***************************************************************** 03/26/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.77 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Energy Sec. Met Industry Leaders 2 US: Documents Reveal Energy Meetings 3 French Communists attack Blair tendency in Jospin 4 US: Terrorists could pass background checks, it says 5 US: Editorial: Timely reforms are antidote to scandals 6 US: Energy Contacts Disclosed 7 Kazakhstan trains first nine nuclear engineers 8 Greens support for France's Jospin under threat 9 US: Feature: Bush seeks nuclear rebuild 10 US: Abraham Met With 36 Industry Leaders on Energy Plan NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 US: NRC inspects Oconee Nuclear 12 US: EDITORIAL Move reactors' spent fuel rods 13 US: U.S. Orders Checks for Corrosion at Nuclear Reactors 14 US: NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Co. March 26 to Discuss 15 US: NRC to Meet with Detroit Edison Co. March 28 to Discuss Fermi 2 16 Czech nuclear municipalities to join GMF 17 US: NRC to Meet With Nuclear Management Co. March 28 to Discuss 18 US: NRC to Meet With STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Safety 19 US: NRC to Meet with NPPD to Discuss Safety Performance at Cooper 20 US: Hijackers qualified to work at nuke plant 21 US: NRC to Meet with Arizona Public Service To Discuss Safety 22 US: NRC Determines Inspection Finding for Vermont Yankee Nuclear 23 US: Notebook: Report fears for N-plants 24 US: Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant Comes Close To Disaster 25 US: Hole in reactor sends industry scrambling 26 US: Ohio nuke woes raise fear of lengthy plant outages 27 residents oppose ratification of Slovene-Croatian nuclear plant NUCLEAR SAFETY 28 Tajiks arrested with stolen uranium NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 29 US: hlw: peoples summit 4-12 to 4-14 30 US: Taguchi eyes YMP protection plan 31 US: Yucca: Tuesday morning quarterbacking 32 US: Yucca: Who'll lead the way? 33 US: Poll says Americans are evenly divided on Yucca issue 34 US: Environmental groups form anti-Yucca lobby 35 US: Stop Construction of Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain Petiti 36 US: Abraham on Yucca: One Safe Site Is Best 37 Japan: Nuclear waste to fill 400,000 bins by 2048 38 US: Realtors sign up for Yucca Mountain fight 39 USEC plans, sales tax may be connected 40 US: Scientific illiterates oppose storage of nuclear waste in Nevada 41 US: More wells are tested in Hematite NUCLEAR WEAPONS 42 Logbook of Hiroshima's destruction for auction 43 US: Is nation's new nuclear policy a sound move? 44 US: Even nuclear arms might not bust enemy bunkers, scientists say 45 US: Bush's new nuclear posture 46 US: Policy Changes? What Policy Changes? 47 US and New Zealand leaders to discuss ban on nuclear warships 48 US: Submarines to cast off their shackles, take on new roles - 49 US: Missing Nuclear Material Could Make 'Dirty Bombs' 50 Logbook of Hiroshima's destruction for auction 51 US: Is nation's new nuclear policy a sound move? 52 US: Convention weapons would accomplish the purpose and not spread r US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 Energy Department Makes Public Over 11,000 Energy Task Force Papers 54 Energy secretary got an earful from industry, met no 55 Report: Labs Offer Hiring Changes to End Boycott 56 Labs research earth-piercing nuclear bomb 57 DOE's Lasagna cleanup is fast - The work on removing the 58 Report: Labs Offer Hiring Changes to End Boycott ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Energy Sec. Met Industry Leaders Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 WASHINGTON- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham held at least eight private meetings with industry leaders, including many staunch GOP political contributors, but none with environmentalists as the administration crafted its energy plan, newly released documents show. The meetings between Abraham and the energy industry executives were disclosed in thousands of papers related to agency participation in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in early 2001. The White House on Tuesday defended Abraham and the meetings. "News flash: it's no surprise to anybody that the secretary of energy meets with energy-related groups," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. Of the three dozen individuals and groups that met with Abrahan, a half dozen of them accounted for nearly $3.3 million in political contributions to Republicans since 1999, almost three time what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Critics of the administration's energy policies have argued that industry had an open door to top-level administration policy makers, while those advocating conservation, energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources were given largely lip service. Fleischer suggested that environmentalists and those advocating energy conservation or renewable fuels had other avenues of access. "Others in the government routinely, regularly meet with other (outside) officials and all of that gets combined," he said. But the White House has refused to provide a list of people who met directly with the Cheney task force in the months prior to its release of its energy report last May. Abraham's department, in addition to dealing with traditional fuels, also oversees energy efficiency standards and renewable fuels programs. Abraham said in a statement that the 11,000 pages of documents - everything from daily schedules to congressional testimony - "will further confirm" that the administration sought out a wide range of views, including that of environmentalists. But the papers released late Monday by DOE document no top-level meetings with advocates of energy efficiency or renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power. The department took pains to note that the documents also catalogue 23 requests that were denied for meetings mostly with industry representatives to discuss the energy plan. Among those turned down were Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skillings of Enron Corp. While documents included reams of energy policy statements including some from environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society, it was the industry executives who had the access to Abraham, a key member of Cheney's task force. In all, three dozen energy executives and lobbyists participated in eight meetings with Abraham from mid-February to late April 2001. The Cheney energy report was released in May. He met with a top executive of the