to 
a very vulnerable position," she said.

"Some time in the future we may be required to take the nuclear 
waste from other countries."

© 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
*****************************************************************
 43 Petition to Dump Yucca Mountain

Public Citizen

PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN FROM 
CONSIDERATION AS A NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY

In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, and 10 C.F.R. 960.3, Yucca Mountain should be 
immediately disqualified for the reasons outlined throughout this 
petition.

The Nuclear Waste Act states, in Section 113 (c) (3):

  If the Secretary at any time determines the Yucca Mountain site 
to be unsuitable for development as a repository, the Secretary 
shall 

  (A) terminate all site characterization activities at such 
site; 

  (B) notify the Congress, the Governor and legislature of Nevada 
of such termination and the reasons for such termination; 

  (C) remove any high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear 
fuel, or other radioactive materials at or in such site as 
promptly as practicable; 

  (D) take reasonable and necessary steps to reclaim the site and 
to mitigate any significant adverse environmental impacts caused 
by site characterization activities at such site; (emphasis 
added)

The basis for suitability is defined in the Site Recommendation 
Guidelines as provided for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and 
promulgated by the Department of Energy in 10 CFR 960.

The Guidelines state in Section 960.3-1-5:

  A site shall be disqualified at any time during the siting 
process if the evidence supports a finding by DOE that a 
disqualifying condition exists or the qualifying condition of any 
system or technical guideline cannot be met. (emphasis added) 

The language in the Guidelines for Site Suitability is clear. The 
site shall be disqualified if a single disqualifying factor 
exists or a single qualifying condition cannot be met. (emphasis 
added)
 
Section I - Yucca Mountain Repository Site will not isolate 
nuclear waste, violating two guidelines for site suitability as a 
nuclear waste repository.

Guideline: 960.4-2-1 Post-Closure Disqualifying Condition for 
Hydrology:

  A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste-emplacement 
ground-water travel time from the disturbed zone to the 
accessible environment is expected to be less than 1000 years 
along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel. 

Recent analyses of samples collected at the underground 
Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) at the Yucca Mountain site 
indicate that water infiltrating from the ground surface above 
the study facility has traveled rapidly downward in fractures in 
the Mountain to, and through, the proposed repository horizon, 
toward the water table. Samples collected from the fracture walls 
in the ESF contain elevated amounts of chlorine-36 that are 
sufficiently high to indicate that the source must have been 
atmospheric weapons testing in the Pacific. Chlorine-36 was 
produced by the activation of the salt in seawater. It was 
deposited in fall-out and rain across the Northern Hemisphere. 
Since chlorine-36 does not occur at such large ratios in nature, 
it provides a marker for the travel time of surface water.

Therefore, transport of this bomb-pulse isotope to its current 
depths by infiltrating precipitation must have taken place within 
the last 50 years. This significant discovery contradicts earlier 
conceptual models depicting unsaturated zone flow at Yucca 
Mountain as being dominated by very slow downward movement 
through pores in the rock.

DOE s recent unsaturated zone flow models, based on chlorine-36 
and other data, indicate that within acknowledged bounds of 
uncertainty, water infiltrating through the waste emplacement 
horizon will quickly reach the water table. And according to 
saturated zone flow models, travel to a point at which it is 
accessible to humans through water wells is less than 1000 years. 
This meets the conditions of 960.4-2-1 for disqualification; 
therefore Yucca Mountain must be disqualified.

With Clorine-36 showing that radionuclide travel to be faster 
than anticipated, it is clear that the expected performance of 
the repository will result in significant radionuclide 
contamination of the groundwater and, ultimately, the surface 
waters down-gradient from the site.
 
Guideline: 960.5-2-6 Preclosure Disqualifying Condition for 
Socioeconomic Impacts:

  A site shall be disqualified if repository construction, 
operation, or closure would significantly degrade the quality, or 
would significantly reduce the quantity, of water from major 
sources of offsite supplies presently suitable for human 
consumption or crop irrigation and such impacts cannot be 
compensated for, or mitigated by, reasonable measures. 

The expectation of the Guidelines was that the geologic barrier 
of the site would limit radionuclide releases from the repository 
through time, such that environmental contamination away from the 
repository would not be significant. Now, as discussed, the 
picture is quite different. The expected performance of a Yucca 
Mountain repository will result in significant amounts of 
radionuclides degrading the quality of off-site supplies of 
groundwater that are presently suitable for and used for human 
consumption and crop irrigation. Current land use in the Yucca 
Mountain area includes large-scale milk production. With 92% of 
milk comprised of water, our children may eventually be drinking 
radionuclides for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

DOE intends for the contamination to occur during the long 
postclosure period, and affect much of the ground water in the 
Amargosa Valley before it is finally discharged to the ground 
surface where contaminants will be reconcentrated. Compensation 
for this degradation, as allowed for in the Guideline, is 
impossible. If mitigation were feasible, it would have to be 
included in the repository assessment; it is not.

The ability to avoid significant groundwater degradation after 
closure of the repository should be no less a siting requirement 
than it is before and during closure. These Guidelines were 
designed to prevent the emplacement of high-level nuclear waste 
at a site that is known to contaminate water supplies. Omission 
of this disqualifying factor from the Post-Closure Guidelines was 
in actuality an affirmation of the national commitment in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to assuring the long-term isolation of 
radioactivity from the environment.
 
Section II Problematic Unresolved Issues

It is clear that additional study of the Yucca Mountain site will 
not result in significant reduction in the projected dose rates 
to individuals, nor will it likely reduce the broad range of 
uncertainty. The purpose of this section is not to suggest that 
further study should be conducted at Yucca Mountain. Instead, we 
bring to attention significant factors and relatively new data 
which disarm any suggestion that the site and any scenario at 
Yucca Mountain is "good enough" for nuclear waste disposal.

Seismic Activity

Geologic factors, in addition to rapid groundwater flow in the 
unsaturated zone, increase the risk and uncertainty about loss of 
waste containment and isolation at the Yucca Mountain site. 
Seismic risk is said by project officials to be "acceptably low," 
but it is acknowledged that the potential exists during the 
hazardous lifetime of the waste, for the repository to be 
impacted by an earthquake nearby in the magnitude range of 7.0 to 
7.5.

The potential for large nearby earthquakes exists during the 
operational life of the surface facility of the repository. An 
unexpected magnitude 5.6 earthquake occurred at Little Skull 
Mountain, adjacent to the study site in June 1992. This quake was 
associated with a much larger event in Southern California.

Operation of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain will 
require three irradiated fuel pools to facilitate waste transfer 
operations. The faulting and earthquake history of the area is 
such that a nuclear power reactor with its irradiated fuel pools 
could not be licensed there. Therefore, on what basis does the 
Department intend to locate multiple irradiated fuel pools at the 
Yucca Mountain site? This unresolved issue is of critical 
importance.

Volcanism

Yucca Mountain was formed by multiple volcanic events. There are 
lava cones that sit in a line with the Mountain, which are the 
results of recent volcanic activity. The two nearest cones are 9 
and 15 kilometers from the boundary of the waste emplacement 
area. The risk of recurrence of volcanism, considered a low 
probability, high consequence event, in the near vicinity of 
Yucca Mountain is said to be "acceptably low."

A recent study, reported in Science Magazine in 1998, challenges 
former assessments with the use of the Global Positioning System 
satellites to gauge crustal expansion at Yucca Mountain. This 
study shows that the movement of the earth s crust at the site is 
about 20 times greater than previously estimated and that it is 
currently accelerating. The authors conclude that more study is 
needed, but assert that all previous estimates on crustal 
movements could be incorrect since acceleration was not 
previously factored. Further, they conclude that the evidence is 
consistent with the possibility of a magma pocket under Yucca 
Mountain.

