***************************************************************** 02/26/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.50 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 UK: Nuclear power generators join forces to develop new reactors 2 British Energy and BNFL sign reactor agreement 3 UK: Nuclear versus green power is not black and white 4 US: EDITORIAL: Energy follies 5 US: Goodman, Herrera back Reid decision to join GAO lawsuit 6 US and Russia set for uranium deal 7 Canada: NB Power makes pitch to keep nuclear plant running for 30 more years 8 US: Senator to join GAO lawsuit, seeking nuclear info 9 Russia, USA close to agreeing on new price in uranium deal NUCLEAR REACTORS 10 Czech Temelin station turned off for inspection 11 Lithuanian president opposes EU pressure to close down nuclear 12 European, Azeri MPs discuss Armenian nuclear plant 13 US: NRC Orders Nuclear Power Plants to Enhance Security 14 Ukraine set to help Bulgaria create nuclear safety centre 15 Nuclear plant in Slovenia shut down over technical glitch 16 Ukraine scientists alarmed by state of Chernobyl sarcophagus 17 US: Millstone sets a record for efficiency NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 Warning over UK nuclear safety policy 19 Amchitka atomic veterans may get benefits NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 20 US: Yucca: A NIMBY nightmare 21 US: Nuclear waste parochialism 22 US: Anti-Enron mood may boost Yucca fight 23 LegCo backs radioactive waste plan 24 US: Proposal promotes MOX fuel NUCLEAR WEAPONS 25 A German scientist's son defends his father's work on Nazi atom bo 26 Hands of the Doomsday Clock to move 27 Adm. Ramdas: Danger of Nuclear Exchange in South Asia Greater 28 Adm. Ramdas: The Challenge before India and Pakistan 29 U.S. Analysts Find No Sign bin Laden Had Nuclear Arms 30 Iran: MP says Russians are not leaving Iran under American US DEPT. OF ENERGY 31 Rocketdyne: Comment Period on Lab Cleanup Plan Extended 32 No Hanford fine for radioactivity glitch 33 Hanford: Locke delivers a message for money to White House 34 OR gets clean bill of health 35 Dick Smyser: Stories of ORNL: There's still a lot to be told 36 THE REVISED PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION STRATEGY: DOE'S “HOUSE OF CARDS 37 DOE REPORT REVEALS NEW PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION HURDLES; ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Nuclear power generators join forces to develop new reactors © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd Independent News By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 26 February 2002 Britain's two nuclear electricity generators will today announce that they are joining forces to develop a new generation of reactors based on a Westinghouse design. The development project, if successful, could lead to a £10bn programme to build 10 new stations to replace all of the UK's existing nuclear capacity by 2025. Today's announcement by British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels follows the cautious backing given to new investment in nuclear stations in the Government's recent energy review. The document said the nuclear option should be kept open and recommended practical measures to achieve this, such as exempting nuclear power from the climate change levy. The plan being unveiled envisages a new generation of reactors based on the Westinghouse AP 1000 design. BNFL, which owns Westinghouse, estimates that the new design could enable it to cut the cost of building a new 1,000 to 1,200 megawatt station by as much as a half. British Energy has also looked at a new nuclear programme based on the Candu 600 design from Canada and this could be kept in reserve. Despite the more cost-efficient designs now available, British Energy estimates that electricity from a new nuclear station would still be about 40 per cent more expensive than the current market price. This means that there would need to be government support to close the financial gap. But as BNFL is still state-owned, a joint venture between the two companies could provide the basis of the public-private partnership needed to kickstart a new generation of nuclear stations. In its submission to the Energy Review, British Energy called on the Government to assume all of the company's pre-1996 reprocessing liabilities, estimated at £3bn, and allow it to renegotiate its existing spent-fuel contracts with BNFL. This would enable it to reduce its spent-fuel costs by £250m a year and fund a new generation of stations. Despite protracted talks, no agreement on the fuel contracts will be announced today. ***************************************************************** 2 British Energy and BNFL sign reactor agreement PR Newswire - USA; Feb 26, 2002 British Energy and BNFL today signed an agreement on work to assess the feasibility of the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced pressurised water reactor design as a potential nuclear power station option to replace BE's existing UK nuclear power stations when they reach the end of their planned operating lives. Robin Jeffrey, British Energy's executive chairman, said "The government's Energy Policy Review acknowledged the key role which could be played by nuclear power in ensuring a balanced, stable and secure energy supply. This conclusion, coupled with the clear recommendation last week from the House of Lords Select Committee on security of supply that the UK should maintain a nuclear share in generation of no less than 20%, signals a positive future for the UK's nuclear industry. Today's Agreement will assess licensing and regulatory issues, and deliver robust cost estimates for the new stations we propose." Speaking at the signing of the formal agreement in London BNFL's Chief Executive Norman Askew said: "BNFL, through our Westinghouse business, has developed one of the world's most advanced reactor technology systems, the AP1000. This reactor design is ready for deployment now and we are delighted that British Energy want to pursue this option with us further. "This agreement is the first concrete commitment from two companies since the publication of the PIU report and represents a significant step forward in the quest to build a replacement nuclear power station in the UK." British Energy has identified two potential reactor designs which could be commercially available on the right timescale for the UK - the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Canadian CANDU, similar to reactors already operated very successfully by BE's Bruce Power subsidiary in Ontario. The agreement between BE and BNFL is similar to one already signed with the designers of the CANDU reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) and announced last November. The Agreement will initially run for a year, and will involve BNFL/Westinghouse as prospective vendors and British Energy as prospective customers in: Preparing a case to include AP1000 as an option for new plants in the UK. Assessing the technical suitability of AP1000 reactors on existing reactor sites. Preparing a business model addressing issues such as launch costs, economics and risk sharing. Documenting key factors associated with AP1000 and recommend an implementation strategy. Robin Jeffrey concluded: "25% of Britain's energy comes from nuclear generation, and it produces huge benefits by allowing us also to continue using gas and coal and still meet our environmental commitments. Britain can't afford to lose that. That's what British Energy's 'Replace Nuclear With Nuclear' programme is all about - and this Agreement will allow us to develop firm proposals in time to allow us to assess whether AP1000s or CANDUs are suitable replacements for the UK's reactors. With a new nuclear programme announced just ten days ago in the US, and Finland now preparing to build a new nuclear power station, Britain has a real opportunity to play a key role in taking forward nuclear generation on both sides of the Atlantic. British Energy, Doug McRoberts, tel +44 (0)1355 594040 or David Wallace, tel +44 (0)1355 262547 or Bob Fenton, tel +44 (0)1355 262846 or BNFL, Paul Vallance, tel +44 (0)207 202 0921 or Janine Claber, tel +44 (0)207 202 0922 ***************************************************************** 3 Nuclear versus green power is not black and white The Herald (United Kingdom); Feb 26, 2002 WHEN I wrote recently about the energy choices facing Scotland one reader took me to task, suggesting I think my fellow Scots have heads that zip up the back. No, Marjorie Browne, I certainly don't subscribe to that notion. Nor do I believe these same heads are full of mince. However, anyone who thinks today's energy-rich, electricity-exporting Scotland is the way it's going to be for ever more is into self-delusion in a major way. All five of Scotland's existing thermal stations - two coal, two nuclear, one gas - will reach the ends of their natural generating lives within 25 years. That process, which will see us say goodbye to 7500 megawatts of existing capacity at Cockenzie, Hunterston, Longannet, Torness, and Peterhead (in that order) starts within 10 years. The critical question is what we put in place of all that lost capacity. And even if the government manages to enforce a step change in our attitudes to energy conservation, the challenge of replacing some of it cannot be shirked. Hard choices, given the long lead times on major construction projects, cannot be deferred for ever. When asked to consider complex issues, Scots have a depressing tendency to take to the trenches and indulge in some confrontational black-and-white thinking. So, if it is taken as given that all mature economies have to be increasingly low carbon in their approach to energy production, you've either got to be in favour of a massive expansion of renewable energy sources - principally wind, wave, and tidal power - or you are so pro-nuclear you glow in the dark. Would that the choices were that clear or that simple. If you doubt the fiendish complexity of it all, consider recent events in thoroughly-green Denmark, spiritual home of wind power, events which have barely penetrated our consciousness on this side of the North Sea. Since November, Denmark has had a new centre-right government with a clear majority. Last month it outraged the green lobby by presenting a draft budget that sweeps away most existing state support for innovative research into renewable energy. It also cancelled plans for a large-scale offshore wind installation. The government of prime minister Anders Rasmussen will spend the money it saves on hospitals and care of the elderly. Denmark is currently third in the European Union (EU) league table, behind Germany and Spain, for installed wind-generating capacity. The UK is sixth. However, Denmark, with some 13% of its total generating capacity already coming from wind, also has, at some 14p a unit, the most expensive electricity anywhere in the EU. In addition, problems with what to do with output from all those wind turbines when the wind blows long and hard has been causing increasing difficulties with its grid-connected neighbours, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Denmark has no nuclear generating capacity and has had legislation in place since the mid-1980s prohibiting any being built. So scope for a green versus nuclear scrap, UK style, is limited. Some suspect, however, that the Rasmussen government's decision to call a halt to wind energy spending is simply a prelude to reopening the nuclear option. Here public unease over nuclear power or, more precisely, what to do with the waste it produces, has led some advocates of renewables to propagate the myth that wind, wave, and the rest can eventually do all of the generating job traditionally done by gas, coal and nuclear. But you cannot switch renewables on and off when you want them. So until there is a real revolution in energy storage technology that prospect - of a wholesale switch to variable wind and wave power - remains myth. Even the credibility of the Scottish Executive's target of 28% of Scottish output from renewables by 2020 must be in question. Schemes currently under development will virtually quadruple Scotland's current (non large-scale hydro) renewables capacity. But that only takes us to 760 megawatts or a tenth of the thermal capacity we will lose over the next quarter century. True the Garrad Hassan study which reported to the Scottish Executive last year put Scotland's untapped renewables potential at 59.1 gigawatts, more than half of it from offshore and onshore wind. However, when various environmental and other constraints are taken into account, the study cuts genuinely available renewables capacity to 10 gigawatts, just over half from proven wind technology. To get at that 5500 megawatts of additional wind power will require more than direct investment into thousands more turbines up Scotland's western seaboard. Our high voltage grid network runs across the central belt and up the eastern side of Scotland as far as Dounreay in the north. It does not go near Achiltibuie or Lewis. Hence all the talk of a subsea cable down through the Minch. It's either that or major pylon lines marching along the road to the isles. It won't be cheap. It's bound to outrage defenders of Scotland's wild places. And it just goes to prove that, as Denmark is discovering, future energy choices are never easy. ***************************************************************** 4 EDITORIAL: Energy follies Tuesday, February 26, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal As the Senate takes up the energy bill this week, environmentalists -- local and national -- again crusade for the holy grail: Forcing Americans to pay more for power by mandating the use of "renewable" fuels. Currently, the United States gets about 2 percent of its energy from solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy sources. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle proposes the energy bill mandate that the figure be 10 percent by 2020 -- but even that's not enough for the greens. They want Washington to compel Americans to get 20 percent of their energy from renewables by that date. Environmentalists often argue that subsidies to traditional energy producers have undermined efforts to encourage the use of cleaner renewables. But a recent Cato Institute paper points out that over the past 20 years, renewable energy technologies have received -- in 1996 dollars -- some $24.2 billion in federal research and development subsidies, compared with $20.1 billion for nuclear power and $15.5 billion for fossil fuels. Stated simply, producers of renewable energy are unable to compete in the marketplace -- subsidies or not. There may indeed come a day when advancements in various technologies make it feasible for the country to greatly increase its reliance on renewable energy sources -- the major corporations that have significant investments in renewables certainly believe so. But that day isn't here yet. And it won't get here any quicker because Congress waves a magic wand and imposes mandates. "Such policies," the Cato study notes, "use the power of government to impose the consumption preferences of advocates of renewables on others without any legitimate philosophical or economic basis." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 5 Goodman, Herrera back Reid decision to join GAO lawsuit Tuesday, February 26, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera said Monday they support a decision by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid to join the General Accounting Office's lawsuit that seeks records about the Bush administration's energy task force. Some of the records, according to Reid, might pertain to the possible role that nuclear power industry representatives played in influencing President Bush before he decided Feb. 15 to recommend Yucca Mountain for burying the nation's highly radioactive waste. Most of the waste destined for the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is spent fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors. Goodman and Herrera said they, too, are considering joining the GAO lawsuit aimed at forcing the Bush administration to release documents about the closed-door energy strategy meeting that Vice President Dick Cheney and nuclear industry representatives participated in prior to the collapse of Enron Corp. Reid,D-Nev., has said he will file court papers this week seeking records about the meeting. Herrera said, "We're evaluating all our options." He said at least 14 "notable advocates of Yucca Mountain" were at that meeting. Goodman said he wants to know if the Bush administration is trying to use the guise of national security to cover up attempts by the nuclear power industry to sway the president's decision on the Yucca Mountain Project in the absence of public scrutiny. