***************************************************************** 06/24/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.160 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Quake threat dims uranium plant's future 2 Scotland: Who is putting Scotland on the global radioactive scraphea 3 US: Radiation recovery funding sought 4 US: Good NH nuke news: But nationally, that energy is threatened 5 US: Nuclear plant owners spent $1 million+ in lobbying last year NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 The Australian: Senate may demand reactor report 7 US: A supplemental inspection is expected to 8 US: Greens seek Senate support for reactor document release. NUCLEAR SAFETY 9 US: Radiation Fears Spur Sales of Iodide Pills 10 US: Corps rejects flyover 11 US: Cancer threat from old x-ray equipment 12 US: Residents near nuclear plants will get pills only if needed NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 13 US: Here’s looking at Yucca, kid 14 US: Go slow on Yucca Mountain 15 US: Radioactive waste rule stirs debate 16 US: Letter: Never give inch on Yucca dump 17 US: NRC extends comment period on draft plan 18 US: Post: Delay vote on Yucca dump 19 US: Yucca foes gain new support 20 US: South Carolina Losing Fight Against Nuke Shipments 21 US: USA's radioactive materials dangerously vulnerable 22 US: Weigh station may notice plutonium first 23 US: Nuclear waste may pass through area 06/23/02 24 US: Plan would send material through Santa Rosa, Escambia 25 US: Yucca Mountain unsafe NUCLEAR WEAPONS 26 Japan, Marshall Islanders team up to build memorial on Bikini 27 The Pasko case 28 US: CBS Poll: 25% Back Preemptive U.S. Nuke Strike US DEPT. OF ENERGY 29 Breathing Room - Good week for USEC workers 30 Energy Secretary Abraham Announces Private-Public Partnership to OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Quake threat dims uranium plant's future Daily news from Louisville, Kentucky and Southern Indiana from courier-journal.com Monday, June 24, 2002 Quake threat dims uranium plant's future Experts say Ohio site has edge over Paducah By James Malone jmalone@courier-journal.com [jmalone@courier-journal.com] The Courier-Journal PADUCAH, Ky. -- As Western Kentucky and Ohio vie to become home to a new $1 billion uranium plant, the threat of an earthquake near Paducah may be the deciding factor. The new plant, using centrifuge technology to process uranium into nuclear reactor fuel, could replace the 50-year-old Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in about 10 years. The Paducah site, which employs 1,400, and a facility about an hour north of Portsmouth, Ohio, are being considered for the new plant. Experts say it would be costly to build the plant in Western Kentucky and shore up its infrastructure against potential damage from the nearby New Madrid fault seismic zone. One expert put the total at an extra $100 million to build the project in an earthquake zone. ''The seismic issue will be significant,'' said nuclear consultant John Longenecker of California, who formerly managed the United States Enrichment Corp., the Paducah plant's operator, when it was government-owned. ''We're talking about 40-foot-tall precision machines that are balanced with weights the size of a postage stamp.'' In gaseous diffusion plants, uranium is mixed with fluorine, heated and turned into a gas. Huge compressors and a series of filters separate uranium 235, which is used in reactors, from the more common and nearly benign form of natural uranium. In a centrifuge plant the uranium is separated by centrifugal force. As world uranium prices have fallen, United States Enrichment Corp. has been forced to turn to a more efficient technology to process the fuel. Last week, the company and the Department of Energy signed an agreement under which USEC will adopt centrifuge technology within a decade to replace gaseous diffusion and will operate the older Paducah facility into 2011 if it is financially feasible. The Paducah plant and its related consulting and environmental cleanup contractors have an economic impact second only to Fort Campbell in Western Kentucky. With overtime, senior hourly workers can earn more than $60,000 a year. United States Enrichment Corp.'s competitors in the global reactor fuel market already use the more efficient centrifuge technology, while United States Enrichment Corp. is saddled with the Cold War-era Paducah plant to produce about 40 percent of the uranium it sells. The balance comes from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads purchased under an agreement with the federal government. The Paducah plant requires as much electricity as a small state to run its giant compressors and filters. The centrifuge process will use 10 percent of the electricity that gaseous diffusion requires. United States Enrichment Corp. hopes to make a decision by the end of the year on where to build a demonstration plant to show potential investors, said spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. The company expects both states to mount a vigorous effort to get the project. ''It's a pretty standard process,'' she said. ''We're going to let the states compete.'' In Ohio, that competition is well under way. Robert D. Huff, director of the Southern Ohio Growth Partnership, said federal state and local officials ''are united as one'' in their efforts to win the USEC centrifuge facility. Ohio also has another factor working its favor -- an existing building designed to house a centrifuge plant. The government spent an estimated $3 billion over two decades developing the newer technology at an existing gaseous diffusion plant near Piketon before it abruptly canceled the plans 15 years ago and sold the equipment as surplus. But the buildings and some infrastructure remain. Huff predicts Ohio will offer a competitive incentive package, a big selling point of which will be those existing buildings. Industry observers agree the existing facility, along with Kentucky's earthquake potential, probably give Ohio an early edge in efforts to land the plant, which will employ 600. However, Paducah Mayor Bill Paxton said while Kentucky may be lagging behind Ohio's efforts, things are now starting to move ahead. ''Ohio is working awfully hard,'' Paxton said. ''. . . But we are now getting Frankfort's attention, and I think the state is on board.'' Paxton said United States Enrichment Corp. officials have told him the earthquake issue will add extra costs to a Kentucky site, but he doesn't think the problem is insurmountable. The last major earthquakes along the New Madrid fault were 190 years ago. Smaller quakes hit the region periodically, including a 5.0 magnitude one last week that caused little or no damage. However, the fault is considered by experts to be the most earthquake-prone area east of the Rocky Mountains. State Sen. Bob Jackson of Murray said he is skeptical of the fault's impact on Kentucky's chances of getting the plant. ''If it was just the threat of earthquakes, then California would be barren,'' Jackson said. ''We will have to roll up our sleeves and do whatever it takes to preserve the high-paying jobs in Kentucky. It's critically important.'' In California, safety and design expert Paul Smith, who also has studied the seismic risks at the Paducah plant, said all nuclear power plants in his state are designed to withstand earthquakes. ''There's no mystery and no magic to it,'' Smith said. ''Any good engineer knows how to do it.'' There are extra costs but in some cases, especially starting from a new building, those expenses could be minimal, Smith said. ''Well-designed buildings can do well in an earthquake is what we have learned,'' he said. United States Enrichment Corp. and the government already have faced seismic upgrade costs at Paducah. The company spent $72 million from 1996 to 2000 to make the existing plant's two largest process buildings more earthquake-resistant. Then, last year, the Department of Energy railed at Kentucky environmental regulators for placing a permit condition at a landfill at the plant requiring the government ''to completely re-evaluate . . . all seismic risks'' in the New Madrid fault zone. Richard Miller, a lawyer and former policy analyst for the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union that represents Paducah workers, said any incentive package offered by Kentucky would have to overcome earthquake concerns. ''At the end of the day, the question is: What will the differential be?'' he said. Longenecker, the former United States Enrichment Corp. manager and deputy assistant energy secretary who managed uranium enrichment, said such risks also could rattle potential investors. ''We're talking about machines that must operate for 15 to 20 years without shutting down to get your money back. Any seismic event would destabilize the machine or possibly ruin it. It's a very substantial cost to do the seismic hardening,'' he said. Since the United States Enrichment Corp. centrifuge is still in the early design stage, estimating the cost of a seismic upgrade is speculative. But it would be significant, geologists and engineers agree. ''It could be tens of millions of dollars,'' said Ed Woolery, a seismic expert at the University of Kentucky with the Kentucky Geological Survey. Woolery said the Ohio site also has potential, albeit smaller, seismic issues. The epicenter of a 1980 earthquake near Sharpsburg, Ky., that caused millions of dollars in damage was much closer to the Piketon plant than to Paducah. A 10 percent premium on construction and development costs is a widely used figure for major construction within an earthquake zone, said Woolery. Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 2 Scotland: Who is putting Scotland on the global radioactive scrapheap? Scotland on Sunday - Top Stories - http://www.scotlandonsunday.com Sunday, 23rd June 2002 Who is putting Scotland on the global radioactive scrapheap? JEREMY WATSON jwatson@scotlandonsunday.com TONNES of dangerous radioactive scrap metal is being imported into Scotland every year by dealers who have been duped by international fraudsters. Investigators fear some of the contaminated metal could have found its way into consumer goods or building materials, threatening human health. According to official figures, as many as 10 consignments of radioactive scrap are being intercepted in the UK every year. Two 20-tonne loads from Singapore and Egypt are currently impounded in a secure warehouse in Scotland. But with no radiation monitors at British ports, it is feared that dozens more loads could be passing into the country unnoticed. Chris Englefield, a senior official from the Environment Agency who chairs the UK/Interpol group on environmental crimes involving radioactive substances, believes the number of known cases is just the tip of the iceberg. "The scale of the trade is likely to be much greater than detections indicate and it is a concern," he said. He said he was in "no doubt" that radioactive scrap metal could have "got through the net". It is believed the illegal trade is being organised by East European gangs who take radioactive metals from the former Soviet Union to a third country. The metals are given new customs papers that make no mention of the metal’s radioactive content. They are then sold to British and other European scrap metal dealers. The two shipments known to have reached Scotland arrived by cargo vessel. Last year, a Geiger counter at Ireland Alloys, in Blantyre, which imports high-grade scrap for recycling into aircraft parts, was triggered by the arrival of a 20-tonne load from Singapore. The company immediately notified the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), which impounded the load in a secure warehouse at the Eurofreight terminal at Coatbridge. The load of aerospace scrap had arrived at the port of Felixstowe after being shipped from Donald McCarthy Trading Ltd, a specialist metals dealer in Singapore. It was transported by train to Coatbridge and then by lorry to Blantyre. Sepa officials discovered the parts had been coated in thorium, a radioactive substance which is used to harden metals. McCarthy Trading told Sepa that it was unaware the load was radioactive. But a spokesman for Ireland Alloys said: "It seems incredible to me that this material could have got into Singapore, out of Singapore and into the docks in Britain. "It was sourced from a big international company and supposed to have been checked for radioactivity before it left Singapore. Yet it got all the way here to a little company in Lanarkshire." The Egyptian consignment arrived from the Arab Metals Company in Cairo and was again only detected once it reached the gates of a second, unnamed metals reclamation yard. It contained radiation-contaminated parts from the oil industry. Both loads are now at the centre of international negotiations involving Sepa and the Foreign Office to have them returned to their country of origin. But no shipping company has been willing to transport the hazardous cargo. "We have agreement to send it back," said Jim Gemmell, of Sepa’s radioactive substances team. "After all these inter-agency negotiations, however, no shipper or haulier will agree to carry it because technically it is radioactive waste." Gemmell said that although two loads had been discovered, it was possible that other shipments of this kind of material had evaded detection. "There is just no way of knowing." If the loads had been melted down and turned into goods, they could have caused long-term damage to human health. In Taiwan, radioactive steel pipes and fittings were installed in an apartment block containing 1,600 flats, causing increased levels of cancers, congenital disorders and genetic damage among the inhabitants. Two years ago, the giant supermarket chain Carrefour had to recall 4,500 "Trophy" watches with straps contaminated with Cobalt 60 that it had inadvertently put on sale. The UK National Radiological Protection Board issued an alert saying it feared some Britons may have bought them on cross-Channel shopping trips. An NRPB spokesman said: "They were made with contaminated scrap, which can happen easily considering how sloppy some countries are with their radioactive material." And according to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities group, which represents Scotland’s major councils, the problem is going to get worse as more and more radioactive material is exported from the former Soviet Union. "There is likely to be an increase in radioactively contaminated metals and other radioactive sources entering the scrap supply chain," said secretary Stewart Kemp. "Depleted uranium, small sealed radioactive sources and metals contaminated through use in nuclear industries are increasingly escaping regulatory control and finding their way into the metals recycling industry. "This is potentially hazardous to workers, the public and the environment. "There are a number of ways in which this material has found its way into consumer goods and if you had some contaminated metal in your kitchen, for example, then you could be exposed over a long period of time," said Kemp. "You may only be receiving extremely small doses but the effects are cumulative." But British ports still have no radiation detectors that could identify radioactive cargoes as soon as they land on British soil. The British Metals Recycling Association said action was urgently needed. "The government was talking about putting radiation detectors in ports after September 11 and we are very disappointed that nothing seems to have come from that," said Director General David Hulse. "One of the problems seems to be that no one wants to pick up the tab for the business disruption that occurs if they find anything." A spokeswoman for the Home Office said a trial of monitoring equipment was due to start this summer but she could not comment further on grounds of national security. ***************************************************************** 3 Radiation recovery funding sought PittsburghLIVE.com Sunday, June 30, 2002 [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review] By [cosher@tribweb.com] TRIBUNE-REVIEW Monday, June 24, 2002 Legislation is developing in Congress to restore funding to the federal agency in charge of recovering orphaned, industrial radioactive-laden devices. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Sunday that there are so few controls on tracking low-level radioactive waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no idea how much is generated annually in the nation. In addition, federal officials say they need more resources to recover discarded equipment containing radioactive material that could be fashioned into a so-called "dirty bomb." The issue of tracking low-level radioactive waste has grown more prominent following the recent arrest of a terrorist suspect accused of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack against the United States. Funding for the Off-Site Source Recovery Project within the Department of Energy has slipped from a high of $7.7 million two years ago to just under $3 million this year. The program is targeted for further cuts, down to $2.2 million, for next year. The staffs of at least two Democratic senators, Joseph Biden of Delaware and Charles Schumer of New York, are gearing up to draft legislation aimed at restoring the funding cuts. It was unclear whether the senators would combine forces or work separately. Democrats hold a slim majority in the U.S. Senate. Joel Lubenau, of Lititz, Lancaster County, a former assistant to two commissioners for the nuclear regulatory agency, said he was advising Peter Zimmerman, the chief scientist for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden is chairman of that committee. "If they don't restore the money, the program will be stopped cold come October," Lubenau said. Schumer's office announced in a written statement June 16 he would work to increase funding, although he did not specify to what amount. Congressional staffers said it was unclear what funding would be restored, but initial estimates ranged to boosting the program to beyond $5 million annually. Future increases in funding might be in the offing, too, and funding could eventually jump as high as $10 million annually, those staffers said. Officials with the Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Laboratory say they need more money if they are going to succeed at disposing of all the unwanted devices with deadly radioactive material inside awaiting disposal. Industry no longer has a need for some devices, but the radioactive material inside the equipment is too potent for disposal at commercial sites. By law, the federal government is required to recover and dispose of the material. The program has a backlog of more than 5,300 reported sources scattered throughout the nation in garages, back yards and warehouses awaiting disposal. Officials are concerned that terrorists could use some of the devices to craft a "dirty bomb" in urban neighborhoods, spurring panic. A so-called dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material. A terrorist would have to crack open the devices to obtain the radioactive material inside. Scientists with Los Alamos National Laboratory have determined that a terrorist could do so in many instances without receiving a lethal dose of radiation. The orphaned equipment includes thousands of devices used by the oil industry to map oil wells. Just one piece of that equipment contains enough radioactive americium to build a dirty bomb powerful enough to contaminate at least 60 city blocks beyond acceptable levels. The recovery program is run through the U.S. Department of Energy. Los Alamos National Laboratory provides the staff that recovers and disposes of the radioactive-laden equipment. Lubenau, who specialized in studying orphaned radioactive devices during his work with the NRC, said that the reported backlog vastly understates the problem. The federal government's data relies on industry to report problem cases voluntarily, Lubenau said. He added that the program restricts the type of devices to only a limited number of radioactive elements. Using data collected by European countries on abandoned radioactive devices, he estimates that the United States has about 50 million devices awaiting disposal. "One way to address the potential for radioactive sources for dirty bombs, or any other terrorist activity, is to get them off the street, so to speak, and this program is very good in that regard," Lubenau said. Chris Osher can be reached at [cosher@tribweb.com] or (412) 320-7910. Images and text copyright © 2002 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from [ekost@tribweb.com] ***************************************************************** 4 Good NH nuke news: But nationally, that energy is threatened Sunday, Jun. 30, 2002 Editorials - June 24, 2002 THERE IS GOOD NEWS and bad news on the nuclear power front for New Hampshire and the nation. The good news is that nuclear power continues to be reliable, efficient, and, in this state, is about to be purchased and operated by a company with excellent experience and safety ratings. The bad news is that Democrats in the U.S. Senate continue to block long-term nuclear waste storage in Nevada. Florida Power and Light’s national energy company has agreed to purchase a controlling interest in the Seabrook nuclear plant. FPL has an impressive track record and with the purchase of Seabrook it now owns and operates five nuclear plants nationally. Veterans of the New Hampshire construction fight may recall the name of Bill Derrickson, who came from FPL’s Port St. Lucie nuclear facility and helped Public Service of New Hampshire and its consortium partners finally get Seabrook finished. Despite the doom-and-gloom predictions and years of expensive delays (which ultimately helped drive Public Service into bankruptcy), Seabrook has run well and economically for years. That is why FPL decided to buy it for $836 million. Its chief of nuclear operations told The Union Leader last week that the plant is in a strong position to seek continued operations in 24 years, when its current license expires. Those concerned about nuclear safety threats in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may take comfort in U.S. Sen. Bob Graham’s strong endorsement of FPL’s safety procedures for its nuclear plants in the Sunshine State. Would that some of Graham’s Democratic colleagues in Washington would be as candid and realistic. It is preposterous in this vital and volatile time for America that a key component of our energy independence is threatened. That is what Democrats and their anti-nuke allies are doing with an attempt to delay and defeat a final vote on the use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a national storage facility for spent nuclear fuel rods. The latest red herring being dredged up is that it is unsafe to transport such waste across the country. That is nonsense, as nuclear waste from hospitals, laboratories, and government facilities is transported regularly. But, say the foes, Islamic terrorists will target the nuclear rod shipments. That is highly unlikely. What is much more likely is that America will be left vulnerable by a disruption of its foreign fuel supply. All the more reason to keep our nuclear plants capable of working for the long haul. Copyright © 2002 Union Leader Corp. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear plant owners spent $1 million+ in lobbying last year AP Wire | 06/24/2002 KR Washington Bureau Making sense of Washington and the world. Washington Bureau [http://www.krwashington.com] Posted on Mon, Jun. 24, 2002 FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The owners of Wisconsin's two active nuclear power plants spent more than $1 million in lobbying fees last year, some of which went to persuade Congress to store nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, an Associated Press review of lobbying records found. Madison-based Alliant Energy Corp., which co-owns the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, reported spending $560,000 in lobbying fees. Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Energy Corp., which owns the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, spent $480,000 in lobbying fees. The reports do not say how much the companies spent on specific issues. But Wisconsin Energy says less than 10 percent of its lobbying was on nuclear-related issues, while Alliant says less than 5 percent of its lobbying was spent on Yucca Mountain. Both plants are on the Lake Michigan shore, between Manitowoc and Kewaunee, and account for most of the 1,300 tons of nuclear waste stored in the state. Alliant's co-owner of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., reported spending less than $20,000 in lobbying last year. The U.S. House already has voted to override Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's April veto of the presidential selection of Yucca Mountain, paving the way for nuclear waste to be sent there. Democrats Tom Barrett and David Obey joined all four Wisconsin Republicans in voting for the override, while Democrats Tammy Baldwin and Jerry Kleczka voted no. Democrat Ron Kind missed the vote to attend President Bush's visit to La Crosse. The Senate is scheduled to take up the issue next month. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., supports Yucca Mountain as a site; Sen. Russ Feingold D-Wis., is undecided. The Department of Energy hopes to open the mountain for nuclear waste in 2010. "We're very supportive of Yucca Mountain," said Megan McCarthy, a spokeswoman for Wisconsin Energy. "We see it as a permanent solution. Our current space for waste is limited." Alliant spokesman Chris Schoenherr called the Yucca vote "a critical issue" for the company. He said nuclear energy provides 19.6 percent of Wisconsin's electricity. State environmental groups oppose the Yucca Mountain site, arguing that transporting the waste will endanger communities along the route. Earlier this year, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade warned the waste would likely be shipped by barge down Lake Michigan to Milwaukee, then shipped by rail to Nevada. The Energy Department has stressed that the routes have not been finalized. The Environmental Working Group said even if the Yucca site were filled to capacity in waste, active nuclear plants would still have to keep some waste on site. "That is not solving the waste problem," said Ken Cook, the group's president. Neither group reported lobbying activity on the issue last year. Besides lobbying, Alliant Energy and Wisconsin Energy also made strategic contributions to key lawmakers. Alliant's political action committee gave money to all nine members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation, and to three well-placed Energy and Commerce Committee members: chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La.; ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich.; and air quality subcommittee chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas. "We've always been supportive of legislators in our service territory," Schoenherr said. The PAC also gave money to GOP Senate candidate Norm Coleman, who is challenging Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn. Coleman is a strong supporter of the Yucca site; Wellstone is undecided. Wisconsin Energy's PAC, meanwhile, has made contributions to all Wisconsin House members except for Kind and Baldwin, who will be receiving contributions this year, said company treasurer Judy Job. The PAC also gave to Tauzin, Barton and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., the ranking member of the air quality subcommittee. The contributions are important, said Job, to get access to lawmakers. "It lets get you get some time in their office, or with their staff," she said. Wisconsin Energy also made soft money contributions to both parties. Soft money refers to large, unregulated donations, as opposed to PAC contributions, which are limited to $10,000 per election cycle. As of March 31, Wisconsin Energy had given just under $20,000 in soft money - $12,500 to Republicans, and $7,250 to Democrats. The PAC contributions, by contrast, went more to Democrats - $8,000 to $4,250. "Our intent is to balance out between Democrats and Republicans," Job said. --- On the Net: Alliant Energy Corp.: http://www.alliantenergy.com/index.php3 Wisconsin Energy Corp.: http://www.wisconsinenergy.com Environmental Working Group: http://www.mapscience.org Updated Sunday, Jun 30, 2002 Copyright ***************************************************************** 6 The Australian: Senate may demand reactor report [June 24, 2002] BREAKING NEWS This story is from our news.com.au network Source:AAP THE Senate might force the Government to release a report on an earthquake fault line beneath the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has said. Senator Brown said the Government was deliberately withholding the report into the fault line. The fault line was discovered last week during preliminary construction work on a new nuclear reactor on the site in southern Sydney. Argentinian company INVAP is to build the replacement reactor despite pleas from environmentalists, community groups and local councillors to block the plan. The existing reactor will be decommissioned once the new reactor starts work in 2005. Senator Brown said he would demand the Government release the report by the end of business on Wednesday. If not, he would ask the Senate to force the Government to hand over the report. "There's the report that says there is an earthquake fault line through the ground works, which are currently being prepared to put in a nuclear reactor into Australia's biggest city, and the Government's keeping the report secret," he told reporters. "We know that the fault line is there. All the Government is doing is raising fear." privacy © The Australian ***************************************************************** 7 A supplemental inspection is expected to start today at Cooper Nuclear Station. St. Joseph News-Press Sunday, June 30, 2002 By STEPHANIE ZEILSTRA stephaniez@npgco.com BROWNVILLE, Neb. — A supplemental inspection is expected to start today at Cooper Nuclear Station. A 13-member team with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct the inspection. The inspection is necessary because of flaws discovered at the plant during recent routine inspections, a regulatory commission official said. The inspection will be done in two phases. The first inspection, beginning today, is expected to take a week, and the second phase will begin July 15 and last two weeks. Elmo Collins, inspection team manager with the NRC, said this is only the second supplemental inspection conducted at a nuclear plant since commission regulations and procedures were changed two years ago. He said there are no immediate public health or safety concerns at this time, but this type of inspection is the most extensive used under NRC’s program. “At Cooper, the inspection is being done because there were a number of negative findings during routine evaluations,” Mr. Collins said. “Overall, previous inspections have shown us that Cooper hasn’t done well in several areas, and there have been significant weaknesses in assessing emergency situations.” The plant is operated by the Nebraska Public Power District. The inspection will check all areas of operation, allow the NRC to determine the extent of the regulatory problems and determine whether more agency actions are needed, Mr. Collins said. In a statement last week, U.S. Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., said he’s confident in the safety of the plant and believes it has a productive life ahead of it once proper management practices are implemented based on the inspection. A public meeting will be held the week of Aug. 19 to discuss the results. Portions ©2002, The News-Press, St. Joseph, Missouri ©1998-2002 1up! Software [http://www.going1up.com] , All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Greens seek Senate support for reactor document release. 24/6/2002. ABC News Online Monday, June 24, 2002. Posted: 14:41:38 (AEDT) Greens seek Senate support for reactor document release Greens Senator Bob Brown will ask the Senate to order the public release of a Government study into an earthquake fault line under the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, in Sydney's south. The nuclear safety agency is carrying out testing to determine whether the fault line will threaten the construction of a new reactor planned for the site. Senator Brown says the Senate has the power to demand the release of a preliminary study into the area's geology. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), AAP(International), APTN, Reuters, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time) ***************************************************************** 9 Radiation Fears Spur Sales of Iodide Pills (washingtonpost.com) Radiation Fears Spur Sales of Iodide Pills _____Related Articles_____ • Hanford Study: Releases Didn't Increase Thyroid Ills (The Washington Post, Jun 24, 2002) • Radiation Pill Distribution Will Expand (The Washington Post, Apr 11, 2002) • St. Mary's Distributes Radiation Pill Supply (The Washington Post, Apr 4, 2002) • Distribution Plan in Works For Counter-Radiation Pills (The Washington Post, Mar 24, 2002) • Md. Weighs Best Strategy for Worst Case (The Washington Post, Mar 23, 2002) • Health Departments to Oversee Distribution of Anti-Radiation Pills (The Washington Post, Feb 7, 2002) • Anti-Radiation Pill Distribution at Least a Month Away (The Washington Post, Jan 17, 2002) • Calvert Wants Pills in Case of Nuclear Emergency (The Washington Post, Jan 13, 2002) • Md. to Stock Radiation Pills For Power Plant Neighbors (The Washington Post, Jan 12, 2002) • First State Accepts Pills for Radiation (The Washington Post, Jan 11, 2002) • U.S. Says It Bought Radiation Drug (The Washington Post, Jan 3, 2002) • U.S. Lacks Stockpile of Special Drug (The Washington Post, Dec 31, 2001) • FDA Urges Pill to Combat Radiation (The Washington Post, Dec 11, 2001) By Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 24, 2002; Page A01 Until recently, potassium iodide, the preferred protection against radiation-induced thyroid cancer, had a modest following among nuclear reactor workers, survivalists and those preoccupied with the possible aftereffects of nuclear holocaust. But that was before Sept. 11, before anthrax, before India-Pakistan and before dirty bombs. Today, potassium iodide is all the rage -- something lots of people want in their medicine cabinets next to their supplies of Cipro to protect them against anthrax. At Anbex Inc., which has been making potassium iodide since the 1980s, sales have risen from a pre-Sept. 11 "few hundred" 14-pill packages a year to "tens of thousands of packages per month" in mid-June, Anbex President Alan Morris said. "Every time [Secretary of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld or [Office of Homeland Security Director Tom] Ridge gets on TV, there's a sales spike," added Troy Jones, of Nukepills.com, Anbex's online distributor. "Ridge just says the word 'nuclear,' and our phones start to ring." Potassium iodide, represented by the chemical symbol KI, is no magic bullet. It keeps the thyroid gland from absorbing radioactive iodine but does nothing to protect against any other radioactive isotope, let alone fend off the heat and blast effects of a nuclear explosion. Yet with July 4 just around the corner, business shows no signs of slowing down. "I expect orders to go right up to July 3," Jones said. "If something happens, people are thinking New York, and they're thinking D.C." In fact, both Nukepills.com and KI4U, another potassium iodide distributor, agree that the greater Washington region has become one of the country's hottest markets. "India-Pakistan was driving sales in May and earlier this month," said KI4U President Shane Connor. "Then came the dirty nuke, and now things are getting pretty crazy." Also maddening for both companies, however, is the reluctance of consumers to admit that reality has transformed a remedy once dismissed as the caprice of conspiracy theorists into an asset for family first-aid kits. "We've been selling to the federal government, to individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Baltimore and even the Eastern Shore, and to a lot of businesses around the Beltway," Jones said. "But they don't want anybody to know -- it's like they're buying adult accessories." One purchaser with no qualms is Jaci Longan, who spends much of her day driving long distances to visit prospective clients for the New York-based risk-management consulting firm Marsh & McLennan Cos. Two weeks ago she decided she needed some potassium iodide tablets. "Everything that went on with 9/11 and the dirty bomb scare freaked me out," Longan said in an interview from her home in Arnold, Md. "Who knows where I'm going to be, or which way the wind will be blowing?" Longan, 41, said she first began to think about nuclear radiation when she lived in Southern Maryland near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, but the dirty bomb scare prompted her to call Nukepills.com, where Jones "gave me an explanation of how it works, so I bought three packs." She put "one in my purse, one in my car and one in my house," she said. "I have a brother, and sisters, and 10 nieces and nephews who I wish would buy some, too." Potassium iodide is a relatively simple salt that takes advantage of the fact that every person's thyroid gland needs iodine and will take it from the first available source. If that source is radioactive material from a nuclear accident or explosion, or from a dirty bomb or nuclear waste, the victim is at risk of thyroid cancer. Children are especially vulnerable. But if a person's thyroid is already saturated with safe iodine from a pill, it will ignore the radioactive iodine, which will be harmlessly excreted. One 130-milligram tablet a day will do the job for an adult, less for a child. There are no significant side effects, and the pills can be bought without a prescription. If you can find them. The potassium iodide companies make the overwhelming majority of their sales online. One drugstore in the region is Familymeds Pharmacy in Prince Frederick, almost in the shadow of Calvert Cliffs. "We're working with our county health department, since they started offering the pills to anyone living within 10 miles of the reactor," said Philip Price, Familymeds' pharmacist and pharmacy manager. "I've actually sold more than I expected -- maybe 40 to 50 packs since April 25." The pills cost $13.95 a pack. The danger of iodine poisoning is no myth. Scientists blame it for at least 2,000 cases of thyroid cancer after the 1985 nuclear accident at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, and radioactive iodine is viewed as a palpable danger in the event of an accident at most nuclear power plants. But potassium iodide offers no protection against any other radioactive element. Dirty bombs would most likely spread isotopes of cesium, cobalt, strontium or americium, while the blast and heat effects of a nuclear explosion would eclipse the short-term dangers of the accompanying fallout. For years, the tablets' limited usefulness made them controversial. Some scientists worried that potassium iodide would be regarded as a cure-all for nuclear fallout. The nuclear power industry opposed public stockpiling, fearing that reactors would be seen as unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1998 suggested that states "consider potassium iodide as a supplement to evacuation and sheltering," NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said. This was a mild hardening of the NRC's long-held position that only emergency workers and people unable to escape from an emergency area needed a supply of tablets. In December 2001, the NRC bought 9 million tablets from Anbex and offered them to states so that anyone living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant could have two free pills, buying enough time either to get out of town or wait for the radiation danger to pass. At the same time, the federal Department of Health and Human Services bought 1.6 million pills for a stockpile to backstop the NRC's supply, triggering a brief debate about whether the pills should simply be distributed to everyone. The important thing, HHS said, was to be able to get pills in a timely fashion to where they were needed most. Gagner said the NRC has had requests from 14 of the 33 states with a reactor less than 10 miles away and has shipped 4.5 million tablets. Maryland has ordered pills, but Virginia has not. The District does not qualify. The NRC's lukewarm posture has not endeared the agency to potassium iodide's business community. Anbex's Morris said the company began selling potassium iodide after the 1979 near-nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, figuring that such a close call would provide a market for years to come. "But the NRC said it was unnecessary and gave a false sense of security," Morris said. "So none of the state governments bought it, because 'the Feds say it's no good.' We sold a few hundred packages per year." Morris noticed a first flicker of interest in the last quarter of 1999, when fears of possible terrorist attacks with the arrival of the new millennium resulted in $200,000 in new tablet orders, "but on January 2 the market went away," Morris said. Then came Sept. 11. "Within a week, people started talking about terrorism," Morris said, "and if the threat's real, then obviously a nuclear power plant is an attractive target." Sales "went from zero to 60 in a heartbeat," he continued, "and it continues to go up. January was a great month, February was better, and, halfway through June, we have already sold more than we sold in the entire month of May." All this has left the tiny companies that sell potassium iodide somewhat breathless. KI4U's Connor said the "family business" he founded in 1999 now has eight full-time employees and is in the process of recertifying more than 100,000 radiation meters and dosimeters it bought at auction from the government so it can resell them to emergency workers. Anbex's Morris answers his own phone in an office in Palm Harbor, Fla., and so does Jones, his distributor, in Mooresville, N.C. Asked what position he holds in Nukepills.com, Jones replied, "President, I guess." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 10 Corps rejects flyover The Hawk Eye Special: IAAP Saturday, June 22, 2002 [Unknown dangers at IAAP] n State, federal officials pledge to continue effort to have ammunition plant checked. By David Pitt The Associated Press A report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejects the idea of a low–level flyover to check for radioactive contamination at the 19,000–acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in southeast Iowa. That conclusion does not sit well with Iowan politicians who have argued for the flyover. "I will not rest until we get a survey of this site," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D–Iowa. "The communities around the plant, who have given so much in service there, deserve it." Harkin, Sen. Charles Grassley, R–Iowa, and Gov. Tom Vilsack have urged reluctant Army officials to conduct a flyover by aircraft equipped with sophisticated radiological detection gear to determine the extent of radioactive contamination. The Atomic Energy Commission assembled and later test–fired components of nuclear weapons at the plant from the late 1940s to the mid–1970s. Harkin said corps officials apparently looked at documents showing the work was done in some areas and they assume the remaining areas are clean. "I look at the large gaps in the historical record, and the report of undocumented activities, and say we need to find out," he said. Harkin wrote to President Bush earlier this month complaining about delays in issuing the report, which was held up by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The report was due Dec. 1, 2001. The report includes comments from the Iowa Department of Public Health, which disagrees with some of the findings and conclusions. "We continue to agree that a flyover is important to our efforts to ensure that the site is adequately cleaned up," said Kevin Teale, spokesman for the state health agency. Gov. Tom Vilsack also remains firm in demanding the flyover. "We will continue to press for more investigation so we have a better sense about how much radioactive contamination exists and the extent of the environmental damage and the potential health risks to people," said Ron Parker, Vilsack's spokesman. The corps report said the cost of a flyover would be about $500,000. "The flyover is probably not the best tool because some of the key areas related to the AEC activities would be unreachable," said Lou Dell'Orco, the corps' project manager. "You have power lines, water and trees there. It also doesn't detect anything not radiological and there areas in the plant that were used to store materials that could mask other areas." He said a flyover would not detect radioactive contaminants unless they are "sizable and located on the top of the ground." The report concludes that a walking or driving survey or gathering of subsurface samples also is unnecessary. "You have to remember some of these activities took place 50 years ago," he said. He said the corps supports a procedure that will carefully document activities involving the use of radioactive material, Dell'Orco said. That includes interviewing former workers and collecting historical documents. Congress will consider the report and determine whether the IAAP should be included in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, a federal program that pays for cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. Dell'Orco said the corps has recommended the IAAP inclusion in that program. The corps report acknowledges that nuclear weapons work at the IAAP involved radioactive materials, including depleted uranium, enriched uranium, plutonium, tritium, and polonium–210. It also acknowledges chemical contamination, including explosives and barium. The state comments also note evidence of cesium–137 and cobalt–60 on the site. "For too long, secrecy has reigned at IAAP and the welfare of the workers and the community has taken a back seat," Harkin said. "We need to find out what is there, and then clean it up. A site–wide survey for radioactive contamination is a necessary step." ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 ***************************************************************** 11 Cancer threat from old x-ray equipment BBC News | HEALTH | Monday, 24 June, 2002, 11:14 GMT 12:14 UK Modern x-ray equipment is safer Elderly x-ray machines have been linked with a higher rate of breast cancer among the staff who operated them. It is known that women exposed to high levels of radiation are more prone to developing breast cancer - but the effects of long-term, low-level exposure are not fully understood. Now, the latest report, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, seems to suggest that there is a risk. There is no evidence that single or even a sequence of x-rays poses any risk to the individual patients undergoing them. However, there have been worries that staff, although shielded from all but a tiny fraction of each individual x-ray, are exposed to a culmulatively much higher level by carrying out hundreds of procedures each week. Researchers from the US Food and Drug Administration looked at death rates among 70,000 women radiation technologists who began working between 1926 and 1982. More than double Those who started work before 1940 and 1949 were 2.5 times more likely to die from breast cancer than those who started after 1960. This is significant because prior to 1950, an x-ray technique called fluoroscopy and multifilm was used. This involved a higher level of exposure than more modern techniques. The findings were adjusted to take other possible factors into account, such as the age of the women at menopause and their family history of breast cancer. The risk of breast cancer death increased with the number of years working with the older technique, but not the number of years working with more modern equipment. Recommended level In the US, recommended exposures to radiation fell by a third between 1949 and 1958. The researchers wrote in their report: "Our finding - that breast cancer mortality was highest among technologists who first worked in the earlier calendar periods - probably reflects changing exposures over time." The UK government is currently investing millions to replace ageing radiotherapy and x-ray scanning machines. See also: 15 Jun 01 | Health Hospitals 'swamped' by X-ray requests 05 Jul 99 | Health Dental scanner could cut X-ray threat 22 Jan 01 | Health Worry over children's CT scans Internet links: Society and College of Radiographers [http://www.sor.org/] Journal of the National Cancer Institute [http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/] The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 12 Residents near nuclear plants will get pills only if needed The Miami Herald | 06/24/2002 | Posted on Mon, Jun. 24, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] PORT ST. LUCIE - (AP) -- State health officials say they don't plan to hand out thyroid cancer fighting pills to people living near nuclear plants unless there's a radiation release. Last month, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began offering potassium iodide pills to the 33 states with nuclear reactors. President Bush signed a bioterrorism bill earlier this month requiring the drug be available to residents living near nuclear plants. The state Department of Health has a stockpile of 784,000 of the pills, but says they won't be handed out unless there's danger of a release from one of Florida's three nuclear plants. About 95 percent of residents in St. Lucie County live within 10 miles of Florida Power &Light's nuclear plant near here. In addition to the St. Lucie plant, FPL has a plant at Turkey Point, south of Miami, and Florida Power Corp. has a plant at Crystal River on the Gulf Coast. Last week, New Jersey said it would give free potassium iodide pills to people who live or work within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. Officials in Westchester County, N.Y., also gave them out. Bill Passetti, chief of the Health Department's Bureau of Radiation Control, said giving out the pills in advance is inefficient. ''Predistribution has been tried in some other states in the past, and it hasn't been very successful because people move in and out of the areas, and you have to redistribute pills,'' Passetti said. ``Our plan is to stockpile it in strategic locations. That way, we keep control of the supply and monitor the shelf life.'' The pills offer only limited protection in the event of a radiation release. The medicine only prevents thyroid cancer by shielding the thyroid from radioactive iodine. It blocks no other type of radiation and no other part of the body. Still, some local officials are worried about whether there would be time to distribute the pills should a nuclear plant be a target of an attack, or have an accidental release. ''We're going to have to make a plan to give it to people quickly after a disaster, and that's going to be a tough nut to crack,'' said Tom Christopher, radiological emergency coordinator for St. Lucie County. ``I don't know how they're going to do it.'' Millions of people in Poland took the pills after the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident, and it helped stave off thyroid cancer in many instances, according to the FDA. Florida is one of 14 states that have accepted the free pills from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The chances of a nuclear attack or accident at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant are slim, FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott said. Residents can buy the pills themselves on the Internet and at some pharmacies. [http://www.knightridderdigital.com/press/index.html] Copyright ***************************************************************** 13 Here’s looking at Yucca, kid June 29, 2002 [online@rgj.com] SPECIAL TO THE RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 6/23/2002 10:01 pm It could happen today. Or maybe tomorrow. But someday, soon, the U.S. Senate will stage the most important vote in the history of the Yucca Mountain Project. What we saw last week is that as time goes by, the proponents of a nuclear waste dump here are willing to employ any tactics at their disposal, including pretending to act with the same nobility as when Bogie sacrificed for Ingrid on that tarmac 60 years ago. How incredible was it to hear Alaska’s Frank Murkowski, who when he was chairman of the Energy Committee did everything he could to accelerate Yucca Mountain, talk about how the original bill was passed 20 years ago to make it “fair” to Nevada. As if the phony veto given to the governor and the expedited procedures now underway that the 90-day clock is ticking were designed to make it fair. How can we ever thank the good senator from Alaska, who lusts after Yucca Mountain only slightly more than the Republicans do to drill for oil in the pristine environment that is Murkowski’s home state. With fairness like that, we don’t need unfairness. Then we had the pleasure to hear Murkowski and Idaho’s Larry Craig, another vociferous Yucca backer, patronize everyone by declaring how they respect the authority of the majority leader but intend to undermine that authority and back a so-called “motion to proceed” to the dump bill as soon as this week, but more likely right after the July 4 week recess. Granted, the ability to do so was encased in the 1982 act that began the path to Yucca Mountain and was supported by Democrats. But it was put in there for one reason and one reason only — to ensure that none of the usual Senate procedures could slow down the freight train once the president stoked the engine by designating Nevada. Fairness? What fairness? The only hope now is that Sen. Harry Reid can play on some of those beautiful friendships he has been developing since 1986 and others he has forged simply by virtue of being the majority whip. But that could be counterbalanced by the GOP senators listening to rookie John Ensign and then declaring, “Here’s looking at you, kid,” as they escort him out of their offices with a smile and no noble intentions. The only way to win now is not through some procedural magic — Harry Ensign and Majority Leader Tom Daschle have surrendered on that. It is for Reid especially to play on the comity that exists in the clubbiest of all clubs where these millionaires in America’s House of Lords rarely defy convention and tradition, knowing that it could happen to them someday, too. Indeed, the problems of a small state like Nevada may not amount to a hill of beans for most of the Gang of 535. But maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon, they will regret the decision they are about to make. Jon Ralston, who publishes The Ralston Report, works for Greenspun Media Group. He welcomes comments and questions. Write him at ralston@@vegas.com. Or call (702) 870-7997. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com] Newspaper. Use of this site signifies agreement to our terms of service (updated 08/01/2001). ***************************************************************** 14 Go slow on Yucca Mountain Denver Post.com editorial Sunday, June 23, 2002 - The U.S. Senate should not approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project unless the Department of Energy first answers some hard questions that the Bush administration has sidestepped. A federal law written more than 14 years ago says Congress must vote up or down on the proposed repository for atomic wastes in southwestern Nevada, but doesn't permit amendments. It seems likely some senator will offer such a proposal before mid-summer. However, forcing such a vote would be unwise. The existing statute would make Congress surrender too much power to the executive branch, including any realistic clout in overseeing, modifying or even stopping the project if critics' worst fears prove true. By contrast, a refusal to vote on the issue in the near term could prod the DOE into addressing lingering, serious concerns about the site - and put an embarrassing spotlight on the DOE's cheerleading for the $58 billion project. The biggest worry about Yucca Mountain's suitability to store nuclear wastes is whether the wastes would contaminate nearby groundwater, and thus affect human communities and wildlife, in just a few decades. A key scientific test now underway could help answer the question. But the DOE doesn't want to wait for the results. Instead, even as the crucial test was on-going, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham proclaimed that "science" had proven the project safe. The DOE also hasn't been entirely up front with Congress about how the Yucca Mountain plan mutated over the years, as scientists discovered new problems and political bosses ordered them to just ignore the issues or work around the potential show-stoppers. Originally, Yucca Mountain was thought to be geologically stable enough, and free from groundwater woes, to hold the wastes in a purely geological repository. However, groundwater concerns persisted, and the area remains geologically active. A small earthquake rattled the area this summer, and a similar temblor shook the vicinity in the mid-1990s. Today, the DOE envisions the Yucca Mountain repository as an engineered waste system, reliant on specialized metal drums to contain the wastes. Yet engineers disagree whether the drums can resist corrosion for long periods or could eventually leak. Proponents say that after spending more than a decade and billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain plan, it's time to just get on with the job. Their argument ignores the fact that, years ago, Congress stupidly decided not to consider any other alternative. The United States instead should look at an array of options, as nuclear-dependent France and other European countries have been doing. That process shouldn't be open-ended, because the nation does need to make a decision. But the solution should be driven by rational science, not political hype. --------------------------------- Editorials alone express The Denver Post's opinion. The members of The Post editorial board are William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher; Glenn Guzzo, editor; Sue O'Brien, editorial page editor; Bob Ewegen, deputy editorial page editor; Peter G. Chronis, Angela Cortez, Al Knight, Penelope Purdy and Billie Stanton, editorial writers; Mike Keefe, cartoonist; and Barbara Ellis and Peggy McKay, news editors. -------------------------------- All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose. Terms of use | Privacy policy ***************************************************************** 15 Radioactive waste rule stirs debate The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com -- Critics say a recently enacted state limit at former nuclear sites isn't tough enough. By Kevin Yamamura -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Monday, June 24, 2002 Environmentalists are demanding stricter rules on nuclear waste disposal because they say state health officials are exposing Californians to cancer-causing radiation. The ongoing debate focuses on a state Department of Health Services radiation limit imposed last year for former nuclear sites, such as research laboratories, that are undergoing cleanup efforts to become fit for businesses and homes. Critics assert that the health department's regulation enables dangerous radioactive material to enter unprotected landfills, increasing cancer risks to neighboring residents. They also worry that the limit allows redevelopment of land that could be unsafe. Department officials, however, say the guideline simply mirrors a 4-year-old federal standard and affords more protection than previous policies. A Sacramento Superior Court judge in April blocked the health department regulation, but state officials suggest they still have sufficient legal backing to implement the practice. In response, Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, is pursuing legislation that would ban any radioactive material from landfills and other public disposal facilities. She has also suggested stripping the health department of its radiological responsibilities. "I have serious concerns about the capability and the will of the Department of Health Services to protect the