Given this new information, it clear that we cannot assert that 
this site is necessarily subject to a "low risk" for future 
volcanism. If we consider for a moment that the repository 
program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act were founded upon a 
commitment to intergenerational equity, perhaps we should ask 
ourselves: Would we be able to understand our ancestors if they 
had chosen a volcanically active site for their most concentrated 
radioactive waste? It is not clear that this site is subject to 
disruption by future volcanism, but it is also not clear that it 
is not. This new data on Yucca Mountain increases that 
uncertainty.

Human Intrusion

Human intrusion remains an unresolved issue with respect to the 
long spans of time associated with a repository. Yucca Mountain 
lies in the midst of a number of natural resources and mineral 
deposits. In fact, there is now an operating gold mine within 
sight of Yucca Mountain. It is not realistic to make projections 
on repository performance without factoring in the potential 
natural resources and the impact on those who would seek them in 
the future.
 
III - Conclusion

From Section I, we conclude that the Secretary of Energy must 
immediately disqualify Yucca Mountain from consideration as a 
permanent repository. From Section II, we conclude further study 
of Yucca Mountain will only increase the basis for 
disqualification, thus is needless, wasteful, and an 
irresponsible use of Nuclear Waste Fund monies.

Articles:(12/13/01) Time for a real energy debate 

Comments:(12/14/01) Comments to Carol Hanlon, DOE, Yucca Mountain 
  Site Characterization Office, RE: Public Citizen's Continued 
  Opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project 
  (9/5/01) Public Citizen's Comments on the Secretary of Energy’s 
  Preliminary Recommendation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for 
  Development as a High-level Nuclear Waste Repository 
  (2/25/00) RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
  for a Geologic Repository for Nuclear Waste at Yucca Mountain, 
  Nevada 

Letters:(1/22/02) Letter to The Honorable Geraldine Ferraro RE: 
  support of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump 
  (1/17/02) Letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
  (9/29/01) Letter to Secretary Abraham RE: the Yucca Mountain 
  Preliminary Site Recommendation Hearings 
  (7/3/01) Letter to Acting Director Office of Civilian Radioactive 
  Waste Management about SDEIS 
  (6/4/01) Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
  for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
  and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain 
  (1/8/01) Letter to the EPA about Yucca Mountain Standards 

Statements:(11/19/01) DOE Inspector General reports potential 
  conflict of interest in Yucca Mountain Project 
  (9/14/01) Statement of Lisa Gue: New NRC Report On Nuclear Waste 
  Shipments Fails to Address Public Concerns 
  (8/31/01) KANGAROO COURT COUNTDOWN ALERT Federal Register Notice 
  Too Little Too Late Five Days to Yucca Mountain Hearing in Las 
  Vegas 
  (8/30/01) KANGAROO COURT COUNTDOWN ALERT Las Vegas Yucca Mountain 
  Hearing Relocates to Prison-like Complex 
  (6/27/01) Citizens’ Groups Challenge EPA Rule for Proposed Yucca 
  Mountain Nuclear Dump 
  (6/6/01) EPA Radiation Standards Offer Inadequate Protection from 
  Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump Important Precedent for 
  Groundwater Protection Undermined by Rule's Deficiencies 
  (5/7/01) Joint Press Release: Public Concerns Sidelined as 
  Department of Energy Rushes to Recommend Yucca Mountain Nuclear 
  Dump 
  (4/12/01) Transporting Nuclear Waste Threatens Public Health and 
  Safety 
  (4/2/01) Safeguard Groundwater, a Precious Resource: Support 
  Strong Radiation Protection Standards 
  (12/19/00) Site Characterization Process Irreparably Compromised 
  (9/11/00) The Department of Energy cannot justify Yucca Mountain 
  (4/25/00) Statement of Amy Shollenberger, Senior Policy Analyst, 
  on the President’s Veto of Nuclear Waste Bill 
  (10/27/99) Fast Flux Test Facility Testimony 

Fact Sheets:(12/6/01) Nuclear Security and the Proposed Yucca 
  Mountain High-level Waste Dump: Debunking the Myths 
  (10/9/01) What's Wrong with Burying Nuclear Waste at Yucca 
  Mountain? 
  (6/21/01) Yucca Mountain Background Information 
  (6/21/01) Yucca Mountain Current Situation 
  (1/6/00) Nuclear Waste Fact Sheet 
  (9/24/99) ATOMIC ATLAS PROJECT 
  (2/1/99) Commercial High-Level Nuclear Waste A Problem for the 
  Next 1000 Millennia 
  (1/1/99) Impacts of Nuclear Waste Transportation 

Testimony:(10/26/99) Testimony on the DOE's Draft Environmental 
  Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of 
  Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 
  Mountain, Nye County, Nevada 

Background Information:(6/21/01) Links 

Action Alerts:(11/20/01) RADIOACTIVE ROADS AND RAILS ACTION OF THE 

  MONTH: November 2001: Demand Integrity in the Yucca Mountain 
  Project! 
  (10/26/01) ACTION OF THE MONTH- October 2001 
  (9/4/01) ACTION OF THE MONTH- August Tell the DOE and Congress to 
  Keep Yucca Mountain Nuclear-Free! 
  (6/21/01) Action Alert: Postcard 
  (6/21/01) Action of the month March: Stop Nuclear Trains in their 
  Tracks! 
  (6/21/01) Radioactive Roads and Rails Take Action! 
  (5/1/01) ACTION OF THE MONTH - MAY 2001 
  (2/1/01) Action of the month February: Pass a resolution in your 
  community! 
  (2/1/01) Action of the Month: February- Sample Resolution 
  (1/1/01) Action of the Month January: Members of the 107th 
  Congress: Do not approve Yucca Mountain nuclear repository! 
  (12/1/00) Action of the month December: President Clinton: Stop 
  the transportation of nuclear waste to Utah! 

Press Releases:(1/22/02) Ferraro Criticized for Support of Nuclear 

  Dump; Nineteen Groups Urge her to Reconsider 
  (1/17/02) Public Citizen Urges Energy Secretary to Recuse Himself 
  From Yucca Mountain Dealings 
  (1/10/02) Bush Should Reject Energy Chief’s Recommendation on 
  Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump 
  (12/6/01) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Ignores Public Health and 
  Safety; Sides with Nuclear Industry on Yucca Mountain Dump 
  Proposal 
  (12/5/01) Nuclear Waste Nominee Raises More Conflict of Interest 
  Issues for Troubled Yucca Mountain Project 
  (11/16/01) NRC Issues Lukewarm Review of Proposed Nuclear Waste 
  Dump 
  (10/24/01) NRC Rubber Stamps Changes in Siting Guidelines to Allow 
  for Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump 
  (9/6/01) Public Input Squelched at Yucca Mountain Hearing 
  (9/5/01) Public Citizen to DOE: Don’t Make Yucca Mountain a 
  Nuclear Waste Dump 
  (8/28/01) DOE Should Cancel “Kangaroo Court” 
  (7/5/01) DOE Should Unify and Extend Deadlines for Comment on 
  Proposed Nuclear Dump Document 
  (6/1/01) Former Reagan Administration Supporter of Yucca Mountain 
  Nuclear Dump Abandons Support for Controversial Project 
  (2/14/01) Strong Radiation Protection Standards Essential For 
  Scientific Decision on Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository 
  (12/19/00) Leaked Memo Reveals DOE’s Bias for Establishing a 
  Radioactive Waste Dump; Congressional Investigation Demanded 
  (12/14/00) Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Process Lacks 
  Integrity 
  (6/23/00) Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain Still 
  Unacceptable 
  (5/2/00) Clinton Veto of Damaging Nuclear Waste Bill Upheld in 
  Senate Vote 
  (4/25/00) President Clinton Keeps His Promise 
  (2/29/00) Federal Government’s Assessment of Environmental Impact 
  of Proposed Nuclear Waste Site Falls Short, Public Citizen Says 
  (2/10/00) Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen's 
  Critical Mass Energy Project, on the Senate’s Approval of Nuclear 
  Waste Bill 

Publications:(12/6/01) Factsheet: Nuclear Security and the 
  Proposed Yucca Mountain High-level Waste Dump: Debunking the Myths 


Downloadable Documents:(12/6/01) Nuclear Security and the Proposed 
  Yucca Mountain High-level Waste Dump: Debunking the Myths 
  (9/24/01) Get the Facts on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and Nuclear 
  Waste 
  (6/21/01) Are Your Emergency Responders Prepared for a Nuclear 
  Waste Accident? 
  (6/21/01) Get the Facts on High-Level Radioactive Waste 
  (6/21/01) Get the Facts on Nuclear Waste Transportation 
  (6/21/01) Get the Facts on Property Values and Nuclear Waste 
  Transportation! 
*****************************************************************
 44 Australian nuclear waste dump plan reportedly scrapped
 
 Radio Australia News - 

Controversial plans for a commercial nuclear waste facility in 
Australia are reported to have been ditched.