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 6 US and Russia set for uranium deal By Nancy Dunne in Washington Published: February 26 2002 01:32 | Last Updated: February 26 2002 01:36 Agents for the US and Russia have negotiated new terms on a key arms non-proliferation pact in a deal which appears highly favourable to the US industry but which has aroused concerns within the sector. Under the agreement, Russia would drop the price of downgraded atomic bomb fuel retrieved from dismantled warheads. The deal would lower the Russian price for low-enriched uranium from $90 dollars per separative work unit (SWU) in 2002 by at least $20 a SWU, according to industry sources. Shipments, delayed by the negotiations, could resume next month. Spot prices are now $105 per SWU. A formula has been agreed under which the Russian company would gain higher returns if US and world spot prices rose. The pact was initialled last Thursday - but has yet to be made public - by officials from the US Enrichment Corporation (Usec), the privatised US uranium enrichment company, and the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry and Techsnabexport, a Russian company. Usec is the US government's agent for the "megatons into megawatts" pact, which provides for the sale of 500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium over 20 years. In the first seven years of the deal Russia has earned $2.5bn, US officials say. Both governments must still sign the pact. Ron Witzel, a nuclear fuel consultant with John Longenecker & Associates, said Russia might seek better terms because of "the lack of responsiveness to changes in the market". Furthermore, the deal would allow the Russian company to subsidise the higher-cost operation of the lone US uranium enrichment plant in Kentucky, operated by Usec. Mr Witzel said such a subsidy was in direct contravention of the original agreement signed in May 1993. The terms of the agreement alarmed some nuclear industry representatives, who are worried about the potential for high enriched uranium prices. Richard Miller, a foreign policy analyst and nuclear industry specialist, on Monday said there was also concern that the high profits to be earned from the pact could encourage Usec to close its US uranium enrichment facility. The US would then be dependent on foreign suppliers. ***************************************************************** 7 NB Power makes pitch to keep nuclear plant running for 30 more years February 25, 2002 FREDERICTON (CP) -- Officials with NB Power say it makes economic and environmental sense to keep Atlantic Canada's only nuclear power plant running for another 30 years, despite a price tag of almost $1 billion to patch up the aging reactor.  The power corporation, the provincial utility which owns and operates the Point Lepreau nuclear station near Saint John, N.B., made its case Monday for an $845-million upgrade of the trouble-plagued, 20-year-old nuclear station.  Ken Little, a vice-president at NB Power, said Lepreau is the utility's most important energy source, generating about 30 per cent of the province's energy output.  Little said keeping Lepreau nuclear would be cheaper than using natural gas.  In addition, he said continued reliance on nuclear energy would help New Brunswick meet its environmental targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  "Lepreau is the economic choice," Little said. "As well, it's the choice that has zero air emissions. Those are the main reasons it comes out on top."  NB Power filed its arguments in favour of keeping Lepreau with the province's Public Utilities Board, which will hold hearings in the spring on the future of the nuclear plant.  The province has a clear choice: it can keep Lepreau at a cost of at least $1 billion or it can decommission the station for about $455 million.  The $845-million upgrade bill does not include the cost of buying replacement power during the proposed 18-month overhaul, which would increase the total price tag of the project by about $300 million.  David Coon, spokesman for the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, an environmental lobby group, said costs always mushroom when it comes to building and refurbishing nuclear plants.  He pointed out Lepreau was only supposed to cost $300 million when construction began on the plant in the 1970s. When Lepreau was switched on in 1983, the final price tag was $1.2 billion.  Coon said NB Power has had to write down Lepreau's value by $450 million due to the plant's unexpectedly short lifespan.  Lepreau was supposed to last at least 30 years, but problems with pressure tubes and feeder pipes in the 630-megawatt Candu reactor shortened its life by about seven years.  The nuclear plant has been plagued in recent years by breakdowns. It was shut down four times in the past three months due to a series of mechanical and operational problems.  Lepreau will have to be decommissioned or upgraded by 2006.  Coon said going ahead with an upgrade would be throwing good money after bad.  "It's not money well spent given the problems with generating nuclear power and the inherent risks to public health and safety and the environment."  Coon, who will intervene at the Public Utilities Board hearings in April, argued there's no environmental advantage to running a nuclear power plant.  NB Power said that Lepreau would help the province meet carbon dioxide reduction targets included in the Kyoto accord and a climate change action plan put together by the New England governors and eastern Canadian premiers.  But Coon said eliminating hazardous radioactive waste is a huge environmental problem for all of Canada's nuclear reactors, including Lepreau.  "We need to get our carbon dioxide emissions down to a scale where the atmosphere can assimilate them and we need to eliminate our generation of radioactive waste," Coon said.  Spent radioactive fuel is stored on site at Lepreau, situated on the shores of the Bay of Fundy. [http://www.canoe.ca/copyright.html] © 2002, Canoe, a division of Netgraphe Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Senator to join GAO lawsuit, seeking nuclear info - 2/26/2002 - ENN.com Tuesday, February 26, 2002 By Reuters WASHINGTON — A leading Democratic senator said Monday he is joining a congressional lawsuit against the White House, hoping to glean information about the Bush administration's move to dispose of nuclear waste in Nevada. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the chamber's assistant majority leader, said he would file a brief in federal court supporting the lawsuit initiated Friday by the David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office, the investigative law of Congress. The GAO lawsuit, Walker v. Cheney, seeks records of a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was involved in crafting the administration's energy policy last year. The suit was filed at the request of Democratic lawmakers, who say environmentalists were mostly excluded from the closed-door task force meetings while companies like Enron Corp. had ample access. The resulting policy called for more oil and gas drilling and a revival of nuclear power. Reid said he would join the legal battle because he wants to know whether the task force meetings had an influence on Bush's recent decision to dispose of 70,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (144 km) northwest of Las Vegas — a decision Reid has harshly criticized. The senator issued a statement saying he will file an amicus or "friend of the court" brief demanding information about the Cheney energy task force meetings. "There is no question that Vice President Cheney met on several occasions with nuclear power executives," Reid said in the statement. "Cheney needs to stop hiding the truth. He should tell the public which executives he met with and when he met with them." The White House says it will argue that releasing records from the energy task force would erode White House authority, signaling an intense legal and constitutional battle between the legislative and executive branches of government. Nevada has filed a lawsuit separately against the Bush administration to fight the decision to make Yucca Mountain the final resting place for radioactive material. Critics of that plan worry that radioactive material might seep into the ground and cite the risks of transporting nuclear waste over great distances. Reid claims that Bush "betrayed our trust" on Yucca Mountain by breaking a campaign promise not to proceed without sound scientific study. "I hope that my actions help the GAO lawsuit," Reid said in his statement. "Americans are entitled to know who was involved in those secret meetings." The original request for the GAO action came from two members of the House of Representatives, Democrats Henry Waxman and John Dingell, although four key senators have also endorsed the GAO's probe as important to ongoing Enron investigations. Republican leaders in both houses of Congress say the GAO is not entitled to the information it seeks, but a few Republicans have supported the GAO position. Copyright 2002, Reuters ***************************************************************** 9 Russia, USA close to agreeing on new price in uranium deal BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Moscow, 26 February: Russia may restart supplies of downgraded high-enriched uranium to the United States under the so-called high-enriched uranium-low-enriched uranium [HEU-LEU] contract shortly. "We have more or less agreed upon a new price for the uranium, but this still has to be approved by the Russian and US governments," Tekhsnabeksport, Russia's authorized agent for the deal, told Interfax. The source said he was confident this would not take long. The Tekhsnabeksport source did not go into detail about the new prices, saying only that Russia and its American partner, US Enrichment Corp, were preparing an official statement. The source said foreign media reports that Russia and the United States had agreed on a lower price for Russian uranium were "close to the mark". Officials from the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy have on several occasions said Russia would not lower its uranium prices... According to the Atomic Energy Ministry, Russia has supplied the USA with 4,200 t of low-enriched uranium, equivalent to 141.4 t of highly-enriched uranium, as of January 2002. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 1318 gmt 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 10 Czech Temelin station turned off for inspection CZECH REPUBLIC: February 26, 2002 PRAGUE - The Czech nuclear power plant Temelin, whose operation is strongly opposed by Austria, was turned off for a planned one-month inspection, the plant's spokesman said. The station, 60 km (38 miles) from the border of the fiercely anti-nuclear Austria, has become a source of unrelenting friction between the two neighbours. Many Austrians fear Temelin is unsafe, which Prague denies. Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar said the reactor at the station was shut down shortly after 1700 GMT and would now be cooled off to allow for a thorough inspection of all systems. "We are coming into a one-month shutdown to revise the device and also to change some valves, which is necessary to finish the dynamic tests at the plant," Nebesar told Reuters. The $2.75 billion plant is a key asset of the main Czech power utility CEZ , which the government is looking to sell to a foreign investor. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 11 Lithuanian president opposes EU pressure to close down nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus has urged the government to resist the EU pressure to fully decommission the country's Ignalina nuclear power plant by 2009, Lithuanian radio has said. Answering a journalist's question about the pressure from the European Commission to decommission the second unit of the power plant, Adamkus said: "I still think today that the Lithuanian government must not undertake any obligations regarding any specific decommissioning deadline or, to be more specific, the year 2009. Lithuania must retain the option of using nuclear power." At a news conference held on the occasion of his four years in office and broadcast by Lithuanian radio, Adamkus also welcomed rapprochement between NATO and Russia and said that a referendum on EU membership should be held after the completion of accession negotiations. Source: Lithuanian Radio, Vilnius, in Lithuanian 0905 gmt 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 12 European, Azeri MPs discuss Armenian nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan Baku, 25 February: A sitting of the committee for cooperation between the European parliament and the Azerbaijani Milli Maclis [parliament] opened in Brussels today. Participants in this meeting remembered the victims of the Xocali tragedy with a minute's silence at the beginning of the meeting, member of the Azerbaijani delegation Anar Mammadxanov has said in a telephone interview with Turan news agency. The meeting discussed a range of issues relating to the Karabakh conflict, the environment, human rights and the regional economic development. The Azerbaijani side particularly raised the issue of the Armenian Metsamor nuclear power station's environmental threat to the South Caucasus countries. Mammadxanov said that European MPs had approached this information with understanding. The meeting adopted a document including the European Parliament's recommendations on these issues. This document particularly acknowledged Nagornyy Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and stated that the conflict should be resolved within the framework of the country's territorial integrity. Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1740 gmt 25 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 13 NRC Orders Nuclear Power Plants to Enhance Security NRC: Press Release - 2002 - 25 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-025 February 26, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued Orders to all 104 commercial nuclear power plants to implement interim compensatory security measures for the generalized high-level threat environment. Some of the requirements formalize a series of security measures that NRC licensees had taken in response to advisories issued by the NRC in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Additional security enhancements, which have emerged from the on-going comprehensive security review, are also spelled out in the Orders. The requirements will remain in effect until such time as the Commission determines that the level of threat has diminished, or that other security changes are needed following a comprehensive re-evaluation of current safeguards and security programs. The Commission views these compensatory measures as prudent, interim measures to address the generalized high-level threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear reactor community. The Commission recognizes that the licensees have voluntarily and responsibly implemented additional security measures following the events of September 11. But in light of the fact that the threat environment has persisted longer than expected, the Commission has concluded that it is appropriate to require certain security measures so that they are maintained within the established regulatory framework. The specific actions taken are understandably sensitive, but generally include requirements for increased patrols, augmented security forces and capabilities, additional security posts, installation of additional physical barriers, vehicle checks at greater stand-off distances, enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities, and more restrictive site access controls for all personnel. The Orders are effective immediately. Licensees are required to provide NRC with a schedule for achieving full compliance within 20 days. Licensees must also notify NRC within 20 days and justify in writing if they feel they are unable to comply with any of the requirements of the order, if compliance with any requirement is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or if implementation of any requirement would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license, or adversely impact safe operation of the facility. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the NRC advised all of the nuclear power plants and other key nuclear facilities to go to the highest level of security, which they promptly did. Specific measures were subsequently defined in a number of advisories, and have been subject to audit by NRC security experts. The NRC is coordinating with other Federal and State agencies on protection of critical infrastructure within the United States. A copy of the non-safeguards portion of the order will be posted on the NRC web site today at: http://www.nrc.gov under "What's New At the Site." ***************************************************************** 14 Ukraine set to help Bulgaria create nuclear safety centre BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 25, 2002 Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Kiev, 25 February: Ukrainian experts will help Bulgaria create a scientific and technical centre for nuclear and radiation safety, chairman of the state committee on nuclear regulation, Vadym Hryshchenko, said today. A delegation of the Bulgarian committee on the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes is in Kiev on a visit. Its members have visited Ukraine's state scientific and technical centre for nuclear and radiation safety which carries out examinations and conducts various research projects. A similar centre is expected to be created in Bulgaria. The sides will draft an agreement on prompt warning of nuclear accidents, exchange of information, and cooperation in the field of nuclear safety and protection from radiation, as well as personnel training. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1626 gmt 25 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 15 Nuclear plant in Slovenia shut down over technical glitch Monday, 25-Feb-2002 10:10AM Story from AFP Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) LJUBLJANA, Feb 25 (AFP) - Slovenia's Krsko nuclear power plant was temporarily shut down Monday due to problems with the reactor's cooling system, the STA news agency reported. Signs of overheating were detected on Sunday and the security system responded, plant officials said, adding that there were no negative effects on the environment. The reactor was taken off the electrical grid early Monday and will be reconnected after repairs, they added. The plant, located on Slovenian territory, started up in 1983 and was built by Croatia and Slovenia which were part of former Yugoslavia. Following their independence from Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia were in a dispute over ownership of the plant but an agreement was signed in December on sharing the energy produced at the plant. The agreement has yet to be ratified by the parliaments of the two countries. The Krsko plant is planned to shut down in 2023. ***************************************************************** 16 Ukraine scientists alarmed by state of Chernobyl sarcophagus BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Text of report by Russian Centre TV on 26 February [Presenter] The construction of the sarcophagus to cover the burned reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was finished 16 years ago. More than thirty parts of the construction itself are now in a critical condition and could collapse any minute. Although, as UN data shows, people can live within a 30 kilometres zone around the nuclear power plant. Our correspondent reports from the site. [Correspondent Larisa Martyusheva] Construction of a new sarcophagus is mostly being financed by international firms. All the projects are in the draft stage at present. It was promised that the new shelter would be built by the year 2007. The Ukrainian side alone should support the safety of the existing sarcophagus by the date fixed. Twenty six million hryvnas (Ukrainian currency) instead of the necessary forty have been allocated in 2002 for this purpose. But Russian enterprises received no money this year so far. Specialists have ascertained that the present sarcophagus protects from radiation as badly as a piece of wood could protect. Radiation goes in different directions with the wind. There was a piece of radioactive fuel found on the roof of the sarcophagus in November 2001. It had been brought up to the surface through the reactor's air conditioning system. Scientists can only guess what is going on inside the sarcophagus. A chemical reaction could provoke anything, from a minor radioactive leak to a fire or even to an explosion. [Oleksandr Smyshlyayev, captioned as first deputy minister of Ukrainian ministry of environment and nuclear safety] Sixteen years have passed. And as you know any construction can age. If things go from bad to worse and the heavy metal parts of the roof fall inside the sarcophagus, we can predict the contamination of the whole territory within thirty kilometres, including a high level of radioactivity on the territory of the nuclear plant. [Correspondent] Scientists say that every day we are coming closer to a new disaster, which can again cost us many human lives. [Video shows views of nuclear reactor no.4 from different angles] VIDEO INTEREST Source: Centre TV, Moscow, in Russian 0800 gmt 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 17 Millstone sets a record for efficiency TheDay.com: February 26 Refueling shutdown breaks 283-day run of continuous operation By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 02/26/2002 Waterford — When it comes to making money in the nuclear power industry, keeping your plants operating is the key. Under new leadership, Millstone Power Station has been doing just that. When the Millstone 2 reactor was shut down earlier this month for a refueling, it marked the completion of a 283-day run, a period during which both units 2 and 3 were running without interruption. It was a record for the nuclear station. Millstone station was acquired by Dominion from Northeast Utilities for $1.3 billion in April 2001. During the record run, the two plants operated at 95.7 percent capacity, generating 14 million megawatts of electricity, enough to provide 500,000 homes with power during that period. Connecticut gets about 45 percent of its power from the two Millstone reactors. A third reactor ceased operations in 1995 and is permanently shut down. Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, the subsidiary operating the Millstone plants, declined to say how long Millstone 2 will be down for the refueling outage. Since the electric power generation industry was opened to competition two years ago, utilities have stopped estimating when their plants will return to service because it could influence power trading on the open market. Quick return is essential But Dominion is sure to be looking for a quick return to service. During the refueling, uranium-filled fuel rods, their energy spent, are removed from the reactor and replaced with fresh rods. Utilities also use the time to conduct maintenance work, much of which cannot be done when a plant is operating. Each day out of service means revenue losses, and the industry has made dramatic strides in its ability to get plants refueled and back in operation. In 1990, it took an average of 105 days to get a reactor back in service, a figure that dropped to 39.9 days in 2000. The improvements have come without compromising safety, said Hyde. All maintenance work is carefully planned out and coordinated ahead of time. Hyde likened it to having a pit crew ready and waiting when a car runs out of gas. Most reactors operate for about 18 months between refuelings. Millstone 3 has been operating for 331 consecutive days and will not be refueled for several months. In addition to the two Waterford reactors, Dominion operates four reactors in Virginia. In 2001 the nation's 103 nuclear plants set production records for the third straight year, increasing output by about 2 percent due to increased efficiency. The plants collectively operated at 91 percent of capacity, an industry record. While industry critics are concerned that safety could be compromised in the effort to keep nuclear plants online, performance standards have been improving as measured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hyde said industry officials have learned that quality standards must be maintained. Trying to cut corners, and compromise safety, can lead to prolonged outages, no longer an option in the new competitive environment, he said. A painful lesson learned Millstone learned that painful lesson under NU's direction in the mid-1990s when Millstone 2 was shut down for three years and Millstone 3 for two because of a series of regulatory violations and procedural and operating problems. In statements earlier this month, Joe Colvin, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he was confident the industry can sustain its performance even as the fleet of nuclear plants age. The industry, with the support of President Bush, is also pressing for new plant construction for the first time in 20 years, but can expect strong opposition from groups concerned about nuclear waste, plant security and construction costs. p.choiniere@theday.com n Hartford — Phelps Dodge Copper Products Co. will be able to resume operations, but the Norwich manufacturer must pay a $25,000 fine to the state Department of Environmental Protection. DEP Deputy Commissioner David Leff said the agency reached an agreement Monday with Phelps Dodge. The new deal allows the company to continue operating its shaft furnace — the main furnace used to melt raw material into cast copper rods — under a temporary permit until May 16. By that time, Phelps Dodge must meet all requirements for a permanent operating permit and have that permit in place. Phelps Dodge recently installed $2.5 million in emissions controls on the furnace to meet a previous DEP order. The company had nine months to test the new equipment under the temporary permit, which expired Feb. 17. Phelps Dodge could not meet the operating permit requirements in time, forcing the DEP to issue an administrative order that shut down manufacturing operations last week. According to Monday's agreement, the $25,000 civil penalty was imposed because Phelps Dodge failed to complete testing within “full accordance” of the temporary permit requirements. DEP issued an enforcement order last week. “I think it's reasonable under the circumstances,” Leff said of the fine. Bill Spellman, the plant manager, said workers at the Wawecus Road facility were lighting the furnace Monday evening and planned to resume production of copper rods this morning. The plant employs 150 people and is the largest taxpayer in Norwich. Manufacturing operations ground to a halt all last week. “We're happy to be back in operation,” he said. “We got the extension we asked for. We expect to work closely with the DEP over the next several months so we can receive a final operating permit.” In an earlier interview, Spellman said the DEP enforcement order was based on an unattainable emissions goal. Phelps Dodge installed emissions equipment that was supposed to destroy 99 percent of the carbon monoxide released from the shaft furnace. But after extensive testing, the new equipment destroyed 96 percent to 97 percent. The manufacturer, which originally claimed its equipment could meet the 99 percent threshold, ultimately acknowledged the guarantee was wrong and that information was faxed to DEP. But Leff said the DEP did not receive the fax until two days after the temporary permit expired. He said Phelps Dodge had known the deadline was looming, although Spellman said the company asked twice for extensions. The DEP, in a press release, announced it had issued an enforcement order two days after receiving the manufacturer's acknowledgement. On Monday, Leff said DEP would discuss whether it is willing to lower the 99 percent threshold with Phelps Dodge between now and May. He said it's an issue that needs to be worked out in the final permit. Spellman said he is hopeful Phelps Dodge can satisfy the DEP's requirements and receive the final permit. “We have to,” he said. “We think from our end we're pretty close to providing the state with everything to make that determination. We're committed to operating this plant within all environmental guidelines.” s.haigh@theday.com © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 18 Warning over UK nuclear safety policy Irish Newspapers THE British government must immediately inform this state of any safety incidents at its nuclear power plants, junior energy minister Joe Jacob warned yesterday. Currently, Britain is only obliged to alert Dublin if there is an off-site radiation leak threat at facilities such as Sellafield. Asked about the incident at Sellafield on February 8 when a basket of 24 spent fuel rods fell from a discharge shaft, Mr Jacob said that did not come within the current notification mechanism. But the Government now wants to be told about all such incidents. © Copyright Unison ***************************************************************** 19 Amchitka atomic veterans may get benefits By DON HUNTER Military personnel who developed radiation-related cancers after working on Alaska's Amchitka Island during the atomic testing era 30 years ago may be eligible for medical benefits and compensation under new regulations announced by U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi. In a written statement, Principi said the Amchitka atomic veterans have been added to a program that since 1988 has provided benefits to military personnel who served during the post-World War II occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or at sites where America conducted above-ground nuclear tests. Until now, personnel stationed at Amchitka during the underground nuclear testing era there - between 1964 and 1974 - have not been eligible for the VA program. Similarly, until last year, civilian employees of contractors who worked on the Amchitka tests were excluded from compensation and benefits available to civilians who worked at above-ground test sites. Both Amchitka groups now are eligible, although for different compensation and benefits packages. Under the new VA regulations, Principi said in his statement, the agency will presume a connection between service on Amchitka and any of 20 forms of radiation-related cancers. The effective date for the regulatory changes is March 26. It's unclear how many military personnel may have served on Amchitka during the three atomic tests there - Long Shot in 1965, Milrow in 1969 and 5-megaton Cannikin in 1971. "We don't have any idea," said Terry Brady, an Anchorage resident and a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, a nonprofit organization. In its statement, the VA said one reason for adding Amchitka military vets to the program is to "ensure equity between veterans and federal civilians who may be entitled to compensation for these cancers." But unlike the civilian Amchitka benefits program - which provides $150,000 lump sum compensation payments to eligible workers or their survivors - compensation for former Amchitka military personnel likely will vary according to an individual's condition and degree of disability, said Richard Conant, the association's national director in Albuquerque, N.M. "We're telling people to go ahead and file," he said. "You know what they say: The government doesn't come to you, you've got to go to it." A spokesman for the Veterans Administration in Washington was unable to say last week exactly how the compensation and benefits for qualifying Amchitka veterans will be calculated. A fact sheet on the agency's Web site, however, indicates that the amount of compensation for veterans exposed to radiation depends "upon the degree of disability and follow(s) a payment schedule that is adjusted annually and applies to all veterans." Under the regulations, these are the diseases presumed to be service-related if a veteran was working in what the VA calls a "radiation-risk activity": leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), cancers of the thyroid, breast, pharynx, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, pancreas, gall bladder, bile ducts, salivary gland, urinary tract, bone, brain, colon, lung or ovary, or multiple myeloma, lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease), primary cancer of the liver, or bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma. On the Net: http://www.va.gov (Contact Don Hunter at the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska at dhunter(at)adn.com) February 25, 2002 Copyright © 2002 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights ***************************************************************** 20 Yucca: A NIMBY nightmare -- The Washington Times February 26, 2002 Charles Rousseaux "We will fight on Capitol Hill. We will fight it in the heartland. We will fight it in the court of public opinion." So proclaimed Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who is preparing for a fight of Churchillian proportion over President Bush's recent decision to authorize construction of the nation's only repository for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The mayor's opposition is understandable: After all, the