public, the people that I represent, from excess exposure to low-level radioactive waste," Romero said at a recent hearing. The Assembly environmental safety committee is scheduled this week to review Romero's bill, SB 1970. By banning any radioactive material from the state's 170 landfills, the measure would force landowners to dispose of such waste in licensed facilities, none of which are in California. Businesses and utilities are opposed to the measure, citing substantial shipping costs and a lack of need. Meanwhile, SB 2065 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would require more stringent tracking of low-level radioactive waste in California. A separate measure by Kuehl, SB 1444, would prohibit the sale of contaminated land unless all radioactive waste has been disposed of in a licensed facility. The bills also are scheduled for Assembly consideration this week. The state health department licenses hundreds of nuclear sites, including research laboratories, hospitals and power plants. To turn a former nuclear site into a business or residential community, a landowner must remove radioactive contaminants to a level deemed safe by the state. Under the process, called decommissioning, debris from approved sites can enter city landfills and metal recyclers without any oversight. The department last year set the acceptable level for decommissioning at 25 millirems per year, which mirrors a federal nuclear guideline. A millirem measures the biological effect of radiation in living tissue; a common chest X-ray produces 10 to 15 millirems. Environmentalists have objected to the state rule since it was proposed in 2000, charging that 25 millirems is equal to a cancer risk of 1 in 1,000 and thereby poses a serious danger to Californians. Daniel Hirsch, president of the anti-nuclear group Committee to Bridge the Gap, said the state weakened its protections when it moved to 25 millirems because the former standard was close to zero. His group's lawsuit prompted the April court ruling, which said the state did not follow the proper procedures before implementing its 25-millirem guideline. "The previous standard was that they should make a reasonable effort to eliminate contamination," Hirsch said. "That's why this is such a gross relaxation." But department officials maintain there was never a specific standard, and that the department used 100 millirems as a general practice until the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1997 established 25 millirems as a new safety guideline. "The idea of zero had never been in any law or any practice that I'm aware of in California or any other state," said Kevin Reilly, deputy director of prevention services for the health department. For now, the department has not determined how it will respond to the April court decision, Reilly said. While the department has not approved any site cleanups since the court ruling, Reilly said it has authority to continue using a 25-millirem standard because of the NRC agreement and a separate state law. While Reilly sees 25 millirems as stricter than past practice, Hirsch believes it is much weaker. "I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the (Davis) administration's announcement that despite the court's order, it's going to continue allowing radioactive waste in landfills," Hirsch said. The health department began using the NRC standard in 1998 before formally adopting it last year, Reilly said. California had to adopt a 25-millirem standard by 2001 as part of an agreement with the NRC, though it could have gone lower. The California debate mirrors an ongoing disagreement among federal regulators. While the NRC established 25 millirems in 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asserts the level should be 15 millirems. Hirsch and Romero question why state health officials chose the 25-millirem standard when the federal EPA had recommended otherwise. "It seems to me that DHS has adopted and continues to adopt the least protective standards," Romero said. Lawmakers may establish a new standard through legislation, which would involve a less lengthy process than having the department propose a new rule and conduct an environmental review. Health officials appear open to that possibility. "I want to assure you that we're committed to working with the Legislature to establish a standard lower than the 25-millirem NRC standard," DHS Director Diana Bonta told lawmakers at a June 6 hearing. ----------- About the Writer The Bee's Kevin Yamamura can be reached at (916) 326-5542 or kyamamura@sacbee.com [kyamamura@sacbee.com] . Copyright © The Sacramento Bee / ver. 4 ***************************************************************** 16 Letter: Never give inch on Yucca dump Las Vegas SUN June 24, 2002 The Las Vegas Sun has been about the only one willing to "get it on," like Mills Lane would say. Who else would have the fortitude of conviction to print myriad candid editorials, which chastise governors, senators and presidents, and letters to the editor that practically call out that the Energy Department's high-ranking officials support only special interests. Up until the trucks laden with the most deadly material ever known to man actually pull through Beatty and Tonopah going to Yucca Mountain, and bringing hell's fire with 'em, we all must never give an inch! There must never be any compromise and no talk now of accepting their money tokens for training and responsive measures. For that only shows us to be weak in their eyes. Make no mistake -- money for smokescreen programs like those is just pocket change to them. And the freedom that comes for all Americans in maintaining state sovereignty can never be bartered in such nickel and dimes, especially when there already is a better way to deal with nuclear waste than the 1957 technology of Yucca Mountain. Why even store it for 10,000 years if it can be permanently made benign cheaper? WILLIAM SIMMONS Salt Lake City All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 17 NRC extends comment period on draft plan Las Vegas SUN June 24, 2002 NRC extends comment period on draft plan The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended for another 45 days the period of time the public can comment on its Yucca Mountain review draft plan. The comment time was due to end on Thursday, but the commission received requests for an extension. The new deadline is Aug. 12, according to an announcement published Friday. The draft plan guides the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff on evaluating a potential license application for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Energy Department has said it plans to submit a proposed license application to the commission by December 2004. While written comments will be accepted by the NRC, no further public hearings are scheduled, the commission staff said in the notice. Even written comments received after Aug. 12 may be considered, the NRC notice said. The documents is "Yucca Mountain Review Plan, NUREG-1804, Revision 2, Draft Report for Comment." Written comments may be submitted to Michael T. Lesar, chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001. The draft plan is available on the Internet at www.nrc.gov. Go to the public involvement link, then the NRC Formal Publications link. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 Post: Delay vote on Yucca dump Las Vegas SUN June 24, 2002 Post: Delay vote on Yucca dump This is the Denver Post's editorial that ran Sunday. The U.S. Senate should not approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project unless the Department of Energy first answers some hard questions that the Bush administration has sidestepped. A federal law written more than 14 years ago says Congress must vote up or down on the proposed repository for atomic wastes in southwestern Nevada, but doesn't permit amendments. It seems likely some senator will offer such a proposal before mid-summer. However, forcing such a vote would be unwise. The existing statute would make Congress surrender too much power to the executive branch, including any realistic clout in overseeing, modifying or even stopping the project if critics' worst fears prove true. By contrast, a refusal to vote on the issue in the near term could prod the DOE into addressing lingering, serious concerns about the site -- and put an embarrassing spotlight on the DOE's cheerleading for the $58 billion project. The biggest worry about Yucca Mountain's suitability to store nuclear wastes is whether the wastes would contaminate nearby groundwater, and thus affect human communities and wildlife, in just a few decades. A key scientific test now under way could help answer the question. But the DOE doesn't want to wait for the results. Instead, even as the crucial test was ongoing, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham proclaimed that "science" had proven the project safe. The DOE also hasn't been entirely up front with Congress about how the Yucca Mountain plan mutated over the years, as scientists discovered new problems and political bosses ordered them to just ignore the issues or work around the potential show-stoppers. Originally, Yucca Mountain was thought to be geologically stable enough, and free from ground water woes, to hold the wastes in a purely geological repository. However, ground water concerns persisted, and the area remains geologically active. A small earthquake rattled the area this summer, and a similar temblor shook the vicinity in the mid-1990s. Today, the DOE envisions the Yucca Mountain repository as an engineered waste system, reliant on specialized metal drums to contain the wastes. Yet engineers disagree whether the drums can resist corrosion for long periods or could eventually leak. Proponents say that after spending more than a decade and billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain plan, it's time to just get on with the job. Their argument ignores the fact that, years ago, Congress stupidly decided not to consider any other alternative. The United States instead should look at an array of options, as nuclear-dependent France and other European countries have been doing. That process shouldn't be open-ended, because the nation does need to make a decision. But the solution should be driven by rational science, not political hype. All contents © 1996 - 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Yucca foes gain new support Las Vegas SUN June 24, 2002 Denver Post says Energy Department hasn't been 'upfront' about dumpsite By Benjamin Grove grove@lasvegassun.com LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- The Denver Post on Sunday became the largest daily newspaper to oppose Yucca Mountain, as newspapers continue to weigh in on the controversial project. With a final vote in the U.S. Senate pending in the next few weeks, opponents of the proposed nuclear waste repository hope editorials like the Post's make their case -- and influence readers and lawmakers. "Not only are people in the states reading the editorials, so are these senators," Tessa Hafen, spokeswoman of Sen. Harry Reid, said. "They pay attention to what the largest paper in the state is saying." In its editorial, the Denver Post, which has a Sunday circulation of 801,000, argued that scientific studies at Yucca should be completed before Congress approves the site, saying "the solution should be driven by rational science, not political hype." "The DOE also hasn't been entirely upfront with Congress about how the Yucca Mountain plan mutated over the years, as scientists discovered new problems and political bosses ordered them to just ignore the issues or work around the potential show-stoppers," the editorial says. Nevada officials have tried to make similar arguments and rally senators against the proposal by using personal pitches, TV ad campaigns and grass-roots organizing efforts. In addition, Nevada officials and environmental groups have lobbied editorial boards to sway public opinion nationwide against Yucca Mountain. The tactic is one direct way to grab the attention of lawmakers. Outside Nevada, the Post joins the St. Petersburg Times as the only large daily papers to oppose Yucca Mountain. So far, state officials have had little luck swaying many senators to their cause. Yucca Mountain proponents, including Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, say they have a majority of senators lined up to vote for the project. It's unclear what, if any, effect the Post editorial will have on senators preparing to vote on the nuclear waste dump project, but it demonstrates that serious doubts about the site have taken hold nationwide, Nevada senators said. "I think that what this shows is that (Yucca) is a national issue," Reid, D-Nev., said. Among those lobbying editorial boards are former National Transportation Board chairman Jim Hall, now a paid consultant for Nevada, who has made personal pitches to several newspapers. So has Ken Cook, president of Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which launched a website (mapscience.org) that allows users to pinpoint how close they live to a proposed nuclear waste transportation route. The site as of today had received 122,000 hits since it was launched June 11. "We are aggressively talking to editorial boards of every ideological bent to point out the inconsistencies in what the government has been telling the news media," said Mike Casey, Environmental Working Group spokesman. The Denver Post editorial urges the Senate to defy federal law and delay a vote on Yucca. The delay would "prod the DOE into addressing lingering, serious concerns about the site -- and put an embarrassing spotlight on the DOE's cheerleading for the $58 billion project," the newspaper said. "The editorial lays out the arguments very clearly against Yucca Mountain," said Traci Scott, spokeswoman of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "Anything like this will help us." Ensign has been trying to convince his fellow Republican senators to vote against Yucca Mountain, or at least support the Nevada senators in an attempt to block a Yucca vote with procedural maneuvering. Ensign has only one GOP ally: Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who has long been opposed to Yucca. A call to the office of Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., was not returned today. Colorado has been split in the debate. The state has nuclear waste and residents have made arguments for getting rid of it. But others, such as Campbell, argue that transporting nuclear waste over the Rockies is dangerous. Campbell also believes there is a moral issue involved in dumping waste in another state. The Post in the past has examined transportation, but in its Sunday editorial attacked the way the federal government came to the decision on Yucca Mountain. In contrast, a number of leading U.S. newspapers have taken pro-Yucca stances, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Portland Oregonian, Seattle Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Detroit Free Press and Detroit News, and Boston Herald also support Yucca. "In the end, even though no one really wants the spent nuclear fuel storage facility around, it has to be somewhere, and the House was right to say to the Nevadans that, due to their topography, demographics and experience in nuclear matters, they get it," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said in a May 18 editorial. The Senate should follow suit, the newspaper said. "The editorial positions of major newspapers in the country are overwhelmingly in favor of Yucca Mountain," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the top industry trade group. The St. Petersburg Times said the project poses a potential risk to Las Vegas and millions who live along transportation routes. "Congress would be more responsible to reject the repository for now until the DOE has studied the project more thoroughly and assured the nation of its safety," Florida's largest newspaper said in a May 2 editorial. Florida has five reactors where waste is stored on-site. Related stories: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2002/jun/24/513 623564.html] 24 June 11:14:33 All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 South Carolina Losing Fight Against Nuke Shipments By Cat Lazaroff RICHMOND, Virginia, June 21, 2002 (ENS) - A federal appeals court has denied South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges' request to bar plutonium shipments from other states, dealing another blow to the state's suit against plans to send tons of surplus nuclear materials to South Carolina for reprocessing. The court agreed to fast track Hodge's appeal, but the Energy Department has said the shipments could begin as early as Saturday. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ordered Governor Hodges not to block plutonium shipments using state troopers or other means. Hodges sent troopers to the state's borders last week after Judge Currie threw out his lawsuit challenging the legality of the planned shipments, but withdrew them Tuesday after Currie ruled those efforts unconstitutional. [transport] Local officials trained by the DOE inspect the loading of spent nuclear fuel onto a tractor trailer along the route to the Savannah River Site. (Photo courtesy NEI [http://www.nei.org] ) Currie called it "a sad day for South Carolina," noting that Governor Hodges, "who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution must be ordered by a court to obey it." The Department of Energy (DOE) plans to send 34 metric tons of plutonium from three former nuclear weapons facilities to the Savannah River Site for conversion into fuel for nuclear reactors. The plan is crucial to the DOE's ongoing cleanup of the obsolete weapons sites, and is part of an agreement with Russia to reduce stockpiles of weapons grade nuclear materials. Hodges vowed to appeal Currie's decision, saying he is "not willing to let the federal government turn our state into the nation's nuclear dumping ground." His request for an injunction against the shipments until his appeal can be heard was denied Thursday by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. The DOE issued a statement saying it was "gratified" by the decision, but would not comment on whether plutonium shipments would begin this Saturday, the earliest date the agency said it could begin transferring about six metric tons of plutonium from the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado. The DOE is working to meet a 2006 deadline for permanently closing the Colorado facility. Morton Brilliant, spokesperson for Governor Hodges, argued after the appeal court decision that the DOE should wait to see the outcome of Hodge's case. "It would be a real mistake to send plutonium here, if three weeks from now they'd be ordered to take the plutonium back out," Brilliant said. The appeals court has agreed to an expedited schedule for hearing Hodges case, with arguments set to begin on July 10. [Hodges] Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina lost the first sortie in his legal battle to block plutonium shipments to his state. (Photo courtesy Office of the Governor) "I am encouraged by the court's decision to hear our case so quickly,"' Hodges said in a statement. "I look forward to our day in court in early July." Hodges is concerned that problems with the DOE's plans to reprocess the plutonium could result in the indefinite storage of tons of nuclear material in South Carolina. The DOE has said it would remove the plutonium if it cannot be turned into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors, but so far Hodges has not been convinced that the agency's pledge is enforceable. The DOE is required to dispose of the plutonium under a 1996 pact with Russia. The two nations agreed to each remove 34 tons of surplus plutonium from their stockpiles and turn into a form that cannot be used in weapons. The DOE initially proposed to immobilize much of the material in a special glass and place it in permanent storage, and turn the rest into MOX fuel for use in specially altered nuclear reactors. But the Bush administration rejected the immobilization method, deciding to turn all 34 tons of plutonium into MOX. [McGuire] The McGuire Nuclear Power Plant in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is one of two operated by Duke Energy that could be converted to burn MOX fuel. (Photo courtesy Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Critics charge that immobilization would cost much less, and be much safer, than reprocessing the plutonium into reactor fuel. Congress has not promised to fully fund the MOX program, and the utility whose reactors would burn the fuel, Duke Energy Corporation, has raised questions about whether the plan is feasible. "While shipments of plutonium to [Savannah River] may go forward, that does not mean that the plutonium disposition program is also moving forward, " said Tom Clements, of the Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign. "It does appear that Governor Hodges has it right - that plutonium shipped from Rocky Flats could end up being stored at [Savannah River] for the long term in a building not designed for that mission." Clements pointed out that the U.S. and Russia are required to carry out their plutonium disposition programs in parallel, meaning the U.S. cannot proceed with plans to process plutonium unless Russia does as well. But the Russian program lacks funding, and there is no current plan for a MOX processing plant in Russia, or for reactors capable of burning MOX fuel. At the annual meeting of G-8 foreign ministers in Canada last week, funding for the Russian plutonium disposition program was postponed for another year. The issue is likely to be taken up at the G-8 heads of government meeting at the end of June in Alberta, but the Russian MOX program is currently on hold. "The chronic delay in the Russian program means that the U.S. program will soon grind to a halt," said Clements. "The ongoing funding and technical problems which surround the Russian program could well mean that plutonium will end up being stored indefinitely at the Savannah River Site." The U.S. program also faces a host of funding and licensing questions that could derail the program, including concerns about the safety of plutonium transports and storage casks. "Creation of a plutonium fuel infrastructure in the U.S. and Russia opens up more pathways for theft and diversion of weapons grade plutonium," Clements warned. "The cheapest, most secure and safest disposition option remains immobilization of plutonium in high level waste." [Abraham] Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at his desk. (Photo courtesy Department of Energy) Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says the DOE plans to go forward with the MOX program, and has assured Governor Hodges that all the plutonium shipped to the Savannah River Site would have "a clear path out of South Carolina," even if the MOX program is never completed. "America's national security and the security and safety of South Carolina citizens is well served by ensuring the plutonium arrives safely, without interruption, at the Savannah River site," Abraham said this week. Enliven your website or paper with ENS News. Daily headlines FREE! Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 USA's radioactive materials dangerously vulnerable USATODAY.com - 6/23/2002 - Updated 10:22 PM ET Radioactive materials Accessible sources for building "dirty bombs" are plentiful: Cesium 137: Used in medical and scientific equipment. Americium 241: Used in smoke detectors and engineering gauges that measure moisture content in asphalt. Cobalt 60: Used to irradiate food to kill pathogens and in cancer treatment. Tritium: Used for emergency exit signs that glow in the dark. Iridium 192: Used in cameras that detect flaws in concrete and welding. Nickel 63: Used for chemical analysis. Source: USA TODAY research In May 2001, a radioactive camera used for finding flaws in concrete and welding disappeared off the back of a truck in Pasadena, Texas. If the radioactive iridium 192 in the camera's core were combined with conventional explosives to make a "dirty bomb," it could spread radioactive contamination dozens of city blocks. The case in Texas illustrates the loose grip U.S. regulators have on hundreds of thousands of radioactive sources even in the wake of Sept. 11 and the May 8 arrest of Jose Padilla on charges of conspiring with al-Qaeda to set off a dirty bomb in the USA. Indeed, the Texas health department's latest quarterly report shows nine losses of devices containing radioactive materials. That's just in one state. Annually, hundreds of pieces of radioactive medical, industrial and construction equipment are lost nationwide. Most are never found. All told, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), nearly 2,000 radioactive devices have gone missing since the 1980s. The only good news is that the radioactive material in most devices decays within months or years. That could hamper terrorists' efforts to collect enough of the material to construct an effective dirty bomb and limit the weapon's damage. At the heart of the problem is the fact that federal and state regulators are focused more on protecting the public from nuclear accidents than on thwarting terrorist attacks. Interviews with NRC and state officials reveal other weaknesses: NRC rules don't always require radioactive devices to be adequately secured. On construction sites, a chain and padlock are often enough. In public buildings, such as a hospital, a single lock will do. The NRC requires companies licensed to use radioactive materials to have a trained safety officer. But it doesn't require the individual to undergo a background check. Criminals or terrorists with the proper safety training could get easy and unsupervised access to radioactive devices. A cumbersome computer system leaves NRC officials unable to track trends in the theft and loss of radioactive devices across the country and over time. That could make detecting organized thefts difficult. The NRC doesn't fine 95% of the companies that lose their radioactive equipment. When it does, most of the fines are so small, $6,000 or less, that they do little to persuade companies to handle radioactive material with more care. Well before Sept. 11, concerned members of Congress prodded the NRC to tighten its controls. Most recently, congressional critics complained that the NRC learned only in November 2000 that nuclear-fuel rods from a Connecticut power plant had disappeared some time after 1980. Agency officials say they're working to toughen security. But at the same time, they say that most lost materials don't contain much radioactivity or are in a form that wouldn't work well in a bomb. Further they argue that even if a dirty bomb were used, it likely wouldn't be a major health threat. Public health experts who have studied the threat agree that the radiation from even a powerful dirty bomb probably wouldn't kill large numbers of people. But panic from an attack would be widespread, and the resulting economic damage from evacuation and cleanup could cost billions. The public looks to the NRC to protect it from that possibility, not to quibble over the risk. Until the NRC starts acting more like a terrorism-age security agency than a Cold-War-era safety regulator, the threat that terrorists could obtain the components needed for a dirty bomb remains too high. Front Page News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Shop Terms of service Privacy Policy How to advertise About us © Copyright 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. [http://www.gannett.com] --> ***************************************************************** 22 Weigh station may notice plutonium first OnlineAthens: 06/24/02 LEADSTORIES 062402 news 4 OnlineAthens.com --> Story last updated at 8:43 p.m. on Sunday, June 23, 2002 Weigh station may notice plutonium first Associated Press COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina officials likely won't get any warning from the federal government on when scheduled plutonium shipments will cross the state's borders, but may find out the material is in the state after it passes a weigh station, Public Safety Department spokesman Sid Gaulden said. The Energy Department has said for security reasons it will not disclose when the shipments are leaving a Rocky Flats, Colo., facility or when the plutonium shipments arrive at the Savannah River Site in Aiken. Federal agents will be traveling with the tractor-trailer rigs containing barrels loaded with smaller cans of radioactive plutonium and will be authorized to use deadly force to protect the shipments, court documents said. But one way authorities might know the plutonium has crossed the border, besides the convoy, is when the tractor-trailers pass a weigh station along a major highway or interstate. Gaulden said the plutonium trucks won't stop. Instead, the lead vehicle will pull into the weigh station and notify officers the plutonium truck will be passing through. ''By that time, it would already be in the state,'' Gaulden said. Saturday was the first day the DOE said they could logistically and practically begin shipping the weapons-grade plutonium. But state officials said they were not aware of any shipments made Saturday. The shipments have been delayed since last fall because of an ongoing dispute between Gov. Jim Hodges and the DOE. Hodges has sued the DOE and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham because he fears a federal program to dispose of the plutonium will not be funded and the plutonium will be left at SRS. But the DOE has said it will build facilities to convert the plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. A judge threw out Hodges' lawsuit asking for more environmental studies and the governor's appeal will be heard July 10 by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court in Virginia. Hodges had also threatened to lie down in the road to block the shipments, but a federal judge has ruled Hodges' or state police roadblocks are illegal. Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Monday, June 24, 2002. ©opyright 2002 Athens Banner-Herald ***************************************************************** 23 Nuclear waste may pass through area 06/23/02 OnlineAthens LEADSTORIES 062302 news 1 1 OnlineAthens.com --> Story last updated at 9:13 p.m. on Saturday, June 22, 2002 Nuclear waste may pass through area First shipments would be years away By lshearer@onlineathens.com Nuclear waste could roll through Athens and other nearby Northeast Georgia towns if the U.S. Senate approves a Nevada site as the nation's repository for radioactive waste. And despite an Athens-Clarke Commission resolution declaring Athens a ''nuclear waste-free zone'' four years ago, government officials may not be able to do anything to stop it -- and in fact may not even know when the stuff might be passing through town. [radioactive route] The shipments, which would not likely begin for years, would take nuclear waste from the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina near Augusta, to a proposed national disposal area in Yucca Mountain, Nev. The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed to ship an estimated 77,000 tons of nuclear waste from all over the country to the site, about 100 miles from Las Vegas. The Nevada site, proposed by President George W. Bush, has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and a binding vote in the Senate is expected within weeks. Even with Senate approval, movements to the site are not expected for years, perhaps not before 2010, according to federal government estimates. A national environmental advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, has created a searchable database on the Internet that allows users to find out whether their address or zip code is near one of the routes. The Web site is based on maps released by the federal government that show possible routes for waste. One of the routes is the CSX Transportation rail line that goes through Hartwell, Colbert, Athens, Winder, Hull, Statham and other area towns. The Yucca Mountain shipments are unrelated to another set of controversial shipments that could begin as soon as this weekend. Those shipments, fought in court by South Carolina state officials, would bring highly radioactive plutonium to the Savannah River Site -- not away from it, as the Yucca Mountain shipments would be. Those shipments are expected to move in truck convoys on Interstate 20, which cuts across the lower edge of northern Georgia. The federal government plans to transfer six tons of plutonium to the site near Augusta, where the plutonium would be converted into fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity. The shipments away from the site would be materials left over from the days when materials for nuclear bombs were assembled at the Savannah River Site. One Athens-Clarke County commissioner, John Barrow, has already asked Athens-Clarke Manager Alan Reddish to explore what options the city might have, if not to stop the shipments, at least to have federal officials inform the city so that it could take whatever precautions might be necessary in case of accident. The threat of accident has always been there, but there is a new threat after Sept. 11, Barrow said -- the worry that someone might try to turn one of the shipments into a ''dirty bomb'' to spread radioactive material. ''We don't really know how bad one of these accidents could be,'' he said. The Athens-Clarke Commission adopted a resolution in 1997 declaring the city a ''Nuclear Waste Free Zone,'' asking that no shipments of nuclear waste come through Athens, and if they must, that state and federal officials should notify Athens-Clarke County emergency management officials of such shipments. The resolution, moved by Barrow and seconded by now-Mayor Doc Eldridge, passed 9-1, with only Hugh Logan voting against it. But the resolution was non-binding. The government is not notified of any of the hazardous waste shipments that routinely go through the city, according to the Athens-Clarke County Fire Department. Eldridge wondered if the route through Athens really could be the best way to get nuclear waste from the Savannah River Site to Nevada. ''The reality of it is that nobody wants that nuclear waste coming through our community. I think the same thing applies today,'' he said. ''But I don't know what we could do to stop it.'' Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, June 23, 2002. ©opyright 2002 Athens Banner-Herald ***************************************************************** 24 Plan would send material through Santa Rosa, Escambia PensacolaNewsJournal.com PUBLISHED MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2002 Nuke waste shipments likely on I-10 Plan would send material through Santa Rosa, Escambia louiscooper@pensacolanewsjournal.com Shipments of nuclear waste could one day travel the rails or roadways of Northwest Florida if a plan by the U.S. Department of Energy moves forward. Plans approved by the U.S. Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this month would establish Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the nation's primary nuclear waste facility. Florida Sen. Bob Graham, D-Miami Lakes, a committee member, voted in favor of the proposal. If the Yucca Mountain project is approved, nuclear waste from three nuclear power plants in Florida would likely be brought through Santa Rosa and Escambia counties in trucks along Interstate 10 or by rail, crossing Santa Rosa County, dipping into downtown Pensacola and heading north to Alabama through Century. The full Senate is expected to vote on the plan within a month. The House of Representatives has already approved the plan, with Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Chumuckla, voting in favor of it. If approved, it could be up to a decade before the transports begin. The Washington-based group Environmental Working Group has created a Web site - www.mapscience.org - that will locate the proposed routes relative to any street address. The group opposes the nationwide shipment of waste that is now stored closer to the facility that generates it. "This would be the most expansive transportation of nuclear waste the nation has ever had," Jon Corsiglia, the group's press secretary said. "The DOE admits there will be accidents." Local environmentalists are not pleased with the prospect of nuclear waste being hauled through their back yards. Margaret Williams, president of Citizens Against Toxic Exposure - a Pensacola group focused on cleaning up two local sites of major industrial pollution - was surprised to hear that nuclear waste could be heading through the local area. "My gracious. Why in the world would that becoming through here?" Williams asked. "I'd really hate to see that happen, as if we don't have enough environmental problems already." Enid Sisskin, legislative chairwoman of the Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, said although her group has not taken a position, the possibility of nuclear waste being trucked through town disturbs her as well. "Personally, I'm very concerned about it," Sisskin said. "Whenever you move materials like that, there's always the potential for accidents. Everyone should be concerned when we're talking about materials with the toxicity that this concerns." If there ever were any nuclear accidents, Santa Rosa County Emergency Management Director Dave Ling said Santa Rosa is prepared. "We certainly have considered it," Ling said. "We even have Geiger counters here and people trained to use them." However, Santa Rosa has never had a training exercise to respond to nuclear waste accidents. "If these routes are approved, I guarantee exercises to that effect," he said. Michael Hardin, Escambia's chief of emergency management, said Escambia officials are prepared to do their part in the event of a nuclear spill. "The bulk of our job would be to isolate the area," he said. "The federal officials would respond (to clean up) should something occur." Copyright © 1997-2002 The Pensacola News Journal, Pensacola, Florida. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 08/02/2001). ***************************************************************** 25 Yucca Mountain unsafe [deseretnews.com] [Opinion] Monday, June 24, 2002 In January, President Bush designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the central repository for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste from U.S commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons plants. If this plan goes forward, radioactive waste from 131 sites around the country would travel through Utah and 44 other states, placing tens of millions of Americans at risk of radiation exposure. More than 90 percent of nuclear waste will pass through Utah on the way to Yucca Mountain. Shipments could begin as early as 2010 and would continue for 30 years, rolling past schools, cities and towns, through tunnels and across bridges and Utah communities before reaching the final destination. The Yucca transportation plan could involve up to 100,000 shipments. Since the United States started producing nuclear waste 50 years ago, there have been only 3,000 shipments. Despite Department of Energy (DOE) claims to the contrary, there have been accidents: The Nevada Nuclear Waste Project has documented 72 since 1949, four of which involved contamination beyond the transport vehicle. The Utahns along I-80, I-84, and I-15 are clearly in the path of a possible hazardous accident. The DOE has been claiming that the Yucca Mountain repository will make every American safer by eliminating storage of nuclear waste at reactor sites where it is an environmental hazard and subject to terrorist attack. The problem with this "solution" is that the Yucca Mountain site doesn't end the need for onsite storage: 2,000 tons of nuclear waste is produced each year by nuclear power plants. Thus the Yucca Mountain plan doesn't improve the security of operating nuclear power plants. It does, however, create thousands of rolling terrorist targets in our cities and towns, making Utahans vulnerable when there previously was no threat. Yucca Mountain is a geologically unsafe site and is being used as a diversion rather than a solution to America's nuclear waste problem. Louis Borgenicht Physicians for Social Responsibility Salt Lake City © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 26 Japan, Marshall Islanders team up to build memorial on Bikini atoll asahi.com the Asahi Shimbun Fund-raising efforts are under way in Japan and in the Marshall Islands for construction of a peace memorial museum supporters hope to build by 2004 to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1954 testing at Bikini Atoll and the Marshall Islands to help those who survived the U.S. nuclear weapons test there. The group promoting the project includes survivors of the No. 5 Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon), a tuna trawler caught in the March 1954 bomb test fallout at Bikini atoll, as well as islanders, survivors of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 and photographers. Japanese members of the group say they hope to raise the approximately 20 million yen needed to put up a two-story frame building at Majuro, the capital of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the West Pacific Ocean. Some supporters hope to relocate the museum to the island of Rongelap later. One of the supporters is Matashichi Oishi , 68, one of the 23 crew members aboard the Lucky Dragon now living in Tokyo's Ota Ward. He was among members of Gensuikyo (Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs) who went to the Marshalls earlier this year for a memorial service. The effects of a hydrogen bomb test were 1,000 times greater than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Fallout from the bomb spread beyond Bikini itself to rain down upon the Lucky Dragon, operating out of Yaizu, Shizuoka Prefecture, and then about 32 kilometers beyond the designated danger zone, and as far as Rongelap, an atoll about 200 kilometers east of Bikini, exposing about 80 people there to radioactive fallout. Among the victims was Lucky Dragon crew member Aikichi Kuboyama, who died Sept. 23, 1954, of radiation sickness. The memorial museum will house photo exhibitions and U.S. records on some of the 67 bomb tests conducted from 1946 through 1958, as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with support from Japanese contributors. At the spring memorial ceremony, Oishi noted, ``The U.S. military said at that time that they needed a place to conduct nuclear tests as the means of stopping wars in the world. But the world has not attained peace.'' He said he intends to present a scale model of the Lucky Dragon that he built to the museum. Supporters of the project say the museum would provide perspective on how people in the area were affected and are still affected by the tests, as well as other effects of nuclear weapons.(IHT/Asahi: June 24,2002) (06/24) Japan, Marshall Islanders team up to build memorial on Bikini atoll (06/24) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.] ***************************************************************** 27 The Pasko case Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. The Pasko case MOSCOW - The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court will hear the appeal case of journalist Grigory Pasko on June 25, 10 AM. Below follows an overview over the case and some of the juridical weaknesses of the conviction of Pasko. Jon Gauslaa, 2002-06-24 10:33 Background Grigory Pasko worked as an investigative journalist for the newspaper of the Russian Pacific Fleet, "Boyevaya Vakhta". His articles were focusing mainly on nuclear safety issues within the Pacific Fleet. He was arrested by the Russian Security Police (the FSB) on November 20, 1997, and accused with committing treason through espionage when working with Japanese journalists. On July 20th, 1999, the Court of the Pacific Fleet acquitted Pasko of the treason charges. Yet, he was sentenced to three years for 'abuse of his official position' (a crime he was never charged with) and released under a general amnesty. The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court cancelled the verdict in November 2000 and sent the case back to the Pacific Fleet Court for a re-trial. The re-trial started on July 11 and ended on December 25, 2001 with Pasko being convicted to four years for treason and taken into custody in the courtroom. Again, both sides appealed. While the defence demands a full acquittal, the prosecution demands a more severe sentence. The conviction Pasko was charged with collecting and transferring ten items of "secret" information to Japanese media: 1) the time and place of the departure of a train with spent nuclear fuel; 2) a draft to an article on the decommissioning of submarines; 3) a report on the financial situation of the Pacific Fleet; 4) a manual for spacecraft rescuing; 5) a report on the decommissioning of submarines; 6) a questionnaire on the decommissioning of liquid missile fuel; 7) a list of accidents on nuclear submarines; 8) a report on the decommissioning of armament; 9) a sketch of a radioactive waste storage; and 10) hand-written notes taken at a meeting in the Pacific Fleet staff in September 1997. Pasko was fully acquitted regarding the nine first items of information. He was also acquitted with transferring the notes from the staff meeting, but convicted