Multi-national firm Pangea Resources has closed its offices in 
Melbourne and Perth and is winding up its Australian operations.

Pangea came to Australia in the late 1990s vowing it had the 
patience to see through its plans to build a nuclear waste dump 
in Australia, with Western Australia one of the the preferred 
sites.

West Australian M-P and former Greens senator Dee Margetts is 
delighted with Pangea's decision to scrap the proposal:
 
"In a state like Western Australia I think there were something 
like 50,000 people signed petitions to say they didn't want that 
kind of operation in Western Australia, they didn't want to be 
the world's nuclear waste dump."
 
23/01/2002 6:00:57 PM | ABC Radio Australia News
 
*****************************************************************
 45 Plant to get MOX funds 

Web posted Wednesday, January 23, 2002
 
By Brandon Haddock [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] 
Staff Writer 

A plutonium-processing plant planned for Savannah River Site will 
receive backing from the Bush administration.

 The president's fiscal 2003 budget proposal will include more 
than $300 million for the planned mixed-oxide fuel fabrication 
facility at SRS, U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Tuesday.

 "From the site's perspective, it allows the core mission of 
mixed-oxide fuel to move forward and will make the site a viable 
facility for the nation for years to come," Mr. Graham said.

 The cost of the mixed-oxide, or MOX, plant and a support 
facility will be about $3.8 billion, Mr. Graham said. 
Construction could begin next year, he said.

 The plant will turn surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons into 
fuel for nuclear-power plants. It is expected to create about 500 
long-term jobs at SRS.

 Some South Carolina politicians had worried that the Bush 
administration would abandon plans for the MOX plant. South 
Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges threatened to block any shipments of 
plutonium to SRS until the administration clarified its position 
on the MOX issue.

 Mr. Hodges said shipping plutonium to SRS without a firm 
commitment to the MOX plant would have turned his state into a de 
facto permanent storage site for plutonium. The radioactive metal 
can cause cancer if inhaled or ingested in even small amounts.

 A Hodges spokeswoman said Tuesday's announcement was positive 
but won't end the governor's concerns.
 
"The governor is pleased and believes this is a big step in the 
right direction, but the devil is in the details, so to speak," 
Cortney Owings said. "We have to be assured that not only the 
administration, but that Congress also is committed to long-term 
funding for this project."

 The announcement also did little to allay the concerns of some 
nuclear watchdogs, who have called the MOX plan risky, dangerous 
and expensive.

 Even if the MOX plant opens at SRS, the plutonium will remain in 
South Carolina because MOX fuel will be used by nuclear-power 
plants in the state, said Don Moniak, the community organizer for 
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

 "They're claiming the same old stuff," Mr. Moniak said. "It's 
going to stay in South Carolina. It's just going to Catawba" 
Nuclear Power Plant near Clover.

 Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or 
bhaddock@augustachronicle.com

[bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] . 

1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our 
*****************************************************************
 46 Ferraro Criticized for Support of Nuclear Dump; Nineteen Groups 
Urge her to Reconsider

Public Citizen 

Jan. 22, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC – National, Nevada-based and New York-based public 
interest and environmental organizations sent a letter to 
Geraldine Ferraro today, urging her to reconsider her support of 
the controversial proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. The former congresswoman and vice-presidential 
candidate has joined Gov. John Sununu of New York in launching a 
lobbying campaign on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.

The 19 groups include the Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Nevada-based 
Citizen Alert and New York’s Global Resource Action Center for 
the Environment. In the letter, they list numerous problems with 
the site as reasons Ferraro should withdraw her support. These 
include its placement above an acquifer, its vulnerability to 
terrorist attacks, and the public health and safety dangers of 
transporting waste to the site.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s lobbying 
association, is an influential association member of the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, which has long touted a pro-nuclear agenda. 
NEI and the Chamber are both on the Steering Committee of the 
Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. The nuclear energy 
industry has strongly supported the Yucca Mountain proposal and 
will benefit if it is approved. 

"Ms. Ferraro is a well-respected leader and we hope to convince 
her to examine the environmental and public health impacts of the 
ill-conceived Yucca Mountain project," said Lisa Gue, policy 
analyst for Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment 
Program. "These concerns should not be brushed aside by the 
narrow economic interests of the commercial nuclear industry."

Although widely viewed as opposites on the political spectrum, 
Ferraro and Sununu both sit on the board of advisors of 
Grassroots Enterprise, a political consulting firm. The former 
vice president of Grassroots Enterprise, Kyle McSlarrow, is now 
chief of staff for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and is 
working to gain support for the Bush administration’s pro-nuclear 
energy plan.

###
*****************************************************************
 47 Letter to The Honorable Geraldine Ferraro RE: support of the proposed 
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump

Public Citizen 

January 22, 2002

The Honorable Geraldine Ferraro 
President 
G&L Strategies 
Weber McGinn 
2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 610 
Arlington, VA 22201

Dear Ms. Ferraro:

We were extremely disappointed last November to see you appear 
alongside Gov. John Sununu to launch a lobbying campaign in 
support of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump on 
behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Alliance for 
Energy and Economic Growth. As national, New York-based, and 
Nevada-based environmental, public interest, and consumer 
advocacy organizations, we respectfully urge you to reconsider 
your position and resign as spokesperson for this misdirected 
campaign.

Studies conducted at Yucca Mountain demonstrate that the site is 
unsuitable for a geologic repository that is, it could not 
contain nuclear waste throughout its dangerous lifetime. The U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) has revised its repository siting 
guidelines (10 CFR 960/963) to avoid disqualifying the site on 
this basis and has shifted to a reliance on "engineered 
barriers," or storage canisters, to contain the waste s 
radioactivity. It is very difficult to accurately predict, on the 
basis of such very limited experience, the performance of these 
storage canisters over the hundreds of thousands of years that 
high-level nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive. 
However, given the intense heat and radioactivity that that 
nuclear waste emits, coupled with the potential for earthquakes 
and volcanism at Yucca Mountain, it is only a question of when 
not if these storage canisters would fail.

If radioactivity did leak from the proposed repository into the 
aquifer beneath Yucca Mountain, it could quickly contaminate the 
surrounding environment and the only source of drinking water for 
area residents. You say that as a mother and a grandmother you 
are sensitive to the legacies we leave our children. Residents of 
Nevada are deeply concerned about the legacy of contamination 
that the proposed repository would leave future generations. 
Sharing their concern, we find unacceptable an energy policy that 
relies on sacrifice zones and an "out of sight, out of mind" 
approach to the nuclear waste problem.

In your November 15th statement, you claimed that following the 
tragic events of September 11th, the long-controversial nuclear 
waste debate has suddenly become "clear-cut." In fact, September 
11th did nothing to resolve the numerous outstanding technical, 
environmental, and policy issues that plague the Yucca Mountain 
Project. To the contrary, the repository proposal is exposed as 
reckless and irresponsible in light of the new terrorist threat. 
Repository design proposals feature massive, exposed surface 
facilities, which would establish a larger, highly vulnerable, 
and potentially more devastating target for attack nearby the 
major population center of Las Vegas. Meanwhile, stored waste 
would remain onsite at operating reactors across the country, 
since the proposed repository could not contain all the waste 
that U.S. reactors will generate during their licensed lifetimes.