Yucca repository represents a radioactive NIMBY nightmare. It will eventually store up to 80,000 tons of high-level reactor waste 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas if it ever opens. Unfortunately for the mayor, the 40,000 tons of high-level waste already generated by nuclear reactors (primarily spent fuel rods) has created a crisis of Churchilian proportions — especially since 2,000 tons of newly spent fuel are added each year. Those metallic masses are currently being stored in 131 on-site short-term above-ground storage facilities in 39 states. Many of those storage areas are rapidly running out of room, but much more troublesome is the fact that 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of those sites, making each one a potential target to a terrorist intent on creating a weapon of mass disruption. (Terrorists who attack spent fuel rod storage areas almost certainly won't be able to set off a nuclear explosion, but if they succeed in breeching containment, the contamination problems could be enormous.) The repository offers a solid solution to removing such a threat — literally. It will be drilled into one of the thicker layers of volcanic rock in Yucca Mountain, about 1,000 below the surface between two of the mountain's three faults (the one running through the planned repository is tiny). The area is extremely stable geologically, and aside from terrorists, the biggest threat to containment is the slow drip of water eventually rusting some of the hardened storage containers, causing a radioactive leak. That should take some thousands of years, since the repository will sit about 1,000 feet above the local water table, and that the arid area in which Yucca stands receives an annual average of 7 inches of rain each year. Such a radioactive leak would take even longer to raise the risk of cancer in any of the local residents, considering the desert environment of the government land upon which Yucca sits. That land, it should be noted, is adjacent to the Nevada Test Site, where the government used to test nuclear devices. Above that residual radiation is Nevada's somewhat carcinogenic atmosphere from both Las Vegas' smoke-filled casinos and its sun-filled skies. In fact, Nevadans tend to have higher than national averageratesof melanoma (skin cancer) mortality, a partial consequence of the higher than national average levels of ultraviolet radiation shining on the Silver State. Given those burning facts, anti-Yucca activists have fallen back on fears zof transporting nuclear waste to Yucca. In a press release, Michael Marionette, executive director of the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), called such shipments "mobile Chernobyls." Mr. Goodman proclaimed that with his decision, Mr. Bush had chosen to "expose millions of Americans in 43 states to potential nuclear holocaust." However, 2,500 shipments of spent fuel have arrived safely at their destinations since 1965 according to the Energy Department, and each transport cask will be built to survive both a beating and a biting by "Iron Mike" Tyson. Besides, keeping the material where it is still exposes millions of Americans to radioactive risks. There simply isn't a way to achieve the zero risk solution that many of the anti-Yucca groups seem to be demanding. While NIRS and other anti-nuclear power groups seem to be alarmed about finding atoms everywhere (what else to make of NIRS' numerous campaigns for "nuclear free zones") otherwise reasonable Nevadans may be more concerned that their state will lose much needed tourism money. That would explain why the American Gaming Association may put up to $500,000 in the anti-Yucca campaign, and the Nevada Resort Association plans on chipping in another $250,000. Yet those fears seem somewhat farcical as well. After all, nuclear waste isn't usually the first concern of couples intent on forming nuclear families (especially those intent on doing so to oaths administered by an Elvis impersonator), and compulsive gamblers with a burning tip don't usually pause at the airport gate to check in with the Pentagon. The repository at Yucca would help the Pentagon though, considering that 40 percent of the Navy's fleet depends on nuclear power. So do millions of Americans — 20 percent of their electricity also comes from nuclear power. So while the Yucca repository is not a perfect solution to the problem of high-level reactor waste, it does offer a reasonable answer to a series of problems whose outcome would otherwise be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Indeed, if it does eventually open, it might well be said that never in the annals of waste disposal was so much owed by so many to a single site. Charles Rousseaux is an editor for the Commentary pages and an editorial writer for The Washington Times. ***************************************************************** 21 Nuclear waste parochialism -- The Washington Times February 26, 2002 Bruce Fein Parochialism, the chronic bane of national strength, is afoot over Nevada's Yucca Mountain. President George Bush, pursuant to delegated legislative authority, has submitted to Congress Yucca's designation as the permanent repository for the nation's high-level nuclear wastes that have been dangerously accumulating for decades at scores of dispersed nuclear power plants. Congress, however, crowned the governor of Nevada with a veto over the president's Yucca Mountain designation in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. And Gov. Kenny Guinn has voiced his intent to thwart President Bush's nationally informed and politically accountable nuclear waste burial decision with his delegated veto. The Nevada viewpoint will prevail over the national under the Act unless both the Senate and House of Representatives pass a resolution of disapproval within 90 days of the governor's veto, which also becomes federal law with President Bush's signature or a congressional override of a presidential veto. The United States Constitution, however, speaks the language of "We the people." It prohibits Congress from endowing Mr. Guinn, whose political accountability and vision are intrinsically local, to trump President Bush's Yucca nuclear waste site selection, a matter of serious national urgency. Similarly, Congress could not authorize governors to veto ICBM site selections by the president. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo lectured in Baldwin vs. G.A.F. Seelig (1935): "The Constitution was framed under the dominion of a political philosophy less parochial in range. It was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division." It might be urged, however, that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from mocking Justice Cardozo's wisdom, and anointing state governors as co-partners in the legislative process, whether over nuclear waste disposal or otherwise. But Article 1 vests national legislative power with Congress to promote the political accountability of senators and representatives for their official actions. And Article II, section 2, clause 2 (the "Appointments Clause") requires that "officers" of the United States wielding significant executive powers be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, a sister method for ensuring politically accountable executive decisions. Thus, the Supreme Court has ordained limits on congressional efforts to frustrate or attenuate accountability by shuffling off pivotal policy decisions outside the legislative or executive branches. For example, the high court nixed a federal statute delegating line-item veto power to the president in matters of taxation and spending. Mr. Guinn's veto power over President Bush's Yucca Mountain repository designation is similarly dubious under the Appointments Clause. The governor was not appointed by Mr. Bush and confirmed by the Senate as prescribed. Yet who could deny that in vetoing the Bush site selection Mr. Guinn will be exercising significant executive power of the United States comparable to President Bush himself when making the Yucca designation to Congress? Mr. Guinn's veto authority thus transgresses the Appointments Clause. But assuming Mr. Guinn's executive power is non-significant because subject to superceding federal legislation, "inferior" officers acting pursuant to United States laws must still be appointed by the president alone, heads of departments, or federal judges. Gov. Guinn, however, was elected by the citizens of Nevada, not appointed by any federal authority. The Constitution places further limits on the dispersal of federal or state governmental power to private or politically unaccountable figures. Thus, the Supreme Court held in Seattle Trust Co. vs. Roberge (1928) that constitutional due process prohibits a legislature from empowering adjacent landowners with veto power over the land uses of neighbors. Likewise, in Eubank vs. Richmond (1908), the court held unconstitutional the delegation of customary official zoning and land use restrictions to clusters of private property owners. In both cases, the chief vice was standardless decisions by private parties unbeholden to the delegating public authority but given official sanction in the making or execution of laws. Mr. Guinn's veto authority under the 1987 Amendments Act seems indistinguishable. It may be exercised for any reason or no reason. And Mr. Guinn is no disinterested party in the Yucca Mountain site selection. Citizens of Nevada are his constituency, a parochial, not a national, constituency from where his delegated power originated; and, citizens of Nevada generally oppose Mr. Bush's site selection driven by their selfish NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) instinct. President Bush, of course, is no less politically calculating than Gov. Guinn. But the Constitution shrewdly marries that calculating to "We the people" of the United States, not "We the people" of a single state. That marriage sharply inclines the president to favor national values and benefits, precisely what the Constitution intended. September 11 has dispatched thousands of our fabulous soldiers abroad to fight international terrorism and to defend the liberties of all citizens of the United States. For a single state to complain that its citizens are disproportionately risking that last full measure of devotion in Afghanistan or elsewhere would smack of blasphemy. The risks of a Yucca Mountain repository to citizens of Nevada seem trivial in comparison. Shouldn't we all ungrudgingly accept sacrifices on behalf of major national enterprises as welcome opportunities for our finest hours. Shouldn't we invite ICBMs in our back yards if necessary to bolster national security? Isn't that attitude the best security for keeping the obelisk of the United States shining for the ages? Bruce Fein is general counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, a public-interest law group headquartered in Virginia. ***************************************************************** 22 Anti-Enron mood may boost Yucca fight Las Vegas SUN Today: February 26, 2002 at 11:15:26 PST By Erin Neff Yucca Mountain opponents are hoping anti-Enron sentiment and questions about the Bush administration's energy policy will bolster their fight against the nuclear waste repository. On Monday Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined a General Accounting Office lawsuit seeking to get Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over information about his meetings with energy executives. He hopes to compel the release of data about meetings with nuclear industry officials. It's more than just a political move as Nevada leaders want to draw the link between the administration policy and Yucca Mountain. "We don't know what we're looking for, but we'll know it when we see it," Robert Loux, executive director of the Nuclear Nuclear Projects Office, said. A similar probe led to discovery that the Energy Department's law firm, Winston &Strawn, had also represented nuclear industry clients. An Inspector General's report on the alleged conflict of interest gives Nevada a chance to challenge every document the law firm submitted throughout the project's history, Loux added. "We think that could help us with our legal challenges," Loux added. In the wake of the Enron scandal, the GAO has sued the White House to obtain records of the meetings Cheney had with energy executives as the administration drafted its national energy strategy, released in May 2001. Reid said 14 notable Yucca Mountain proponents were on the 48-member energy task force led by Cheney. Reid wants to see if Yucca Mountain was discussed in the creation of the energy policy and whether the discussions influenced the president's decision. Nuclear industry officials met with Cheney's task force in March 2001, and the administration's energy policy released two months later included tax breaks for nuclear power and a recommendation to "use the best science to provide a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste." Reid said Bush may have changed his opinion about the dump after the meetings. When he was campaigning for president in Nevada in 2000, Bush pledged to make any Yucca Mountain decision on "sound science, not politics." Environmental groups have long argued the Bush administration's energy policy was a political payoff to energy industry executives who donated generously to Bush's campaign. They also are eager for the Bush administration to release energy meeting documents. "The (Energy Secretary Spencer) Abraham and Bush decisions contradict their campaign promises about relying on safe science," said Bob Schaeffer, spokesman for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. "It's important for the public to know what other factors outweighed those considerations." Electric utilities with significant nuclear divisions and other nuclear power interests gave Bush $290,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. Erle Nye, a chief executive at TXU, a nuclear utility in Texas, was one of the Bush "pioneers" who each raised $100,000 for Bush's campaign. Nye himself gave Bush $20,000. Donations totaling $37,000 were also made by 17 of the 23 board members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top trade group. Irene Navis, who leads the county's Yucca Mountain strategy, said county officials are exploring whether the county can join Reid in joining the GAO lawsuit. "We have standing as an effected unit of local government so we think we may be able to file an amicus brief," Navis said. No sooner had Reid finished announcing his latest fight-the-dump tactic Sunday on Fox News than local officials began wondering if they, too, could raise the Enron spectre. On Monday, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera held a hastily-scheduled press conference to say that they would like to join Reid's efforts. The only problem is they don't know whether they have legal standing to file a "friend of the court" brief in the matter. As a result the press conference really announced nothing more than the officials' already-stated opposition to the dump and more anti-Bush rhetoric. "We need the information about the meetings because it speaks also to the president's bias if he in fact took these energy executives' comments into consideration on the Yucca decision," Herrera said. Goodman said government is supposed to be open and he expects the Bush administration to disclose whether Yucca Mountain was discussed in any of the meetings with nuclear energy representatives. "We can't have guess work here," Goodman said, urging disclosure. "Show us what you have." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 LegCo backs radioactive waste plan China Daily HK Edition February 26, 2002 02/26/2002 (JOSEPH LI) A majority of lawmakers agree with the government's proposal to build a new facility on Siu Ah Chau, an uninhabited outlying island, for long-term storage of 55 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). They find the option more flexible and cost-effective compared with the option of building storage facilities in Guangdong Province. The LLRW is stored presently inside an air-raid shelter in Queen's Road East on Hong Kong Island, Deputy Secretary for Environment &Food Donald Tong said yesterday at a Legislative Council panel. Although the LLRW does not pose any danger or health hazard, the government prefers a purpose-built facility in the long run. He said the local option is more flexible in future LLRW management and responsive to future needs. As to the building cost, the local option is cheaper at HK$89 million plus an annual operating cost of HK$2.8 million, versus HK$298 million for the Guangdong option. Panellists Emily Lau and Sin Chung-kai agreed that Hong Kong should have its own disposal facility for "it should not send unwanted things to other people." But they expressed concern about security and safety on the island, while member Wong Yung-kan wondered if Siu Ah Chau is a proper place because, with its beautiful beaches, it might be developed into a marine park. Tong replied that alarm, lighting and closed-circuit television systems would be installed, with the alarm system connected to the Fire Services Department and a 24-hour report centre. Besides, marine police would be asked to patrol more frequently. With initial support, the proposal will be submitted to the Public Works Subcommittee and Finance Committee in due course. | Copyright 2000 By China Daily Hong Kong Edition. All rights ***************************************************************** 24 Proposal promotes MOX fuel 02/26/02 Augusta Georgia: Technology: National agency seeks expansion of project Web posted Tuesday, February 26, 2002 By Brandon Haddock [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] Staff Writer A revised proposal for a new plutonium-fuel plant at Savannah River Site calls for more nuclear-power plants to use the controversial fuel. In a report to Congress on Feb. 15, the National Nuclear Security Administration says two more reactors would be needed to burn the mixed-oxide, or MOX, reactor fuel. The fuel, which contains surplus plutonium once used in nuclear weapons, would be manufactured in a new plant proposed for SRS. An Energy Department official in Washington did not return a phone call seeking comment on the report. But a MOX critic blasted the 62-page document, saying it raises new questions about the viability of the program. "This report dodges all the hard questions," said Tom Clements, the executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington. "It does not further the plutonium disposition program at all; rather, it confuses it. "This underscores the need for a thorough environmental impact statement, and for a halt of plutonium shipments to Savannah River until it's done." Mr. Clements is among many observers who have said the $3.8 billion MOX program is too expensive and the fuel too risky to use in nuclear-power plants. SRS supporters have lauded the MOX program, which is expected to bring more than 500 long-term jobs to the nuclear-weapons site. So far, Duke Energy is the only utility to commit to using MOX fuel in its nuclear-power plants. Duke has agreed to use MOX fuel in four reactors at two plants. Those plants are the Catawba Nuclear Power Station near York, S.C., and the McGuire Nuclear Power Station near Huntersville, N.C. Virginia Power had agreed to use MOX fuel in its North Anna nuclear power plant, near Mineral, Va., but backed out of the deal in April 2000, citing business reasons. Utilities have financial incentives to consider using MOX fuel, a local observer said. "The U.S. Department of Energy is footing the bill for this," said Mal McKibben, the executive director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, an Aiken-based pro-nuclear group. "Financially, it's a pretty good deal for any utility that wants to use the fuel." Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or bhaddock@augustachronicle.com [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] . 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. ***************************************************************** 25 A German scientist's son defends his father's work on Nazi atom bomb By Lori Ayotte, Associated Press, 2/26/2002 02:20 DURHAM, N.H. (AP) Historians and scientists have long wondered why Nazi Germany didn't build a nuclear bomb, a debate that almost always revolves around Nobel Prize-winning physicist Werner Heisenberg. Did he try and fail in the effort? Or did Heisenberg ensure a bomb wasn't built? His son thinks his father steered Germany in that direction, despite recent evidence to the contrary. It's an important debate considering Heisenberg's work as leader of Germany's nuclear fission project had the potential to change world history. A 1993 book, ''Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb,'' argued that Heisenberg sabotaged the effort. The book inspired the play ''Copenhagen.'' This month, the family of the late Danish scientist Niels Bohr released a letter that suggests a different conclusion. Bohr wrote that when the two former colleagues, their countries at war, met in Copenhagen in 1941, Heisenberg shocked Bohr by telling him he was committed to developing an A-bomb for Hitler and confident of succeeding. ''You spoke in a manner that could only give me the firm impression that, under your leadership, everything was being done in Germany to develop atomic weapons,'' Bohr wrote about five years before his death in 1962. Heisenberg's son, Jochen Heisenberg, who teaches physics at the University of New Hampshire, believes Bohr misunderstood his father. ''People who claim he was eager to build a device for Hitler are simply wrong,'' Jochen Heisenberg, 62, said. ''He did not like the idea of having to build nuclear weapons for a regime like Hitler's even though in official records he always maintained that decision was not a moral (one), just a rational decision looking at all the facts.'' Heisenberg's son bases his views partly on conversations with his father in his later years. He acknowledges that he and his siblings generally didn't ask their father critical questions about his wartime work, and he has no letters from his father on the subject. Heisenberg died in 1976. But he said his father's personality and thinking habits support his claim after the war that he studied the problem for two years before presenting evidence to German leaders that building a bomb was not practical under the circumstances. Though he did not develop an atom bomb, Heisenberg worked to develop a nuclear reactor to generate power work he defended after the war as logical. ''I was absolutely convinced of the possibility of our making a uranium engine, but I never thought we would make a bomb, and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine and not a bomb,'' he once said. Hans Bethe, a Nobel prize-winning physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, said Heisenberg could tell the Germans he was working on a reactor to build a bomb, and could tell others he was simply working on a reactor. ''Heisenberg was known as anti-Nazi, but very patriotic,'' said Bethe, a retired physics professor at Cornell University. ''He could say he was working on an atomic bomb and yet not working on it.'' The elder Heisenberg could have left Germany before the war, but did not. While some see that as evidence he sympathized with the Nazi cause, the younger Heisenberg disagrees. ''He made compromises which were necessary after he decided to stay in Germany,'' Jochen Heisenberg said. ''He certainly never intended to be a martyr. But he thought it was important to save science in Germany through the war.'' Jochen Heisenberg notes that to survive, his father could not publicly oppose the Nazis in Germany, or in Copenhagen, which was occupied by the Nazis in 1941. ''Niels Bohr took what (Heisenberg) said in public situations as being the true representation of his beliefs,'' the younger Heisenberg said. The Bohr family is not commenting, said Andrew D. Jackson, chairman of the Niels Bohr Archives in Copenhagen. But Jackson is skeptical. ''(Bohr) knew perfectly well political times were difficult and that guarded speech was the rule of the day,'' Jackson said. Bohr and Heisenberg met after the war to sort out the Copenhagen meeting the basis for the ''Copenhagen'' play but they never resolved their differences. Some scholars point out that Bohr's accounts appear to be more detailed he even says he remembers everything exactly. Some of Heisenberg's reminiscences, on the other hand, are hedged with phrases such as ''as far as I can remember.'' But Jochen Heisenberg wonders if Bohr's memory was as good as he claimed. And he notes that Bohr never sent the letter that was released this month. Many doubt the mystery will ever be solved. ''I think the actual question of what happened is going to be left hanging,'' Jackson said. ''They say completely opposite things, so what do you believe?'' On the Net: American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg ***************************************************************** 26 Hands of the Doomsday Clock to move February 26, 2002 For more than 50 years, the Bulletin’s “Doomsday Clock” has been the world’s most recognizable symbol of the threat of global catastrophe. On February 27, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will reset the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock. This will mark the seventeenth time that the minute hand has moved since the clock’s debut in 1947. This historic event is open to the public. Here are the details: When: 10 a.m. (CST), Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Where: Max Palevsky Theater, Ida Noyes Hall, 1212 East 59th St., University of Chicago (Click here for a map. [http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/maps/eastquad/idanoyes.html] ) If you are unable to join us for the press conference, you can still watch the event by visiting our Web site [http://www.thebulletin.org] after 4 p.m. (CST) on February 27—simply click on the link for the webcast. See: The Bulletin’s overview of “Doomsday Clock” history [http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html] February 22, 2002 What about the girls? Last week the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force, banning the recruitment and use of child soldiers. (Only 14 countries have ratified the protocol so far, and the United States has ratified neither the protocol nor the Convention.) More than 300,000 children (individuals under 18) are participating in areas of conflict on five continents, according to the United Nations. "We are urging all governments and armed groups to end the military recruitment of children under 18 and to release and rehabilitate those children already in service,” said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson in a press release [http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/CC37AFC7BC9AE9B8C1256B5E003AE 062?opendocument] . But the road to rehabilitation for girls involved in armed conflict is much more difficult than for boys, reported Dyan Mazurana and Susan McKay in the September/October 2001 Bulletin, due in part to the failure of international humanitarian groups to recognize the particular plight of girls. “Constrained notions of girls’ roles may contribute to girls being overlooked for post-conflict demobilization and rehabilitation programs,” wrote Mazurana and McKay. “Male fighters are the nearly exclusive priority for most disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs—significantly marginalizing girls.” “The short- and long-term impact on girls’ lives, both during and after conflict, has barely begun to be assessed by the international humanitarian and defense community. ‘Where are the girls?’ is rarely asked in discussions about planning for children who have been used by armed forces.” For the whole article, see: “Child Soldiers: What About The Girls? [http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/so01/so01mazurana.html] ” by Dyan Mazurana and Susan McKay, September/October 2001 February 15, 2002 Mayak's walking wounded Over the last decade, thousands of people in Russia’s Chelyabinsk region have received medical treatment through federal programs addressing "damage caused by radiation accidents at the Mayak enterprise," according to Itar-Tass (February 12). “In total, 42,280 people have been registered in the Urals region's medical and dosimetric list,” said Deputy Emergencies Minister Nadezhda Gerasimova. Direct medical treatment was given to about 15,000 people, according to Gerasimova, and more than 26,000 children have received rehabilitation treatment. In 1999, Bulletin author Vladislav Larin interviewed several former workers of the Mayak nuclear complex, where, beginning in the late 1940s, the Soviet Union produced tons of plutonium for its nuclear arsenal. "When we were engaged to work at Mayak, nobody knew what the conditions would be at our future jobs," Faina Kuznetsova, who worked in Mayak’s plutonium separation plant in the 1950s, told Larin. "We were not warned about the effects of radioactivity. We did not even know what radioactivity was. That is why we handled the radioactive solutions—we were afraid only of the KGB." The workers' stories, which had never been told before, often revolved around dangerous working conditions and nuclear accidents that went unreported. "There were hundreds of nuclear accidents that had dire consequences—we even had an uncontrolled chain reaction [criticality accident]," one of the workers wrote to Larin. "The difference between the official figures and the real number of accidents can be explained by the regime of absolute secrecy that was maintained. Under that regime, plant inspectors hid most of the accidents from both the heads of the nuclear industry and from the government; it was the only way to avoid certain punishment." See: "Mayak's Walking Wounded [http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/so99/so99larin.html] ," by Vladislav Larin, September/October 1999
[http://www.thebulletin.org/bulletinwirearchive/BulletinWireTOC.html] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ***************************************************************** 27 Adm. Ramdas: Danger of Nuclear Exchange in South Asia Greater Than Ever Before IEER | For immediate release, February 26, 2002 For further information contact: Arjun Makhijani or Michele Boyd [ michele@ieer.org] : 301-270-5500 P R E S S R E L E A S E Danger of Nuclear Exchange in South Asia Greater Than Ever Before, Says Former Chief of the Indian Navy Nuclear-Armed India and Pakistan Must De-Escalate Military Buildup, Work Toward Disarmament Washington, DC, February 26, 2002: The danger of large-scale war that might include nuclear weapons is greater today than it has ever been, according to Admiral L. Ramdas, retired chief of the Indian Navy. He is on a tour of the United States to speak about the military situation in South Asia it relates to terrorism and the risk of nuclear war, and the hurdles facing nuclear disarmament in the region and the world. Admiral Ramdas is currently the Chairperson of the Indian chapter of the Pakistan India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy and a member of the National Committee of India's Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. The tour is jointly organized by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and Women's Actions for New Directions (WAND). "Right now, India and Pakistan are eyeball-to-eyeball with the largest military buildup in their history - a million soldiers confronting each other at the border," said Admiral Ramdas (ret.) "The risks of escalation - from a conventional war over the disputed territory of Kashmir to a nuclear exchange - is greater than it has ever been. The governments of both India and Pakistan must immediately de-escalate the military buildup on the border, revive people-to-people contacts, and come together in the cause of global nuclear disarmament." Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated rapidly in the wake of two terrorist attacks last fall - one on the Kashmir's Parliament and the other on India's Parliament House in New Delhi. India has accused Pakistan of harboring and supporting the terrorists responsible for the attacks. Pakistan has taken some actions to arrest suspects, but not to the satisfaction of India. "Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf, has imposed a ban on many terrorist groups functioning out of Pakistan, including two groups identified by India," explained Admiral Ramdas. "General Musharraf has also made it very clear that no terrorist groups will be permitted to function from within Pakistan to carry out militancy outside Pakistan, including in Kashmir. One hopes that this will be translated into action on the ground in the near future." "At the same time, greater U.S. presence in Central and South Asia as a sequel to the "war against terror" is not a positive development in terms of regional stability and peace," continued Admiral Ramdas. "There are indications that US presence in this region to be of a longish duration. This may trigger a new demand for other forms of emerging strategic partnerships and the possible commencement of a Cold War II -- with the US and the West on the one hand, and China, Russia and India on the other." General Musharraf has proposed a "No War Pact" with India and "denuclearization" of South Asia. India has rejected this offer, claiming that denuclearization in South Asia has no meaning without global disarmament. “Unfortunately, this offer to discuss nuclear matters has been rejected by the Government of India,” said Admiral Ramdas. "Similarly, timing of the test of the Agni II solid-fuelled rocket was inadvisable and unfortunate." "The United States and Russia could help ease tensions between India and Pakistan by advocating a policy of taking all weapons off high-alert that applied first of all to their own weapons," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). "A program of verified de-alerting between the U.S. and Russia would increase the likelihood of India's acceptance of a similar program, leading to a zero alert status in South Asia that would greatly increase the region's and the world's security." "India and Pakistan lack effective command, control, communication and intelligence systems," stated Admiral Ramdas. "When these infrastructures are not there, it makes the whole system more sensitive, accident-prone, and therefore dangerous. Global zero alert would be a major step towards providing a de facto security guarantee." Admiral Ramdas' writings on Indian-Pakistani relations, nuclear matters, peace, and disarmament have been featured in many newspapers and journals. -30- Available on this site: + The Challenge before India and Pakistan - Dialogue - an Imperative [http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramdas2.html] , statement of Admiral L. Ramdas + IEER materials on disarmament and de-alerting [http://www.ieer.org/webindex.html#disarm] Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org [ieer@ieer.org] Takoma Park, Maryland, USA February 26, 2002 ***************************************************************** 28 Adm. Ramdas: The Challenge before India and Pakistan IEER [http://www.ieer.org/index.html] | What’s new [http://www.ieer.org/latest/new.html] The Challenge before India and Pakistan - Dialogue - an Imperative By Admiral L. Ramdas [Former Chief of the Naval Staff, Indian Navy] September 11 - New York, October 1 - Srinagar, and December 13 - New Delhi, are all familiar dates in recent history. Whilst the first ended in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan by the International Coalition led by the United States, the latter two events have almost resulted in a war between India and Pakistan - two nuclear weapon capable states, who also share a long and volatile common border of some three thousand kilometers. In addition, both countries also lack effective command, control, communication and intelligence systems and their absence makes the whole nuclear weapons management that much more sensitive, accident prone, and therefore dangerous. What follows is an attempt to discuss the dynamics of this very complex situation and the impact of the United States military presence in the region. India and Pakistan came into existence from the erstwhile British colony in 1947. Unfortunately, the partition of India was based on religious grounds, which has been the source of continuing animosity between the two countries. It would be worth mentioning in this context that India, with a population of almost 130 million Muslims, is also the second largest Muslim country in the world after Indonesia. The root cause of the many problems that face the Indian sub-continent today, including Jammu and Kashmir, can perhaps be attributed to this background. Without going into the history of the problem, suffice it to say that there is an urgent need for India and Pakistan to find a viable solution that is acceptable to the people of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, which now stands physically divided between India and Pakistan. The involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, and the use of Pakistan as a logistics base for its military operations there, has also to be factored in into this discussion as it is a matter of some concern in the region. At the same time, greater U.S. presence in Central and South Asia as a sequel to the "war against terror" is not a positive development in terms of regional stability and peace. There are indications that U.S. presence in this region will be of a longish duration. This may trigger a new demand for other forms of emerging strategic partnerships and the possible commencement of a Cold War II - with the U.S. and the West on the one hand, and China, Russia and India on the other. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. and India have brought these two nations closer together in addressing the common enemy of terrorism. At the same time, the U.S. is deeply indebted to Pakistan for General Musharraf's courageous stand against the Taliban and the use of bases in Pakistan for its current operations. India had been highlighting the dangers of terrorism to the international community since the early nineties, and had also identified its main source to be located in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Such warnings fell on deaf ears, and only 9-11 made the world community fully appreciate this. Despite both India and Pakistan belonging to the international coalition against terrorism, being signatories to the UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemning the attacks of September 11, and reaffirming their commitment to work together to eliminate the threat of terrorism, the attacks on India of October 1 and December 13 were too much for India to accept. This has resulted in the current eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the armed forces of the two countries along their borders. A huge diplomatic offensive was mounted by India against Pakistan to cease cross-border terrorism and return the twenty terrorists that India claimed were on their wanted list. The danger of war breaking out between these two adversaries over a month ago was very real indeed. Considering that both were nuclear weapon capable states, it was not surprising that the international community, including the U.S., took more than a normal interest in this very dangerous development. Despite all this apparent hostility between the two countries at official levels, peoples groups and peace coalitions on both sides of the border had been continuing their efforts with their respective governments to avoid war and to resume a dialogue. Diplomatic interventions at the highest levels from various countries have supplemented the ongoing efforts by a range of civil society groups to ensure restraint. Indeed the recent visit to the U.S. by General Musharraf, President of Pakistan, reaffirms the lowering of tensions. Domestic compulsions both in India and Pakistan have given rise to much of the recent rhetoric exchanged between the two countries. In the case of Pakistan, this was to manage its radical turn around against Taliban and the fundamentalist Islamic groups, whereas in India this was largely determined by the impending elections to the state assemblies in four states including the largest one of Uttar Pradesh. General Musharraf's courageous address of twelfth January included the banning of two groups identified by India as being responsible for attacks on its democratic institutions. The General's plan to contain fundamentalism and terrorism within Pakistan and also to stop their carrying out terrorist activities outside Pakistan, including in Jammu and Kashmir, was well received in both government and civil society circles in India and elsewhere. However, the Government of India still maintains that these commitments made by General Musharraf have not been translated into action on the ground and therefore the question of a dialogue does not arise at present. Gen. Musharraf followed this up with his offer to enter into a `no-war' pact with India, and to discuss the de-nuclearisation of South Asia. "Unfortunately, this offer to discuss nuclear matters has been rejected by the Government of India," said Admiral Ramdas. "Similarly, timing of the test of the Agni II solid-fuelled rocket was inadvisable and unfortunate." Given the present scene, it is abundantly clear that both India and Pakistan must do everything possible to ensure a return to normalcy at the earliest date. Despite three well meant agreements between the two countries - namely the Tashkent Declaration -1965; the Simla Agreement - 1972; and the Lahore Declaration of 1998, wherein both countries had agreed to settle all their outstanding issues only by peaceful means - they failed to do so. This has been mainly due to the absence of a neutral monitoring and implementation authority, which needs now to be put in place to ensure that the next agreement, whenever it materialises, does not meet the same fate as the rest before it. Perhaps a few countries within the SAARC could perform this role. It is therefore recommended that both countries should implement the following as soon as possible. + Pakistan to cease cross border infiltration and support to terrorism. + India to restore communication links including air, land, and rail transport, and return its High Commissioner to Islamabad. + Defuse and de-escalate the current eyeball to eyeball confrontation along the international border and the line of control. + Resume the dialogue process as soon as possible, especially on the nuclear question and all other issues including Jammu and Kashmir. + Establish an implementation and monitoring agency concurrently with any fresh agreement to ensure its adherence by both the signatories. Pakistan and India are at a crossroad where they have to choose between peace and development against death and destruction. They have already fought three and a half wars and have nothing to show for it. They continue to incur astronomical expenses on defense. The nuclear and missile development programs have made matters much worse. If Pakistan does not stop its cross border terrorism and India does not grasp this opportunity to engage in a dialogue, there is every chance that the International community may lose its patience and decide to intervene in an appropriate manner that may not be palatable to both these countries. So let us TALK, TALK, TALK and very soon. Also on this site: + Press release, "Danger of Nuclear Exchange in South Asia Greater Than Ever Before," [http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramdaspr.html] February 26, 2002 + IEER materials on disarmament and de-alerting [http://www.ieer.org/webindex.html#disarm] Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org [ieer@ieer.org] Takoma Park, Maryland, USA February 26, 2002 ***************************************************************** 29 U.S. Analysts Find No Sign bin Laden Had Nuclear Arms February 26, 2002 By THOM SHANKER Thomas Friedman on Sept. 11 WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — An analysis of suspected radioactive substances seized in Afghanistan has found nothing to prove that Osama bin Laden reached his decade-long goal of acquiring nuclear materials for a bomb, administration officials say. The analysis of suspicious canisters, computer discs and documents conducted by the government suggests, in fact, that Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda may have been duped by black-market weapons swindlers selling crude containers hand-painted with skulls and crossbones and dipped, perhaps, in medical waste to fool a Geiger counter, officials said. More than 110 government buildings, military compounds, terrorist camps, safe houses and caves in Afghanistan have been searched for clues about Al Qaeda's plans and development of advanced terror weapons. American intelligence officers and Special Forces found three containers with contents worrisome enough to be shipped back for detailed analysis by nuclear scientists. No significant amount of radioactive material was found in the containers, two seized at the Taliban Ministry of Agriculture in Kabul and one at an Al Qaeda compound in the Kandahar region, officials said. "We did not find any type of serious radiological material," one Pentagon official said. "The stuff we found in Afghanistan was not the real stuff. They were swindled, like a lot of other people." Another administration official who has been briefed on the materials seized in Afghanistan said, "Their value for a weapon was zero." The analysis, officials at other departments and agencies said, represented the consensus of the government-wide intelligence community. But those officials cautioned that it is impossible to make a blanket assertion that Al Qaeda possesses no nuclear material. Despite the analysis and Al Qaeda's rout from Afghanistan, the group still has the desire, resources and global network of operatives to seek and, perhaps someday, acquire nuclear materials, or biological or chemical ones, that could be used in a terror attack, officials said. Still, the cannisters obtained in Afghanistan did not indicate that the group had yet accomplished that goal. The canisters were in fact so crude — made of thin metal but not lead or lead-lined — that any courier transporting them would have been exposed to harmful levels of radiation had the containers actually held prized nuclear material. The containers were not imprinted with yellow labels accepted worldwide as radiation warnings or even the more common markings for medical waste, either of which might have indicated that the contents were purchased or stolen from a weapons laboratory, nuclear reactor, military installation or hospital. "One just had a skull and crossbones painted on it by hand," a Defense Department official said. "It was a very primitive container. The people carrying it would have been exposed to radiation." The search for weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan provided evidence of how hard it is to acquire sufficient fissionable materials for a small atomic weapon, or even enough radioactive material for a "dirty bomb" in which laboratory waste or civilian nuclear fuel rods would be wrapped around a conventional explosive and detonated, spreading poison and contamination. Officials said this analysis helps explain a notable section in President Bush's State of the Union address, in which he warned of terrorists joining forces with states possessing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. The alliance would be a logical one for terrorists who have found they are unable to purchase those weapons or their components on the black market. "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world," Mr. Bush said before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 29. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, have routinely warned that any terrorist group able to hijack airliners and slam them into office buildings would use even deadlier means of destruction if they could. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this month, Mr. Tenet said Mr. bin Laden had declared that acquiring unconventional weapons was a "a religious duty." "We know that Al Qaeda was working to acquire some of the most dangerous chemical agents and toxins," Mr. Tenet said. "Documents recovered from Al Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan show that bin Ladin was pursuing a sophisticated biological weapons research program. We also believe that bin Laden was seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear device. Al Qaeda may be pursuing a radioactive dispersal device — what some call a `dirty bomb.' " American officials also disclosed today that the United States has yet to find evidence that Al Qaeda was able to create a chemical or biological weapon at any of its camps, command centers or caves in Afghanistan. Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who commands American forces in the Afghan war zone, said today that searches have been conducted at about 60 locations suspected as sites for production of weapons of mass destruction and another 50 or so that he described as "sensitive sites." "We have seen evidence that Al Qaeda had a desire to weaponize chemical and biological capability, but we have not yet found evidence that indicates that they were able to do so," he said at a news conference. Much of the trafficking in nuclear materials is by swindlers, Pentagon officials report. An internal Defense Department document records that almost 1,000 cases of alleged illicit nuclear trafficking have been tracked since 1991. "Most cases involve at least some degree of swindle, but small amounts of various genuine nuclear materials have been intercepted, including plutonium," the report states. One Defense Department official described the standard ruse. "All you need is a small amount of radioactive medical waste," the official said. "Pass a Geiger counter over it, and you get a positive reading. You can sell it to an uneducated person as radiological." Even so, administration officials said they worry most about Al Qaeda receiving bona fide nuclear materials or scientific know-how from illicit sources inside Russia or Pakistan, although the leaders of both nations strenuously state that there is nothing to fear. However, in a new report to Congress, the National Intelligence Council, which conducts strategic analysis for Mr. Tenet, said some high-grade nuclear material has been stolen inside Russia. "Weapons-grade and weapons-usable nuclear materials have been stolen from some Russian institutes," the report said. "We assess that undetected smuggling has occurred, although we do not know the extent or magnitude of such thefts. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the total amount of material that could have been diverted over the last 10 years." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 30 Iran: MP says Russians are not leaving Iran under American pressure BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Text of report by Iranian newspaper Norooz web site on 26 February Political desk: Following the news published in foreign newspapers and reflected inside Iran indicating that there were pressures exerted on Russia by the United States about cooperation with Iran in the area of building the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the parliamentary correspondent of Norooz asked a number of MPs about the matter. Hamideh Edalat, MP from Bushehr said: It is not true that Russian experts are leaving Iran after pressures were exerted by America. She added: Parts of executive operation that were to be handed over to Iranians according to the contract are being handed over and the Russian experts are leaving the country for this reason. Elaheh Kula'i, the reporter of the National Security Committee said she did not know about this. However, she added that official Iranian sources have denied the matter. Mohammad Dadfar, MP from Bushehr, too has said that he does not know about this issue. Source: Norooz web site, Tehran, in Persian 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 31 Rocketdyne: Comment Period on Lab Cleanup Plan Extended February 26, 2002 From Times Staff Reports The Department of Energy has extended until April 26 the deadline for the public to respond to its plans to clean up and close a former nuclear research facility at Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The deadline had been Monday but was extended after demands from anti-nuclear activists and elected officials who are concerned the proposed plan would not have high enough standards. Copies of the cleanup plan may be obtained from the Energy Department's Web site at www.oak .doe.gov or calling (510) 637-1762. A copy also is available for review at the Simi Valley Library, 2969 Tapo Canyon Road. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 32 No Hanford fine for radioactivity glitch This story was published Mon, Feb 25, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency won't fine Hanford for a two-year glitch in measuring radioactivity. That's because the Department of Energy and Bechtel Hanford cooperated with the EPA in finding and fixing the problem, Dennis Faulk, the EPA's acting Hanford site manager, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to DOE. However, a violation of federal law and of the Tri-Party Agreement, the legal pact which governs Hanford's cleanup, did occur, Faulk wrote. The letter criticized Fluor Hanford for being slow in providing complete data that the EPA sought in the investigation -- saying the EPA, DOE and Bechtel Hanford had to make "a significant effort" to get the information. However, in past interviews with the Herald, Fluor admitted its initial mistakes and said it immediately began tracking down problems and fixed them several months ago. The issue was how Fluor checked radioactive wastes from Bechtel's decontamination and demolition of the highly radioactive 233-S plutonium processing building in Hanford's 200 West Area. Bechtel hired Fluor to determine if the removed 233-S materials were transuranic wastes or low-level radioactive wastes such as radioactive tools, clothes and debris. Transuranic wastes can contain certain elements such as neptunium and plutonium. And radiation from those wastes lasts a long time and is more potent than the short-lived radiation found in low-level wastes. Hanford buries low-level radioactive wastes in a huge landfill. Transuranic wastes are stored in above-ground metal buildings, awaiting eventual shipment to a permanent underground storage site in New Mexico. In May 1999, Fluor made mistakes in calculations and in calibrating two radiation detectors. That meant the devices were not sensitive enough to detect the difference between transuranic and low-level radioactive wastes. The problem was not discovered until another company's radiation checks did not agree with Fluor's figures in May 2001. Twenty-eight containers holding about 600 items from the 233-S project were buried in the Hanford landfill after going through the miscalibrated checks. Experts tracked down the most radioactive one of those 28 containers and moved it to a transuranic waste storage building. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 33 Hanford: Locke delivers a message for money to White House The Seattle Times: Tuesday, February 26, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Katherine Pfleger The Associated Press WASHINGTON — Gov. Gary Locke's message to President Bush and other administration officials had a theme yesterday: more money. At a White House meeting, Locke and other governors told Bush they need him to restore more than $8 billion cut from his proposed highway budget — money they were counting on to help make it through deficits like Washington state's $1.6 billion budget hole. Locke also wants the administration to provide the states more flexibility in funding optional Medicaid programs and to provide the required federal funding to clean up the Hanford nuclear reservation. While in town for the National Governors' Association winter meeting, Locke plans to sit down with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today to deliver the message on Hanford. "The president's proposal right now shorts Hanford (roughly) $300 million in cleanup funds from their current level. That's inadequate," Locke said. The governor and other Democrats in the Northwest have been critical of the administration's plan to make some of the nuclear-cleanup money contingent upon finding ways to do the work quicker and cheaper. Locke said the state sued the Clinton administration and will sue the Bush administration to hold it to the federal commitment to clean up the site near Richland that is home to 60 percent of the country's high-level nuclear waste. Locke said he was pleased that Bush has proposed billions of dollars for homeland security, including $25 million for Washington state. He also expressed relief that National Guard troops soon would help secure the country's borders, though he said the federal government has taken too long to get the troops in place. The governor came to the nation's capital over the weekend and will leave today. He has asked state agencies to curb their expenses, including travel budgets. Sam Sperry, Locke's top policy adviser, said the governor canceled a trip last week to Spokane and at least one aide stayed home from the governors' meeting to save money. But "you can't not come to something like this, particularly with Hanford money on the table," Sperry said. "That is huge." Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 34 OR gets clean bill of health Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:32 a.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Despite the presence of three major Department of Energy facilities, the city of Oak Ridge is a healthful and environmentally safe place to live. That's the gist of an "environmental guide" to Oak Ridge that is expected to be released next month. "It's not a propaganda piece," Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, emphasized. "It's an explanatory piece. It tries to present a balanced viewpoint. It's something that Oak Ridge has needed for a long time." Gawarecki was one of more than 50 local citizens and community leaders who worked on the project for well over a year. This major undertaking was spurred by a number of factors, including the desire to draw a distinction between DOE and the city of Oak Ridge and to clear up some misconceptions about the city. One important fact to note, according to participant and Oak Ridge resident Bill Pardue, is that the project received no DOE or government funding. Instead, more than 20 civic groups and businesses working together donated all necessary services and resources. Oak Ridge was created as part of World War II's Manhattan Project and now has around 27,000 residents. The environmental guide points out that Oak Ridge is one of the most monitored, sampled and analyzed cities. In fact, the document states the city's air, water and natural resources are so closely watched and so completely understood by so many different groups that residents are far more informed about and protected from environmental pollution than in a "typical community." "It (the guide) accurately portrays what the situation is in town," said Jenny Freeman, executive director of the East Tennessee Environmental Business Association. "I hope it lays to rest some of the misconceptions of Oak Ridge." Those erroneous beliefs, according to Freeman, range from Oak Ridge's water being unsafe to drink to the city's residents glowing in the dark. The city of Oak Ridge and DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, which covers more than 35,000 acres, are often mistakenly viewed as a single entity. A great deal of evidence has been developed to confirm that the community is a safe place to live. Nevertheless, hazardous materials remaining on the DOE reservation have focused attention on the environment and on the health and safety of Oak Ridge residents. DOE's local facilities include the Oak Ridge K-25 site -- a former gaseous diffusion plant that is being cleaned up and used in reindustrialization efforts. In addition, there is a major research facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a nuclear weapons plant, now called the Y-12 National Security Complex. During World War II and the Cold War, the local DOE facilities generated waste that remained on the Oak Ridge Reservation and released some toxins to the environment, the guide states. However, since the reservation was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's priorities list in 1989, a lot of work has been done on finding, characterizing and cleaning up areas of contamination both on and off the reservation. "With few exceptions, contamination is confined to the immediate process areas at the plants and to waste disposal sites on the DOE reservation," the environmental guide states. "Contamination on the reservation does not affect the commercial and residential sections of the city. "A very different impression was created several years ago when some media implied that the health of Oak Ridge citizens had been impaired by DOE operations. Much has been done to investigate these allegations, but none of them can be verified." In fact, several other studies have shown that risks to Oak Ridge residents from DOE's operations are negligible. In its 2000 "Status Report to the Public," the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation stated "there are no immediate threats to public health from current operations on the ORR (Oak Ridge Reservation)." Some other previously published statistics and figures quoted in the environmental guide include the following: + Oak Ridge drinking water meets or exceeds state and federal water quality standards. + The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's annual inspections show that air quality on the Oak Ridge Reservation meets state air pollution control regulations. + Data show that there is no radiological contamination in locally produced milk or vegetables. The environmental guide does acknowledge that some former and current workers at the DOE facilities have developed illnesses caused by past operations at the site. The document states these illnesses are the result of less stringent safety practices and equipment in place during earlier facility operations, a lack of industrial hygiene technology and less protective government regulations. Gawarecki, Pardue and Freeman joined Bob Craig, who represented New Century Alliance, and Steve Kopp of the Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board on the editorial committee for the environmental guide. Project participants say the environmental guide should be available to the public by mid-March at a couple of locations, including the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, located at 1400 Oak Ridge Turnpike. The document is also expected to be posted on the Web sites for the city of Oak Ridge, the Local Oversight Committee and the East Tennessee Environmental Business Association, among others. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 35 Dick Smyser: Stories of ORNL: There's still a lot to be told Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:22 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 The guy's been around here for getting on to 60 years. He's given scores of talks -- "State of the Laboratory," at scientific meetings, civic forums, club functions and off the cuff on informal occasions. Figure in also his dozens of publications and multiple books. One would think that there's not much new to hear from Alvin M. Weinberg. Not so. He offered, for me at least, a treasure trove of recollections, observations and anecdotes, many not previously heard or read, as he gave the first of three "Stories of ORNL" lectures, one of the more than 50 courses being offered this winter-spring session of the Oak Ridge Institute for Continued Learning. Like, as told by the former director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Thursday night at Roane State Community College's Oak Ridge campus: * How Frederick de Hoffman, colorful figure of the early years of nuclear development, revealed to Weinberg the origins of the calculation that led to Edward Teller's becoming known as "Father of the H-Bomb," a story later confirmed by Teller in his recent book "Memoir," if with some variance in detail. De Hoffman said it happened on a boat, Teller said it happened on a train. Wherever, Teller confided in de Hoffman his theory of how a nuclear fission reaction might trigger a thermonuclear reaction. Intrigued, de Hoffman stayed up all that night calculating that, indeed, Teller's calculations proved out, Teller taking it from there. * How, in the early stages of the Manhattan Project, planners envisioned nuclear facilities sited at Hibbing, Minn., on the shores of Lake Superior where they could make use of that huge lake's cold waters for cooling the envisioned reactors. But then, realizing that there were only limited power supplies there, that location was abandoned. The focus then shifted to what now is Oak Ridge as the site for both uranium and plutonium plants. However, DuPont, which would operate the plutonium plant, worried that the Clinch River did not have the water capacity to handle two plants. Thus, the plutonium production reactors were located at Hanford, Wash., where Columbia River waters were accessible. * That a house on West Malta Lane known as "Charley West's Mansion" supplemented The Guest House, now the abandoned Alexander Motor Inn, as housing for visiting scientists. (Weinberg lamented the deterioration of the Alexander and urged that it be preserved and turned into "The Atomic B. and B.") West was manager of the Malta Lane accommodations. * That ORNL was the "brainchild" of Eugene Wigner, pioneer nuclear physicist who Weinberg affectionately proclaims to have been his mentor. Wigner became fond of this area during visits to the original Graphite Reactor in 1943 and 1944. He subsequently drew up elaborate organizational charts for a future lab, consulting with Weinberg in the early stages of his planning. * That there is some difference of opinion about the long-held belief that Wigner and Leo Szilard, another atomic pioneer, orchestrated the origins of the U.S. nuclear effort by inducing Albert Einstein to write a letter of concern to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In response to the letter, a very modest sum was appropriated to Szilard for further study. The late McGeorge Bundy, however, suggests in his book that that modest sum may have actually delayed a really serious effort which did not come until a fortuitous miscalculation by British scientists. The Brits figured that as little as half a kilogram of enriched uranium could fuel a bomb, this encouraging the United States to mount a crash effort which succeeded