for having kept the notes at home, with the intention of a subsequent transfer to journalist Tadashi Okano of the 'Asahi Simbun' newspaper. A groundless conviction The conviction lacks a factual as well as a legal foundation. Moreover, the "evidence" against Pasko should be disqualified because it was collected in violations of the Criminal Procedure Code. + No factual foundation The verdict is based on a twisted version of the reality. The facts of the case show that Pasko did not intend to transfer the notes to Okano. He took for instance the notes on September 12, 1997, and they were confiscated on November 20. In this period Pasko met Okano several times. So, if his intention was to transfer the notes, he had every chance to do so long before the search. + No legal foundation The Court's assumption that the notes contain secret information is based on the Defence Ministry's secret decree 055:96. The Court has tried to disguise this fact by not referring to decree 055 in its verdict. Still, its conclusion that Pasko's notes contain secrets on the activity of 'radio-electronic warfare units during exercises'; 'the real names of military units'; and 'the composition of forces taking part in exercises' is not based on any officially published law, but on decree 055. This means that the decree is being used as a normative legal act. This violates a recent ruling of the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court stating that decree 055 is not a normative legal act. A non-normative legal act has as such no legal force and can not form the basis of a criminal conviction. Besides, the use of the decree as a normative legal act contradicts Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. The conviction is also partly on article 70 of Defence Ministry decree 010 from 1990, which prohibits Russian military personnel to have off-duty relations with foreign citizens. The Russian Supreme Court recently ruled that this provision lost its legal force in 1993. Thus, the legal foundation of the Pasko-conviction has crumbled away throughout the recent months. + Illegally collected evidence As to the illegal collection of evidence, no proper protocol was kept over what was confiscated at the search of Pasko's flat where the notes were found, and nobody representing him was present in the rooms searched by the investigators. This lack of control fortifies the impression of a fabricated case and it also violates the Criminal Procedure Code. In its verdict the Court acknowledged the law violation, but it did not attach any weight to it. This violates Article 50 (2) of the Constitution, according to which any evidence obtained in violation with the law, should be disqualified. Human rights violations The conviction raises questions related to the development of freedom of speech and he rule of law in Russia. In a statement issued on January 7, 2002, when Pasko was adopted as a prisoner of conscience, Amnesty International does for instance characterise the prosecution as "motivated by political reprisal for exposing the practice of dumping nuclear waste". Amnesty International and the International Helsinki Federation have expressed concerns about the fairness of the trial and the impartiality and independence of the Court. The fact that Pasko was tried by a military Court, where high-ranking officers (who also are the superiors of the judge) testified against him, gives every reason to express such doubts. Since the proceedings have been subject to a number of unjustified delays, it is also likely that Pasko's right to have the case determined within a reasonable time has been violated. Moreover, one can not rule out that the Supreme Court may send the case back to the Pacific Fleet Court for a third trial. The use of decree 055:96 as the legal foundation for the conviction also appears as a violation of the principle that the criminal law should be accessible to the citizens and that only the law can describe the content of a punishable offence. Besides, the provisions used in order to convict Pasko seem too general to fulfil the principle that the offence should be clearly defined by the wording of the law. Conclusive remarks In recent years the principles of the Russian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights have been given increased attention in the Russian judiciary. A confirmation of the Pasko-conviction would, however, be a backlash of this development. When the Supreme Court handled the Nikitin-case two years ago, the development of the rule of law in Russian was standing at the crossroads. Then the Supreme Court chose the correct path by confirming his acquittal. At this time tomorrow we should know whether it also this time will chose the correct path, or if it rather will disclose itself as the obedient servant of the repressive system. You are here: www.bellona.no : Russia : Environmental Rights : The Pasko Case : News story | Top of page Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway [ (c) BELLONA -- Reuse and reprint recommended provided source is stated ] ***************************************************************** 28 CBS Poll: 25% Back Preemptive U.S. Nuke Strike With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... Saturday, June 22, 2002 12:05 p.m. EDT A surprisingly high percentage of Americans surveyed this week said they would support a preemptive nuclear strike on countries that harbor terrorists if President Bush decides it is justified to stop another attack on the United States, a CBS News poll released late Friday found. While still a mere fraction of the population, a full 25 percent of respondents told CBS pollsters that the U.S. would be "justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country" if that country is planning another terrorist attack against America. And nearly three-quarters of those surveyed, 73 percent, said they "trust Bush to make the right decisions about the use of nuclear weapons," a CBSNews.com report on the poll said. However, 65 percent said the U.S. would "not ever be justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country." Support for a non-nuclear first strike is much higher, with 83 percent saying the U.S. would be justified in doing so to stop another attack. Only 9 percent opposed a non-nuclear first strike. When pollsters asked specifically about Iraq, a full 70 percent said they support a non-nuclear preemptive attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power, with only 20 percent opposed. CBS pollsters did not ask about a nuclear first strike against Iraq specifically. The CBS News survey randomly interviewed 892 adults between June 18-20, 2002. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Bush Administration War on Terrorism A product that might interest you: Revealed: The Terrorists Living Among Us NewsMax.com Privacy Statement All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 29 Breathing Room - Good week for USEC workers The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Monday, June 24, 2002 Last week was the best week for managers and workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant since the announcement two years ago that USEC Inc. had decided to consolidate its nuclear fuel production operations in Paducah. In some ways, last week's news was even better because it provided more than the temporary relief that came from knowing USEC's ax would fall in Ohio instead of Kentucky. In wrapping up an agreement with USEC designed to keep the plant running until at least 2010 and by OK'ing the company's new exclusive agency contract for Russian uranium, the Bush administration gave USEC workers and the entire community some needed breathing space. For more than a decade now, plant employees and area residents have been suspended in a state of anxiety and uncertainty about the facility's future. Clouds of uncertainty have gathered on the horizon, with some dissipating quickly and others lingering for long periods: The original Russian uranium deal, the privatization process, which ended government ownership of the plant and resulted in the creation of USEC; large-scale layoffs followed by rumors of the shutdown of one of the two USEC plants, the closing of the plant in Portsmouth, Ohio; USEC's financial woes and delays in negotiating a more favorable deal on the purchase of the Russian uranium; and finally the long silence of the Bush administration as it pondered its stance on the nation's nuclear fuel industry. By no means has the uncertainty ended — in less than eight years Paducah could find itself without the uranium enrichment industry that has provided thousands of good jobs in the region since the early 1950s. But under the terms of the agreement USEC signed with the U.S. Department of Energy, the plant will run until the deadline for the company to begin operating a more efficient gas centrifuge plant in Paducah or Portsmouth. USEC also agreed to maintain an annual production level of at least 3.5 million units of enriched uranium. This should ensure that future job cuts aren't devastating. If USEC fails to comply with the terms of the deal, the energy department may assume control of the plant or replace the company with another contractor. The agreement is "very positive for the Paducah plant and the workers," Leon Owens, president of the union that represents about half the workers at the plant, said. Surely this is the first time in a while anyone associated with the plant has observed a very positive development. USEC officials have reason to feel positive about the government's approval of the renegotiated Russian uranium pact. By lowering the price it pays for the uranium imported from Russia, USEC should be able to stabilize its shaky financial position. The price of the enriched uranium produced by the outmoded and inefficient gaseous diffusion technology isn't competitive on the world market, but USEC can offset that by serving as the middle man for the cheaper Russian material. It's a critical point that in this time of great concern about terrorist threats the USEC deal with Russia helps to safeguard the large stock of bomb-grade uranium produced by the military machine of the old Soviet Union. Looking down the road to 2010, plant workers and local officials are prepared to make an all-out effort to keep the uranium enrichment industry in Paducah. A hope is that USEC or another contractor will decide to locate gas centrifuge technology here; however, the community is also preparing to make the transition from an economy that has the nuclear fuel industry as a cornerstone to one that is more diversified. Even in a best-case scenario, employment at the enrichment plant is going to fall sharply given that the efficient gas centrifuge technology probably will not require more than 500 workers. The gaseous diffusion plant currently has a workforce of about 1,500. That's why it's so important for the region's economic development officials to continue work on developing a large industrial park in northern Graves County and other incentives to attract new industries. For now, though, plant workers and people throughout the region can pause and take a deep breath while the roller-coaster ride of the past 10 years slows to a steadier pace. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** 30 Energy Secretary Abraham Announces Private-Public Partnership to Evaluate Sites for New Nuclear Plants in the United States Energy Department Awards Funds to Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon to Demonstrate Early Site Permitting Process energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release Privacy and Security Notice RELEASE DATE: June 24, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC -- Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) has selected three U.S. electric utilities, Virginia-based Dominion Energy, Louisiana-based Entergy, and Illinois-based Exelon to participate in joint government/industry projects to evaluate and obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for sites where new nuclear power plants could be built. These projects will be the first major elements of the department's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative announced in February by Secretary Abraham. The Nuclear Power 2010 initiative is designed to pave the way for new nuclear power plants with advanced safety characteristics to be built in the United States by the end of the decade. "As a clean, affordable and reliable energy source, nuclear energy is important to the Nation's future energy supply," Secretary Abraham said. "These public-private partnerships are the first step toward seeing that new, safe nuclear plants are built in this country by 2010. By working with these utilities to put potential nuclear plant sites through the rigorous Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Early Site Permit (ESP) process, we will remove one more barrier to seeing the nuclear option fully revived in the United States." The department will partner with Dominion Energy, Entergy and Exelon to submit formal applications and to demonstrate NRC's Early Site Permit (ESP) process. All three companies announced that they will seek ESP approvals that would enable them to locate new, safe advanced technology nuclear plants at sites owned by the utilities and currently hosting commercial nuclear power plants. Dominion Energy will seek approval of an ESP application for the North Anna site in Virginia; Entergy will seek approval of the Grand Gulf site in Mississippi, and Exelon will seek approval of the Clinton site in Illinois. The utilities expect to submit applications by fall 2003, for NRC approval by mid-decade. DOE will share the cost of permit application expenses, with each company providing at least 50 percent of the funding. The government's total estimated cost-share over a four-year period is approximately $17 million. The department is currently negotiating the exact value of the awards with its utility partners. The Early Site Permit process was established by NRC in 1989 for utilities to complete the site evaluation element of the process to license a nuclear power plant before the decision is made to build a plant. Once issued, an Early Site Permit is valid for up to 20 years and can be used in conjunction with a Design Certification to seek a Construction and Operating License (COL). With such a permit approved, a utility or other applicant can proceed with a license application to the NRC, providing a far more predictable and streamlined process toward building a new nuclear power plant. As part of the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, the administration proposes to invest a total of $38.5 million in FY 2003 for demonstrating this key NRC licensing process and to conduct advanced nuclear power plant research needed to make the safest and most efficient nuclear plant technologies available for deployment in the United States by the end of the decade. More information about Nuclear Power 2010 can be found on the department's nuclear energy web site, [http://www.nuclear.gov] . Media Contact: Jill Schroeder, 202/586-4940 Hope Williams, 202/586-5806 Release No. PR-02-122 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************