Furthermore, transporting high-level radioactive waste to Yucca 
Mountain would threaten the health and safety of people all 
across the country. Routing projections indicate that Yucca 
Mountain shipments could pass through as many as 45 states, 
within half a mile of 50 million Americans. A severe 
transportation accident or terrorist attack could have 
catastrophic environmental and health consequences and result in 
billions of dollars in damages, especially since emergency 
response personnel along the roads and railways may lack the 
capacity to respond effectively to a nuclear incident.

Like you, we see the need for a long-term strategy for nuclear 
waste management that will safely isolate this deadly substance 
from people and the environment. However, this need does not 
obviate the glaring deficiencies in the repository proposal. We 
hope you will reconsider your position on this matter and join us 
in opposing the Yucca Mountain Project.

Sincerely,

Wenonah Hauter 
Director, 
Public Citizen s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

Also on behalf of:
National Groups
Sara Zdeb 
Friends of the Earth 
Washingon, DC
Jim Riccio 
Greenpeace 
Washington, DC
Kevin Kamps 
Nuclear Information & Resource Service 
Washington, DC
Martin Butcher 
Physicians for Social Responsibility 
Washington, DC
Alex Veitch 
Sierra Club 
Washington, DC
Chris Sherry 
Safe Energy Communication Council 
Washington, DC
Pierre Sadik 
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) 
Washington, DC
Susan Shaer 
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) 
Arlington, MA
Nevada Groups
Kalynda Tilges 
Citizen Alert 
Las Vegas, Nevada
Sally Light 
Nevada Desert Experience 
Las Vegas, NV
Judy Treichel 
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 
Las Vegas, NV
Corbin Harney 
Shundahai Network 
Pahrump NV
New York Groups
Deb Katz 
Citizen Awareness Network New York 
New York, NY
Gary Michael 
Cortland County Nuclear Free Zone 
Cortland County, NY
Alice Slater 
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 
New York, NY
Susan Peterson Gateley 
Lakeshore Environmental Action 
Wolcott, NY
Maryna Harrison 
New York City Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) 
New York, NY
Margaret A. Flanagan 
Pax Christi Metro New York 
New York, NY

*****************************************************************
 48 Editorial: Finally, Movement On Yucca

ctnow.com: EDITORIALS
       
January 22, 2002 

If Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has his way, the nuclear 
storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will finally open 
for business. President Bush and Congress should support him so 
that the nation can have a secure, central repository for spent 
nuclear fuel. 

Mr. Abraham's sensible recommendation is based on a recent study 
showing the Nevada location is safe and uniquely suited for 
warehousing radioactive waste.

More than $7 billion has been spent studying this project. The 
facility was built but never opened because of local opposition. 
The Clinton administration wimped out on moving ahead with Yucca 
Mountain. Nobody in the country wants a nuclear-waste site next 
door, but this site is remote and stable. 

Nuclear waste - some 77,000 tons of it - is currently stored 
temporarily in casks at 103 commercial reactors and various 
industrial and military sites around the nation, including in 
Connecticut. This is no way to dispose of dangerous material that 
will remain radioactive for 10,000 years. Scattered storage sites 
offer too many targets of opportunity for terrorists.

Even if approval is given this year, the Yucca Mountain site 
won't open until 2010 because more work must be done to make room 
for all the waste the nation's reactors will generate.

Let's finally get going. 

ctnow.com is Copyright © 2002 by The Hartford Courant

*****************************************************************
 49 Suicidal Nuclear Threat Is Seen at Weapons Plants
       
January 23, 2002

NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                   
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — Since the suicidal terrorist attacks of 
Sept. 11, some experts on nuclear security are increasingly 
concerned that intruders could break into American weapons 
plants, assemble a nuclear bomb from materials there and explode 
it on the spot. 

Critics of security procedures at Energy Department weapons 
plants say intruders might use conventional explosives to blow up 
nuclear waste or uranium or plutonium, sending radioactive 
materials into areas nearby, or they might try to create an 
actual nuclear bomb. Building a high-yield nuclear weapon 
requires substantial skill with metal-working and explosives, but 
starting a chain reaction is relatively easy. Government bomb 
builders have accidentally done it several times over the years. 
With some training, terrorists might produce a chain reaction 
using uranium in a way that created a substantial explosion, some 
experts say.

Ron Timm, a former Energy Department security official, said that 
in some cases assembling a bomb could be done without explosives, 
by bringing uranium parts together manually. "Flying a 757, or a 
767, is a lot more sophisticated than what we're discussing 
here," he said.

Mr. Timm is a co-author of a report issued in October by the 
Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, that traces a 
history of security problems at the weapons plants.

The report recommends consolidating nuclear materials now held at 
10 sites and putting security for the materials under the 
direction of an independent oversight agency instead of the 
Department of Energy. A scientist not associated with the report, 
Frank N. von Hippel, who is a physicist and a professor of public 
and international affairs at Princeton, said in a telephone 
interview that a 100-pound mass of uranium dropped on a second 
100-pound mass, from a height of about 6 feet, could produce a 
blast of 5 to 10 kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb, which used 
uranium, was 12 to 17 kilotons.

Even a blast of only one kiloton, he said, would destroy an area 
of about one square mile. But finding the right amounts of 
uranium could still be a challenge, he said.

Nuclear fuel is stored in a wide variety of buildings, and 
previous security reviews have found that some of it is 
vulnerable to theft. Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of 
Massachusetts and a longtime critic of the Energy Department, 
plans to raise the issue on Wednesday in a news conference where 
several current and former Energy Department workers will 
describe security lapses.

In a letter to the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, which Mr. 
Markey said he would send on Wednesday, he argues that suicidal 
terrorists could try "rapidly propelling two masses of 
weapons-grade plutonium or uranium towards one another to create 
a critical mass," by using conventional explosives.

That is how the Hiroshima bomb, was detonated, experts point out. 
Scientists said that a plutonium bomb could be built with a much 
smaller quantity of material than a uranium bomb, but that it 
would probably begin a chain reaction before the parts could be 
moved into position, resulting in a nuclear blast that would not 
be very powerful.

The first plutonium bombs, tested at the Trinity Site in New 
Mexico and then used at Nagasaki, had elaborate arrangements of 
explosives to squeeze the mass together and hold it there long 
enough for the chain reaction to become sufficiently established.

Mr. Markey's letter cites cases in which nuclear weapons 
laboratories and manufacturing plants have failed security drills 
conducted by Navy Seals and other commandos playing the part of 
terrorists. For example, in a drill at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory in 1997, the "terrorists" used a garden cart to steal 
enough weapons-grade uranium for numerous nuclear weapons, a 
report cited by Mr. Markey says.

But John A. Gordon, a retired Air Force general who is under 
secretary of energy for national security, expressed confidence 
in security.

"After Sept. 11, we've put the folks on higher alert and they're 
working very aggressively," he said. "I think a D.O.E. weapons 
site is one of the last places a terrorist would think about 
attacking and having hopes of success; the security basically 
bristles." General Gordon said "attackers" sometimes prevailed in 
security drills because "sometimes we run them to failure." 

"We want to find out where the system would break down, and we 
run stuff that is guaranteed to lose in the end," he said. "After 
each one of them, we strengthen security." 

The Energy Department has been concerned since at least 1991 
about the possibility of terrorists using its materials to build 
a bomb on site, but Mr. Timm and others questioned whether 
suicidal terrorists were a likely threat.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 50 US Customs chief raises nuke threat on containers

USA: January 21, 2002

WASHINGTON - The head of the U.S. Customs Service, in announcing 
a new security initiative, raised the specter of a nuclear bomb 
being shipped to and detonated in a United States seaport. 