even though it soon became evident that the British calculation was much too modest. * That he -- Weinberg -- has some regrets as he looks back at the earliest years of ORNL just after the end of World War II. Just as ORNL was getting started, a decision was made to focus major reactor research not at ORNL but at other national labs. ORNL was left with what Weinberg considered lesser responsibilities, including waste disposal. But ORNL persisted in the reactor field and got approval to probe some innovative designs. If instead, Weinberg said, ORNL had truly concentrated on waste disposal at that early time, the problems of what to do with nuclear waste might have been solved significantly sooner. * That Wigner and Weinberg, recognizing the growing need for persons trained in reactor operations, conceived and founded the Oak Ridge School of Reactor Technology -- ORSORT. * That Adm. Hyman Rickover, who conceived the beginnings of the U.S. nuclear Navy while at ORNL, was a most difficult person known for his willful intimidation of others. On one occasion, Rickover so harassed Edward "Scotty" Campbell, an instructor at ORSORT, that Campbell was reduced to tears and severely embarrassed. Weinberg was out of town at the time but when he returned that night and found multiple messages expressing outrage at Rickover's behavior, he -- Weinberg -- picked up the telephone, called Rickover and threatened him with bodily harm of a type not readily described in a family newspaper. The final story was left to be told by Truman Anderson, formerly of Weinberg's ORNL staff and the moderator for the course. Anderson recalled how Weinberg would regularly admonish ORNL people that Wigner preferred to be addressed as "Wigner," not "Vigner," as it is pronounced in German. Thus, one ORNL staffer, obviously over-admonished, approached ORNL's patron saint on one lab occasion and said, "Dr. Wigner, I would like you to meet my vife." * * * "Stories of ORNL" continues this coming Thursday with a third and final session on March 7, both at 7:30 p.m. at the City Room at Roane State-Oak Ridge. Yet to be heard are Herman Postma, who succeeded Weinberg as ORNL director; Alex Zucker, former associate and acting director; Donald Trauger and David Reichle, former associate directors; and Murray Rosenthal, former deputy director. -- RDS Richard D. Smyser is founding editor of The Oak Ridger. He can be reached by e-mail at rdsandmps@aol.com [rdsandmps@aol.com] All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 36 THE REVISED PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION STRATEGY: DOE'S “HOUSE OF CARDS NCI document Edwin S. Lyman Nuclear Control Institute February 22, 2002 The “revised” U.S. strategy to dispose of 34 metric tons (MT) of weapons-grade plutonium in accordance with a September 2000 U.S.-Russian agreement, announced by DOE/NNSA in January, was billed as a significant improvement to the original program that would lead to an acceleration of the plutonium disposition mission. In the revised program, DOE/NNSA cancelled plans to build a plant to immobilize 8.4 metric tons (MT) of weapon-grade plutonium (as well as several MT of non-weapon-grade plutonium), and decided to dispose of all 34 MT by incorporating it into mixed-oxide reactor fuel (“MOX”) and irradiating it in commercial nuclear reactors. This announcement immediately raised questions, because DOE/NNSA had not indicated how the MOX program could actually absorb an additional 8.4 metric tons (MT) of plutonium that was originally supposed to have been immobilized, yet be completed in less time than the original program for disposing of 25.6 MT of plutonium as MOX. Nonetheless, DOE/NNSA asserted that the revised program had less technical risk than the original program. With the issuance of a February 15 report to Congress, it is now known how DOE/NNSA hopes to accelerate the rate of plutonium disposition. According to the report, which proposes increasing the rate of disposition via MOX from 2 MT to 3.5 MT per year, “successful implementation requires obtaining two additional commercial reactors to participate in the program and expanding the rate of plutonium disposition in Russia.” However, the report does not provide any details about how it plans to accomplish these highly speculative objectives and still maintain the aggressive schedule put forward in the report. Moreover, DOE/NNSA’s estimate of the number of new reactors needed is incorrect. At the currently planned maximum core loading of 40% MOX --- a maximum rooted in technical limits of operating light-water reactors --- a large pressurized-water reactor (1150 MWe) operating on a standard 1.5-year refueling cycle can only accommodate at most 0.5 MT of plutonium per year. Under the “old” plutonium disposition strategy, which relied on the four reactors currently in the program (Duke Power’s Catawba and McGuire ice condenser plants), only 2 MT per year could have been absorbed. Thus a minimum of three new reactors --- and probably four --- would be needed to accommodate another 1.5 MT of plutonium per year without exceeding the current maximum core loading. Before Dominion Resources removed its North Anna 1&2 reactors from the plutonium disposition program in April 2000, the maximum estimated throughput for all six reactors was about 2.9 MT per year, and 13 years would required to irradiate 34 MT, beginning in 2007 and ending in 2020, according to a 2000 report.[1] Under the new program, batch delivery of fuel to reactors is scheduled to begin in Fall 2008, and the program is slated for completion in 2019 (11 years’ duration). Thus at least seven reactors --- three more than the number currently under contract --- would be required to dispose of 34 MT over the shorter time period. More realistically, the start of the program will be further delayed as a result of the changes to the MOX fabrication plant design that are necessary to purify the plutonium feedstock that was originally slated for immobilization, so completion by 2019 would likely require yet another reactor. The details of how DOE/NNSA intends to carry out the amazing feat of locating three or even two additional reactors for the MOX program without causing any delays to the existing schedule --- and reducing the overall cost of MOX irradiation by several hundred million dollars to boot --- were not discussed in the Report to Congress. As mentioned above, the North Anna plant in Virginia was originally part of the plutonium disposition program, but its owner, Dominion Resources, dropped out in April 2000, in what was described as a “business decision.” Part of the reason for this was the fact that North Anna would have required additional control rods or modification of the existing control rods to accommodate a 40% MOX loading, which would have been costly. It is highly unlikely that Dominion could be persuaded to participate again in the controversial MOX program without significant economic incentives. The prospect of finding other reactors to participate in the MOX program is even more unlikely. In the current electricity marketplace, the additional NRC scrutiny, technical risk and public opposition associated with adopting a novel fuel material is not likely to be an appealing prospect to utility executives, even with the possibility of a reduction in fuel costs as a result of government subsidy of MOX fabrication. In any event, the multi-year process of identifying potential interest in the program among U.S. utilities would have to be repeated. In contrast to the uncertainties in cost and schedule associated with the all-MOX revised program, the Report to Congress acknowledges that immobilization of plutonium “achieves full disposition of 34 MT of U.S . plutonium inventory with the lowest cost.” While the report claims that immobilization of all U.S. plutonium would have been unacceptable to Russia because immobilization does not degrade the isotopic content of the plutonium, the fact remains that Russia had agreed (in the September 2000 U.S.-Russian Agreement) to allow the U.S. to dispose of 8.4 MT of non-pit, weapons-grade plutonium through immobilization without degradation of the isotopic content. The fact that this material is less chemically pure than the nuclear weapon pits that have always been destined for MOX is irrelevant, since the end product of immobilization would be the same whether the initial feedstock were pure or impure. Moreover, Russia is insisting on loading a portion of its excess plutonium in a test plutonium fast-breeder reactor, the BN-600, which would barely change the isotopics of the plutonium from weapons-grade. Thus this alleged Russian position is logically inconsistent. In short, the purported advantages of DOE/NNSA’s revised plutonium disposition strategy are entirely based on a speculative foundation --- a “house of cards” --- that is highly unlikely to succeed without major additional costs and delays to the program, and will significantly increase environmental and public health risks by requiring the use of MOX fuel in at least three additional reactors. The number of cancer deaths anticipated to result from a severe accident at a reactor with a 40% core of weapons-grade MOX fuel has been calculated to be about 25% higher than the number that would result from the same accident if only low-enriched uranium fuel had been present.[2] For these reasons, it is crucial that DOE/NNSA issue a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to accurately document the additional risks associated with the revision of the plutonium disposition strategy originally outlined in its Record of Decision in January 2000. There are indications that DOE/NNSA simply plans to amend the Record of Decision, attempting to bypass all statutory requirements required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for public comment on proposed Federal actions that have undergone substantial changes. [1] Richard Clark, David Dziadosz and Steven Nesbit, “MOX Fuel Irradiation Program for Disposition of Surplus United States Plutonium,” Proceedings of the Embedded Topical Meeting on DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel and Fissile Material Management (sponsored by the American Nuclear Society), San Diego, CA, June 4-8, 2000, p. 417. [2] Edwin S. Lyman, “Public Health Risks of Substituting Mixed-Oxide for Uranium Fuel in Pressurized-Water Reactors,” Science and Global Security 9 (2001) 33. ***************************************************************** 37 DOE REPORT REVEALS NEW PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION HURDLES; NCI document FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Tom Clements or Ed Lyman February 25, 2002 202-822-8444, [clements@nci.org] , lyman@nci.org TWO NEW “MOX” REACTORS WILL BE SOUGHT Washington, D.C. —A February 15 Department of Energy (DOE) report to Congress on the program to dispose of weapons plutonium fails to resolve hard questions facing the plutonium disposition proposal and has revealed substantial changes to the program. DOE now proposes utilizing two additional nuclear reactors to use the plutonium fuel (mixed uranium-plutonium oxide, MOX) for plutonium disposition, a decision certain to create controversy in communities near reactors under consideration for this dangerous mission, according to the Nuclear Control institute (NCI). According to Dr. Edwin Lyman, NCI’s Scientific Director, “It is impossible for DOE to safely achieve its accelerated plutonium disposition rate with only two more reactors; DOE will need at least three more reactors for its redefined program. DOE must explain in an amended Environmental Impact Statement how the accelerated rate can be achieved and which reactors it will be using. Unfortunately, the plutonium disposition plan which DOE has presented to Congress is highly speculative and unlikely to succeed without significant additional costs and delays to the program.” Given the “substantial changes” to the plutonium disposition program, DOE is required under its National Environmental Policy Act regulations to prepare a “Supplemental EIS.” NCI, which has obtained the report and is releasing it publicly, renewed its call for an amended Environmental Impact Statement on the entire plutonium disposition program, given the substantial changes in the program and the unresolved questions which surround it. “Rather than charting a clear path forward with the plutonium disposition program, this DOE report only amplifies the problems facing plutonium disposition,” said Dr. Lyman. “Immobilization of plutonium in nuclear waste, which DOE confirms is cheaper than MOX, is safer from an environmental and non-proliferation perspective and must be restored as a disposition option.” The DOE document, entitled Report to Congress: Disposition of Surplus Defense Plutonium at Savannah River Site, was due to Congress on February 1 as required in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act but was apparently delivered to the Armed Services Committees early last week. The law required that DOE review disposition options for plutonium to be taken to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and present costs of implementation of the various options and a firm schedule for construction of necessary facilities for the preferred MOX option. In the report, DOE affirms its elimination of the cheaper “immobilization” option at Russian insistence and its preference to dispose of plutonium as nuclear fuel. DOE states that “successful implementation” of the program will require two additional nuclear reactors to dispose of 3.5 metric tons (MT) of plutonium a year, but fails to identify those reactors or how they will be selected. Previously, DOE designated four reactors owned by Duke Power to use plutonium fuel, disposing of 2 MT per year. In April 2000, Virginia Power pulled its 2 North Anna reactors out of the MOX program after a “business decision” not to proceed. NCI believes that identification of new reactors could prove controversial in communities located near the reactors. According to an NCI study, a severe accident at a reactor using MOX fuel could result in an additional 25% cancer deaths as compared to a severe accident using conventional uranium fuel. The report also fails to identify where plutonium is currently stored throughout the DOE complex and which plutonium is bound for the Savannah River Site. On January 23, DOE announced that 6.4 MT which had been scheduled to be “immobilized” at SRS with high-level nuclear waste is being shifted to the MOX program. On February 13, DCS admitted that a nuclear waste solidification facility would be needed at SRS to handle MOX waste, but this report fails to address the cost of that facility and when environmental documents will be prepared on its construction and operation. DOE also announced on January 23 that 2 MT of plutonium would be disposed of directly as waste, but the February 15 report does not clarify where the material will come from or where it will be disposed. In a letter to DOE on February 5, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico opposed taking this material to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) disposal facility located in his state. Shipments of plutonium from Rocky Flats to SRS are expected in the near future, but Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina may not allow this plutonium to enter his state because DOE has failed to clarify the disposition pathways for this dangerous material. Without a firm disposition plan, the Rocky Flats plutonium could end up in long-term storage at SRS in a facility (the old K-Reactor) not designed for safe, secure long-term storage. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), in a November 21, 2001 letter to DOE, expressed concern about plutonium storage in the K-Reactor, stating that the facility “is an aged facility and was never intended to provide more than interim storage.” In its report to Capitol Hill, DOE also does not address the uncertainty of any schedule for disposition in Russia and the difficulty that this presents for achieving a firm U.S. disposition schedule. The basis for the Russian MOX program remains export from Germany to Russia of a closed MOX facility owned by Siemens and located at Hanau, Germany, but Siemens stated last week that the plant would be dismantled, and thus not be available for transfer to Russia. Dismantlement of this plant in the coming weeks will cause the planning basis for the Russian program to collapse, thus severely impacting the U.S. program. ## An electronic copy of the February15 report entitled Report to Congress: Disposition of Surplus Defense Plutonium at Savannah River Site is available on request, as is NCI’s February 8 letter to DOE on the need for a Supplemental EIS. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************