"Of greater concern are the possibilities that international 
terrorists such as al Qaeda could smuggle a crude nuclear device 
in one of the more than 50,000 (shipping) containers that arrive 
in the U.S. each day. One can only imagine the devastation of a 
small nuclear explosion at one of our seaports," said Customs 
Commissioner Robert Bonner in a speech prepared for delivery at 
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington 
think tank. Bonner raised the concern in announcing a new 
container security initiative intended to enable officials to 
have more data on what's in international shipping containers and 
enhance the ability of the United States to stop suspicious 
containers before they arrive at an American seaport.

"First and foremost, we concentrate our efforts on the 
'mega-ports' of the world - the largest container ports - and 
specifically those ports that send the highest volumes of 
container traffic into the United States," Bonner said.

Bonner said the top 10 international ports account for almost 
half of all the container traffic coming into the United States. 
One idea, he said, is to have the latest X-ray machines and 
radiation detectors at foreign "mega-ports" to catch worrisome 
containers on the outbound trip.

He said the idea of delivering a nuclear device by container to 
the United States was "by no means far-fetched" and said Italian 
authorities in October had found an al Qaeda operative bound for 
Canada in a container outfitted with a bed and bathroom.

Aside from the human toll, Bonner also said a nuclear attack via 
a shipping container would also exact a huge cost economically. 
"The detonation of a nuclear device smuggled by way of a sea 
container would have a far greater impact upon global trade and 
the global economy. Even a two-week shutdown of global sea 
container traffic would be devastating, costing billions," he 
said. 

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE 
 
*****************************************************************
 51 Kursk sinking 'not collision'

BBC News | EUROPE | 

22 January, 2002,

[The conning tower of the sunken Kursk is winched from the ocean]       

There was no evidence of a collision or another vessel

By the BBC's Russian Affairs analyst Stephen Dalziel The Russian 
authorities have acknowledged for the first time that the sinking 
of the nuclear submarine, the Kursk, was not caused by a 
collision with a foreign vessel. Shortly after the Kursk exploded 
and sank in August 2000, the Russian Navy put forward the theory 
that the explosion of a torpedo on board may have been brought 
about by the Kursk being struck by a foreign submarine. 
	 		 			
[Relatives at a memorial for victims of the Kursk disaster] 

It is hoped the cause of the tragedy will be revealed fully this 
year
 		 		 		  
But the Deputy Prime Minister, Ilya Klebanov, who has led the 
investigation from the start, has now said that experts who have 
examined the wreck of the Kursk have ruled this out. 

The collision theory was dismissed from the start by Western 
experts. They asked how a small foreign submarine could have 
collided with the Kursk - the world's largest submarine - and 
sailed away unscathed. 

Russian inefficiencies 

There was no evidence of a collision on any other vessel that 
might have been in the area at the time. The most likely 
explanation was that the Russian Navy were looking for an excuse 
to cover up their own inefficiencies or errors. 
	 		 			
[Kursk victim's funeral] 
All 118 sailors on board perished in the tragedy
 		 		 		  
Mr Klebanov has now effectively admitted that that was the case. 
In an interview with the Russian news agency, Interfax, Mr 
Klebanov said that an examination of fragments of the hull showed 
that no collision took place. He says that the accident was 
instead the result of the deterioration of the Russian armed 
forces throughout the 1990s. Mr Klebanov added that he hoped that 
the exact cause of the accident would be known later this year. 

Deadly fireball 

The most likely theory is that a torpedo exploded whilst being 
loaded into its firing chamber. 

This explosion set off a chain reaction in other torpedoes, which 
ripped open the bow of the vessel and sent a deadly fireball 
through the Kursk. 

The submarine sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea, and all 118 
perished. Most of the wreck was brought to the surface last 
autumn. But the damaged nose remains on the sea bed, and may not 
be recovered until later this year.               

*****************************************************************
 52 Asia's Nuclear Pandora's Box
 
Jan. 17, 2002. Page 9 

 By Pavel Felgenhauer 

When in 1998 India and Pakistan carried out a series of nuclear 
tests and officially became nuclear powers, some analysts argued 
that this could be a blessing in disguise. Nuclear weapons 
prevented the Cold War from turning into an all-out war between 
the Soviet Union and the United States -- they opined -- so why 
shouldn't the same nuclear deterrence work in the Indian 
subcontinent?
 
During the Cold War, some military planners in Moscow and in 
Washington contended that nuclear bombs were just a more powerful 
weapon, that they did not change the essence of war and that one 
could "win" in a nuclear conflict just as in any other. 
Nonetheless in the military hierarchies of the superpowers, the 
prevailing wisdom was that limited nuclear confrontations would 
inevitably turn into all-out global nuclear conflict, which in 
turn would lead to universal destruction. Nuclear deterrence 
certainly worked, but is deterrence an intrinsic property of 
nuclear weapons?
 
During the Cold War right up to the 1980s the leaders of the 
Soviet Union truly believed that communism would prevail, that 
capitalism was doomed and that there was no need to go ballistic 
and risk everything: better to wait and to deter the imperialist 
aggressors until they collapsed of their own accord.
 
The leaders of the free world in Washington, in turn, believed 
that communism was doomed, so they were also hesitant to use 
their overwhelming nuclear superiority in the 1950s and 1960s and 
allowed the Soviet Union to catch up and establish strategic 
parity.
 
Cold War government documents and interviews with Cold War 
decision makers reveal that both East and West were mostly 
enforcing strategic defense and seeking military balance rather 
than military superiority. If one side became disproportionately 
strong in one field or regional theater of conflict, the other 
did its best to compensate and reach equilibrium instead of 
pressing ahead in a field where it was stronger at the time.
 
Nuclear deterrence helped to stabilize the confrontation and keep 
it cold, but it was not the only factor and maybe not even the 
determining factor. Both sides believed they would eventually win 
without actually fighting, and so they did not fight. Today's 
situation in the Indian subcontinent is totally different.
 
India is much stronger than Pakistan militarily -- its army is 
almost twice as large and is equipped with more modern weapons. 
India has a relatively large navy with 10 Russian-made Kilo 
submarines and an operational British-made aircraft carrier. 
Pakistan does not have a navy worthy of the name.
 
India could blockade Pakistan's major port, Karachi, and 
destabilize its fragile economy in several weeks. India could 
also go on the offensive in Kashmir and other border areas, and 
in the end the Pakistan would be defeated.
 
India's leaders do not seem much afraid of the conflict going 
nuclear. If a conventionally defeated Pakistan uses its limited 
reserve of low-yield uranium bombs, India would surely respond 
with its numerically superior and more sophisticated 
plutonium-core weapons, conclusively destroying the enemy.
 
In 1971, the Indian army helped East Bengal gain independence 
from Pakistan and become Bangladesh. Now the rest of Pakistan 
could be broken up into several tribal states, dominated by 
Delhi. India would also want to capture the enemy-controlled part 
of Kashmir and sever the strategic road link-up between Pakistan 
and China. It is believed in Delhi that with the demise of 
Pakistan, separatist movements in Kashmir and Punjab would cease.
 
Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf obviously is afraid 
of war with India and has tried to pacify Delhi by arresting 
Muslim militants. But Pakistan -- an unruly conglomerate of 
tribes -- was established as a homeland for Indian Muslims when 
British rule collapsed. Pakistan and its army simply cannot 
abandon the Muslims in Kashmir that have been fighting the Indian 
security forces since the 1940s, as without the struggle in 
Kashmir and aggressive anti-Indian Islamism, there is nothing 
much to keep Pakistan united.
 
It's not inevitable but very probable that both sides in the 
Indian subcontinent will eventually use nuclear weapons. The 
result could be disastrous because of the population density and 
total lack of serious civil defenses. But the worst possible 
outcome may be success. 

If India is seen to "win" by using nukes, then nuclear missiles 
may be increasingly considered a usable weapon worldwide and no 
longer as just a deterrent.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.
 
[http://www.moscowtimes.ru
*****************************************************************
 53 Nuclear Arms Plants' Security Lax, Report Says 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
Mock 'Commandos' Were Able to Beat Safeguards at U.S. Facilities 
About Half of the Time 

By Eric Pianin and Bill Miller
 Washington Post Staff Writers
 Wednesday, January 23, 2002; Page A15 

Terrorist commandos could gain access to weapons-grade nuclear 
material and rapidly construct and detonate nuclear weapons 
because of grossly inadequate security at many of the nation's 
nuclear weapons research facilities, a Democratic member of the 
House has warned in a letter to the Energy Department.
 
The letter from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) is based on 
internal Energy Department documents and a 2001 study by a 
watchdog group that shows that federal agents posing as 
"commandos" in mock exercises were able to breach security at 
nuclear laboratories more than half the time.
 
For example, in a test at the Rocky Flats nuclear production 
facility in Denver, Navy SEALs successfully "stole" enough 
material to make several nuclear weapons. And in a test at the 
Los Alamos facility near Santa Fe, the "terrorists" had enough 
time to construct an improvised nuclear device.
 
In most cases, officials at the facilities were notified well in 
advance of the mock attacks and yet security forces were unable 
to thwart many of the assaults.
 
Critics of security precautions say terrorists also could use the 
nuclear material to fashion "dirty bombs," conventional 
explosives used to spread radioactive contamination over a wide 
area.
 
"Experts have told me that a group of suicidal terrorists could, 
once inside the facility, quickly build and detonate a dirty bomb 
or a homemade nuclear bomb capable of achieving explosive 
critical yield," Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, said yesterday. "DOE has been ignoring expert 
critical reports on security of its facilities for decades, and 
as a result we are all at risk."
 
Markey's criticisms were based on a study last year by the 
Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a watchdog group that 
unearthed government documents highlighting security problems at 
10 major nuclear weapons complexes. He also cited research by his 
own staff. Dozens of government studies have pointed to similar 
problems.
 
John A. Gordon, an undersecretary of energy and the administrator 
of the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, 
said the POGO report raised serious concerns but that "much of it 
is old data."
 
"The idea that a terrorist could get particularly close to a 
weapons site is a bit far-fetched" because security forces are 
adequate and well-trained, said Gordon, a retired Air Force 
general. He said the success of intruders in the drills does not 
mean the facilities are easy targets, because the exercises are 
designed to test the limits of security measures, which are then 
upgraded.
 
Gordon said security precautions are strong at the sites and 
along the network used to transport nuclear materials, and the 
precautions are continually reviewed. "It's something we take 
very seriously," he said.
 
Markey's 23-page letter, which he is scheduled to release today 
at a news conference, cites numerous security problems in the 
storage and transportation of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium 
at four of the 10 major nuclear facilities: Lawrence Livermore, 
in California's San Francisco Bay Area; Los Alamos in New Mexico; 
Rocky Flats; and Oak Ridge, near Knoxville, Tenn. Markey and Sen. 
Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), among others, are pressing for 
legislation to require federal guards at all nuclear weapons labs 
and nuclear power plants.
 
The U.S. nuclear weapons facilities managed by the Energy 
Department hold weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium in sufficient quantities to create nuclear devices. Many 
are near major metropolitan areas.
 
Some of the facilities, built for the Manhattan Project, which 
created the first nuclear weapons in the 1940s, are in poor 
physical shape, which adds to the security problems.
 
DOE routinely tests the sites' security by conducting simulated 
and mock "force-on-force" exercises, often using military 
personnel to play the part of adversaries. The government 
requires that security forces at these sites be able to defend 
against theft of nuclear materials or radiological sabotage by a 
few terrorists using surprise, readily available weapons and 
explosives. The facilities must also guard against theft of 
nuclear secrets.
 
According to the POGO study, however, mock terrorists, during a 
drill at Los Alamos in October 2000, gained control of nuclear 
materials that, if detonated, would have endangered significant 
parts of New Mexico, Colorado and downwind areas. In an earlier 
test at the same location, an Army Special Forces team was able 
to "steal" enough weapons-grade uranium for numerous nuclear 
weapons and was able to carry the extremely heavy material with 
the use of a Home Depot garden cart.
 
Markey, POGO officials and numerous government whistle-blowers 
complain that Energy Department officials have long played down 
or ignored security problems at these facilities. They say the 
Sept. 11 attacks, which involved sophisticated plots, should be a 
wake-up call for the government.
 
Markey's letter notes that the security guidelines for the 
nuclear weapons research facilities do not address the 
possibility of suicide attacks by large numbers of terrorists 
with sophisticated knowledge of the laboratories and help from 
the inside.
 
"Our concern is there is a complete disconnect between the 
real-world vulnerabilities that exist at these sites and the 
Department of Energy's response," said Danielle Brian, executive 
director of POGO.
 
Mark Graf, a security official at Rocky Flats who temporarily 
lost his job after complaining about conditions, said yesterday 
that "DOE has failed to address these issues and retaliated 
against people who have raised them.
 
"My greatest concern is of the improvised nuclear device," he 
said. "Imagine, if you will, a small nuclear explosion surrounded 
by tons of nuclear material and waste."
 
Ronald E. Timm, president of a Chicago-based security firm that 
held a DOE contract to analyze security safeguards, said 
yesterday that his reviews found serious deficiencies at Rocky 
Flats and Los Alamos as well as vulnerabilities in the way 
nuclear materials were transported to the facilities.
 
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 54 Gibbons Holds First Meeting of Nevada Homeland Security Advisory 
Board

Gibbons (NV02) - Press Release - 

January 22, 2002   
      
Gibbons Holds First Meeting of Nevada Homeland Security Advisory 
Board Members Call for Better Federal Coordination

  Washington, D.C.—  As Vice-Chairman of the House Intelligence 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, U.S. Congressman 
Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) today held the first meeting of the Nevada 
Homeland Security Advisory Board, created last month to serve as 
a liaison between Nevada and the federal government on domestic 
security issues.  The board unites state officials, law 
enforcement officers, fire chiefs, resource managers, and health 
care representatives to serve as an advisory group on the needs 
of Nevada to ensure the safety and security of the state’s 
residents. 

“In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, there is a 
need for a cooperative effort to do our best in protecting out 
homeland,” stated Gibbons. 

“Today’s meeting allowed us the opportunity to discuss the most 
pressing issues facing Nevada’s first responders and state 
officials, including the need for better communication, training, 
and equipment.” 

“As Vice-Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security, I am in a unique position to effectively 
address these issues,” remarked Gibbons.  “Congress continues to 
deliberate on how to ensure homeland security, and I plan to seek 
additional funding for the critical needs of our local 
communities.  We need to provide the necessary resources to 
ensure everyone can meet the new challenges which the threat of 
terrorism presents.” 
z Nevada’s first responders specifically noted the need for a 
common vocabulary among federal agencies to describe alerts and 
levels of threat.  The Advisory Board also called for better 
coordination among federal agencies with regard to security 
issues overall.  Jim Kane of Southwest Gas said, “We don’t know 
what ‘heightened security’ is.  We don’t know who (among federal 
agencies) is in charge.  There has got to be information coming 
from one place.” 
  
“Washington does not always know best,” Gibbons added.  “When 
dealing with domestic security issues, our communities have found 
difficulty in communicating with various federal agencies.  These 
problems must be addressed in order to ensure the health and 
safety of Nevadans” 

Gibbons asked numerous Nevadan officials to serve on the new 
board in order to ensure every facet of the Silver State’s 
infrastructure and economy is represented.  Members of the board 
who attended today’s meeting in Reno or participated via 
teleconference included:  

Jim Lopey, Assistant Washoe County Sheriff  
Jerry Keller, Las Vegas Metro Police Department Sheriff  
Larry Farr, Reno Fire Marshall  
Frank Siracusa, State of Nevada Division of Emergency Management Chief  
LCOL Cindy Kirkland, Executive Service Staff Officer  
Richard Kirkland, Department of Public Safety Director  
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada State Attorney General  
Walter Higgins III, Chairman, President, & CEO of Sierra Pacific Resources  
Jim Kane, Executive Vice-President of Operations of Southwest Gas  
Richard Wimmer, Las Vegas Water District  
Malyn Malquist, General Manager, Truckee Meadows Water District  
Krys Bart, Executive Director, Washoe County Airport Authority  
Margaret McMillan, Director of Government Affairs of Sprint  
Tonya Drake, Nevada Bell  
Marcia Holmberg, University Medical Center 
Jim Miller, Washoe Medical Health System  

The Nevada Homeland Security Advisory Board will meet 
periodically throughout the year to discuss domestic security 
issues as they affect Nevada and to promote better communication 
between local communities and the federal government. 
    
###
*****************************************************************
 55 Statement of Gen. John Gordon (Ret. U.S.A.F.) Administrator of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration and Under Secretary 
of Energy Security at Nuclear Weapons Facilities 

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: January 23, 2002 

WASHINGTON, DC - Administrator John Gordon released the following 
statement regarding security at the Department of Energy's 
nuclear weapons facilities: "As the Administrator of the NNSA, I 
am responsible to the Secretary of Energy and the American people 
for the security of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. I have 
assessed the security conditions at our sites many times and I 
personally reviewed our posture immediately following the 
terrorist attacks in September. Allegations that the Department 
of Energy has lax security at its nuclear weapons facilities are 
false and misleading. Charges that there is a fifty percent 
failure rate in our security tests are simply untrue. 

While we welcome serious inquiries into the Department's security 
practices, it is unfortunate that some try to create a climate of 
fear grossly disproportionate to the risks to the public. Such 
unfounded allegations are a disservice to the communities that 
are home to our national defense facilities. 

There is no question that DOE takes security seriously as a 
critical part of our mission. The strong group of professionals 
who protect our sites are a source of pride and it is grossly 
unfair to characterize individuals or the system as uncaring or 
ignoring problems. Other federal agencies look to the DOE's force 
as a model for effective practices, and in fact DOE regularly 
trains other federal security organizations. 

As is often the case in "reports" such as the one from POGO, the 
use of outdated data contributes to misleading conclusions. In 
the mid 1990s, when budgets were severely cut and security was 
progressively degraded, there was a higher level of risk. Now we 
aggressively protect our people, facilities, and material, and we 
display a formidable security posture to potential attackers.

Our forces are well-trained and well-equipped. They are tested by 
outside challengers, often to failure - so we know where 
weaknesses are. Then we fix the problem. 

The physics of creating a bomb has been well understood by the 
DOE for a long time. That is why we have security and operational 
measures in place to provide a high level of assurance that these 
materials remain safe and secure. Nuclear material is not at risk 
at Department of Energy facilities." 

(Additional information on this topic is available by calling the 
Department of Energy's Office of Public Affairs 202/586-4940 or 
www.energy.gov

[http://www.energy.gov] ) Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 
202/586-4940 Lisa Cutler, 202/586-7371 Release No. PR-02-008 

*****************************************************************
 56 New Zealand and America to discuss nuclear tests

    Radio Australia News - 

New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, says she expects to 
discuss the possibility of renewed US nuclear testing with 
President George W. Bush when they meet in Washington in March.

The meeting ... at the White House on March 26 ... is the first 
formal visit between a serving president and a Labour prime 
minister of New Zealand since 1975.

Links between Washington and Wellington became strained in the 
1980's when the Labor government of David Lange (longee), 
declared New Zealand nuclear-free.

The Associated Press news agency quotes Mrs Clark as telling 
reporters she was bound to raise the issue of nuclear testing 
with President Bush because it was something New Zealand felt 
very strongly about.

Earlier this month the White House said Mr Bush had not ruled out 
resuming nuclear testing to ensure the US nuclear weapons 
stockpile remained reliable and safe while it was being reduced.
 
23/01/2002 8:33:18 PM | ABC Radio Australia News
*****************************************************************
 57 Rocky Flats to ship plutonium

Rocky Mountain News: Local

Energy Department gives green light for radioactive shipments to 
South Carolina site

By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will announce this morning that 
Rocky Flats can start shipping plutonium to South Carolina, a 
milestone in cleaning up the defunct nuclear weapons plant. 

The decision to begin shipments comes afer months of wrangling 
between Abraham and South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges. The governor 
is seeking assurances that the radioactive material eventually 
will be sent to a permanent repository in another state. 

Under the plan to be announced this morning, the plutonium will 
go to the Energy Department's Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina, where it it will be turned into nuclear reactor fuel. 
The fuel will be used in the U.S. and abroad. Hodges' spokeswoman 
Tuesday said that the governor -- who once threatened to lie down 
in front of any trucks carrying plutonium from Colorado -- has 
not signed off on the plan. 

"The governor has said the devil is in the details," said Cortney 
Owings, Hodges's spokeswoman. "He believes this is a big step in 
the right direction." Hodges will want to see a "time line" of 
how long the plutonium will be in South Carolina, Owings said. 

But a senior administration official said of the nuclear fuel 
plan, "We assume this takes care of the issues." 

"This is the policy of the administration, this is what's going 
to be announced," the official said. 

Converting the plutonium from Rocky Flats and other weapons 
plants to nuclear fuel at Savannah River will pump $3.6 billion 
into the South Carolina economy. But the economic benefits were 
not held out to Hodges as a "sweetener," the official said. 

The energy department must give Hodges 30 days' notice before 
shipments begin. The notice will go out "in relatively short 
order," the administration official said. 

Abraham briefed U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard Tuesday on plans to begin 
the shipments. "It is good news -- it's great news," Allard said. 

"He assured me he was going to be able to put money in the budget 
. . . to get these facilities built," Allard said of his 
conversation with Abraham. 

He said Abraham is committed to the goal of closing the plant by 
Dec. 15, 2006. Rocky Flats manufactured nuclear weapons from 1954 
until 1989, when it was closed amid a controversy over pollution. 
It was never re-opened because the Cold War ended. 

All completed weapons were removed from the plant two years ago. 
The material going to South Carolina is the stockpile of 
plutonium, the radioactive material at the heart of the nuclear 
weapons. 

The plutonium shipments were scheduled to begin in October, but 
that plan was put on hold after Hodges issued his threat. 

John Corsi, a spokesman for Kaiser-Hill Co., the firm conducting 
the Rocky Flats cleanup, called Abraham's policy "good news." He 
said company officials had not yet been told of the policty. 

Kaiser-Hill wants all the plutonium out of Colorado by the end of 
this year in order to complete demolition by 2006. 

Kaiser-Hill wants to begin shipments by spring. 

January 23, 2002  

  2002 © The E.W. Scripps Co. More Top Homes About Top Homes   
*****************************************************************
 58 Grand Junction DOE Workers OK'd for Payments

The Salt Lake Tribune -- 

Tuesday, January 22, 2002   



   The U.S. Department of Energy's Grand Junction office reports 
that people who worked in the office and contracted certain 
work-related illnesses now qualify for payments of $150,000 under 
the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. 



    Since 1942, the offices have housed the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy and Research 
Development Administration and the DOE. For more information 
about filing a claim, call, 866-888-3322. Information also is 
available online at www.dol.gov. 
    

  © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on 
Utah OnLine is
*****************************************************************
 59 Y-12 given approval for warheads work
 
Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 12:21 p.m. on Wednesday, January 23, 2002

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

John Mitchell, president of BWXT Y-12, confirmed this morning 
that the company has been given the OK to begin dismantling W56 
nuclear warheads at the Y-12 National Security Complex.

 The BWXT chief said some of the warheads are stored at Y-12, 
while others will be shipped to the facility at a later date.

 In a Jan. 16 letter, Bill Brumley, head of the Oak Ridge 
National Nuclear Security Administration office, authorized BWXT 
to begin the disassembly work in Building 9204-2E. The NNSA is 
the quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy that 
oversees the nuclear weapons complex.

 BWXT was criticized earlier this month by the NNSA for not 
accomplishing any dismantling work during its first year on the 
job. The company officially took over as Y-12's manager in 
November 2000.

 Mitchell said this morning that BWXT had spent more than six 
months preparing and remedying problems associated with the work. 
He said that work was finished around the time the NNSA 
performance report was issued.

 Even without accomplishing any of the warhead work, BWXT earned 
$16 million from the Department of Energy for its first 11 months 
as Y-12's manager. On top of that, the performance review gave 
the company "good" ratings in most all other areas.

 BWXT Y-12 -- an alliance between Bechtel National Inc. and BWX 
Technologies Inc. -- beat out three other entities in 2000 for 
the five-year, $2.5 billion contract to manage and operate Y-12.

 Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or 
pparson@oakridger.com.

[pparson@oakridger.com.] 
*****************************************************************
 60 McAnally no longer heading K-25 project
 
Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 12:22 p.m. on Wednesday, January 23, 2002

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

BNFL Inc. has restructured one of its major operations, thus 
implementing a significant management change for the company's 
three-building cleanup project at the Oak Ridge K-25 site.

 Effective Feb. 12, James McAnally will no longer oversee the 
K-25 project. That duty will belong to John Christian, who 
incidentally replaced McAnally last May as president of 
Manufacturing Sciences Corp., an Oak Ridge-based subsidiary of 
BNFL.

 In a press release, BNFL attributed the management change to a 
restructuring of its commercial and government decommissioning 
and decontamination operations into one single function.

 McAnally, who took over as general manager of the K-25 project 
in 1999, will reportedly continue to assist BNFL as a part-time 
consultant while pursuing other business and professional 
interests.

 DOE and BNFL Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, 
signed a $238 million, six-year contract in 1997 to decontaminate 
and decommission three buildings at K-25: K-33, which totals 2.8 
million square feet; K-29, 586,880 square feet; and K-31, 1.4 
million square feet. K-25 was formerly used to separate 
uranium-235 from uranium-238 through a gaseous diffusion process.

 Since that contract was signed, BNFL has encountered a couple of 
troublesome situations. Most recently, DOE forced BNFL to briefly 
halt work involving fissile material, or uranium, because of 
deficiencies in several key safety documents pertaining to K-25.

 Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or  
[pparson@oakridger.com] .

          [http://www.oakridger.com/contact/index.html] 


All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 61 Secretary Abraham Announces Administration Plan to Proceed with 
Plutonium Disposition &Reduce Proliferation Concerns Says Plan 
Will "Enhance National Security &Advance Nonproliferation Goals" 

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: January 23, 2002    

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham 
announced today that the Department of Energy and the Bush 
Administration will dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons 
grade plutonium by turning the material into mixed oxide fuel 
(MOX) for use in nuclear reactors. The decision follows an 
exhaustive Administration review of non-proliferation programs, 
including alternative technologies to dispose of surplus 
plutonium to meet the non-proliferation goals agreed to by the 
United States and Russia. 

"Today's announcement is central to enhancing our national 
security and advancing our nonproliferation goals," Secretary 
Abraham said. "This path forward is a workable, technologically 
possible, and affordable solution, that meets our commitments to 
environmental improvement, energy and national security, and the 
nuclear nonproliferation policies agreed to by the United States 
and Russia." 

In September 2000, the United States and Russia signed the 
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement committing each 
country to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium. 

The decision on plutonium disposition comes after a thorough 
reexamination of more than 40 disposition alternatives that 
considered costs, workable technologies, national defense 
requirements, and compliance with nuclear non-proliferation 
agreements directed by the Department in cooperation with the 
National Security Council and the Department of State. The 
program has been under review since early last year. 

Previously, the government endorsed a dual-track approach to 
dispose of the plutonium including turning some of the material 
into MOX reactor fuel and immobilizing the remaining plutonium in 
self-protecting radioactive glass logs for long-term storage. 
Eliminating immobilization from the disposition pathway saves 
nearly $2 billion in funding, decreases plutonium storage costs, 
and facilitates the closure of the Department's former Nuclear 
Weapons Complex sites. 

"There is an increased urgency to move forward with the 
elimination of surplus weapons grade material like plutonium," 
Abraham said. "Focusing on proven technologies to eliminate this 
material, reducing costs in the process, and keeping our 
commitment to national security and the clean-up of former 
weapons sites is the right path to follow," Abraham said, noting 
that European countries have used MOX fuel in their reactors for 
over 20 years. 

The MOX conversion process is expected to cost $3.8 billion over 
20 years, including the construction of two new conversion 
facilities at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in 
South Carolina, including disassembly and fuel fabrication 
facilities. Construction of the facilities, set to begin in 
Fiscal Year 2004, will create on average 500 new jobs and 
operation of the facilities will result in approximately 800 new 
jobs. 

The Department of State and the Department of Energy's National 
Nuclear Security Administration will work with their counterparts 
in Russia to achieve the disposition of Russian surplus plutonium 
through the MOX process. Bilateral cooperation and inspections 
will ensure progress.                                

Media Contact:  Joe Davis, 202-586-4940 Release No. PR-02-007 

*****************************************************************
 62 Workers undergo tests to determine radiation contamination 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 12:34 p.m. on Wednesday, January 23, 2002

by Doug Simpson 
Associated Press Writer 

Workers exposed to "significant radiation" while conducting 
radiography tests at a southwest Louisiana oil refinery were 
examined Tuesday for any health problems caused by the 
contamination, state officials said.

 Few details were released about Friday's accident at a Citgo 
refinery in Westlake, near Lake Charles, as officials declined to 
say how many workers were contaminated or how much radiation was 
involved.

 Tests were conducted at Waterford nuclear power plant at Taft to 
determine whether they had breathed in contamination, said Jim 
Friloux, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental 
Quality.

 "It was significant radiation. What we know about the 
contamination now is that several workers were determined to have 
contaminated shoes. One had contamination on his hand," he said.

 The workers' skin was cleansed immediately after the accident to 
remove any external contamination, Friloux said.

 The accident was the second radioactive leak in Louisiana in a 
month. A package of radioactive iridium-192 was found to be 
leaking after it arrived at the New Orleans airport on Dec. 28, 
after being sent by truck from Memphis.

 Studsvik, the Swedish company that manufactured the iridium 
pellets in that shipment, is developing a plan to safely open the 
container and determine why it leaked.

 Friday's accident occurred as workers were using iridium-192 to 
conduct industrial radiography: testing the integrity of welding 
in large steel cylinders at the refinery. The iridium was inside 
a protective capsule at the end of a long cable-like device, Jim 
Friloux said.

 The capsule somehow came in contact with an electrical circuit, 
causing it to rupture and leak the radioactive material, Friloux 
said.

 "It was a very freak accident," he said.

 DEQ and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission are 
investigating.

 The workers were employees of Gretna-based Owensby &Kritikos, 
Inc., hired by Citgo to inspect the cylinder, called a vessel. 
Officials at the company declined to comment on the accident or 
provide details about the vessel.

 Officials at Tulsa, Okla.-based Citgo did not return calls for 
comment Tuesday.

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 63 U.S. Attorney's office closes case of Los Alamos lab's hard 
drives that went missing 

By Associated Press, 1/23/2002 06:22 

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) The case of the disappearance of two hard 
drives containing top-secret nuclear information from Los Alamos 
National Laboratory has been closed, an assistant U.S. attorney 
said. 

Sasha Siemel said Tuesday that no one will be charged in the case 
and that most of the investigative activity stopped several 
months ago. ''The case was thoroughly investigated and resulted 
in no charges to date,'' Siemel said. 

The hard drives were discovered missing from a vault in the lab's 
top-secret X Division as a wildfire moved onto lab property in 
May 2000. The fire led to the evacuation of the lab and 
surrounding community. 

The drives were nowhere to be found when workers were able to 
re-enter the vault. Weeks later, they were discovered behind a 
copy machine in a location that had previously been searched. 

The computer drives contain specifications that could be used to 
disarm a nuclear weapon in case of an accident or terrorist 
threat. 

The FBI had five main suspects and dozens of scientists were 
questioned and called before a grand jury. In January 2001, 
then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said investigators had 
found no evidence of espionage. 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************