American Coal Co.; officials of the Independent Petroleum Association of America; the chairman of Utilicorp, a major power company to discuss electricity deregulation; and with a half dozen utility executives and other oil and gas industry leaders. A "drop-by" session to "discuss nuclear energy's role" in the Bush energy plan lasted 30 minutes on March 20 and included the head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, chairman of Westinghouse and the chief executives of a half dozen major nuclear power utilities. Industry's access was shown in other papers among the 3,000 Energy Department documents and 4,000 documents also released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. In one e-mail to Joe Kelliher, the DOE's point man on the Cheney task force, an official of Southern Company, the Atlanta-based power conglomerate, offers reasons why the administration should revamp a clean air regulation known as "New Source Review" which is at the heart of a series of ongoing lawsuits against Southern and several other utilities. "I hope this is helpful," the utility official, Michael Riith, wrote Kelliher, adding, "I look forward to lunch on Tuesday." The Cheney task force called for the EPA to review the clean air regulation - a review expected to lead to an easing of the regulation. Among the papers also were EPA documents revealing an oil industry push to ease state regulation of so-called "boutique" gasoline blends and auto industry pressure to ease federal fuel economy rules. One of the oil companies, Citgo, urged the administration "to exercise federal authority to prevent states" from establishing separate fuel standards. The Cheney task force urged EPA to deal with the boutique fuels issue. Also among the Energy Department and EPA papers was a three-page memo from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers declaring that the federal auto fuel economy rule, known as CAFE, "is an ineffective energy policy." The alliance instead supported consumer tax credits for advanced technology vehicles, and urged development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - positions the Cheney task force later advocated. The documents, many with large portions marked out, were ordered released by two federal judges as part of lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Documents Reveal Energy Meetings Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 WASHINGTON- The White House firmly defended Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Tuesday as newly released documents showed he held at least eight private meetings with industry leaders - but none with environmentalists - while the administration crafted its energy plan. "News flash: it's no surprise to anybody that the secretary of energy meets with energy-related groups," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. The meetings between Abraham and the energy industry executives were disclosed in thousands of papers made public Monday related to agency participation in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in early 2001. Critics of the administration's energy policies have long argued that industry had an open door to top-level administration policy makers, while those advocating conservation, energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources were given largely lip service. Abraham said in a statement that the 11,000 pages of documents - everything from daily schedules to congressional testimony - "will further confirm" that the administration sought out a wide range of views, including that of environmentalists. But the papers document no top-level meetings with advocates of energy efficiency or renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power. The department took pains to note that the documents also catalogue 23 requests that were denied for meetings mostly with industry representatives to discuss the energy plan. Among those turned down were Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skillings of Enron Corp. While documents included reams of energy policy statements including some from environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society, it was the industry executives who had the access to Abraham, a key member of Cheney's task force. In all, three dozen energy executives and lobbyists participated in eight meeting with Abraham from mid-February to late April of 2001. The Cheney energy report was released in May. He met with a top executive of the American Coal Co.; officials of the Independent Petroleum Association of America; the chairman of Utilicorp, a major power company to discuss electricity deregulation; and with a half dozen utility executives and other oil and gas industry leaders. A "drop-by" session to "discuss nuclear energy's role" in the Bush energy plan lasted 30 minutes on March 20 and included the head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, chairman of Westinghouse and the chief executives of a half dozen major nuclear power utilities. Industry's access was shown in other papers among the 3,000 Energy Department documents and 4,000 documents also released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. In one e-mail to Joe Kelliher, the DOE's point man on the Cheney task force, an official of Southern Company, the Atlanta-based power conglomerate, offers reasons why the administration should revamp a clean air regulation known as "New Source Review" which is at the heart of a series of ongoing lawsuits against Southern and several other utilities. "I hope this is helpful," the utility official, Michael Riith, wrote Kelliher, adding, "I look forward to lunch on Tuesday." The Cheney task force called for the EPA to review the clean air regulation - a review expected to lead to an easing of the regulation. Among the papers also were EPA documents revealing an oil industry push to ease state regulation of so-called "boutique" gasoline blends and auto industry pressure to ease federal fuel economy rules. One of the oil companies, Citgo, urged the administration "to exercise federal authority to prevent states" from establishing separate fuel standards. The Cheney task force urged EPA to deal with the boutique fuels issue. Also among the Energy Department and EPA papers was a three-page memo from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers declaring that the federal auto fuel economy rule, known as CAFE, "is an ineffective energy policy." The alliance instead supported consumer tax credits for advanced technology vehicles, and urged development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The task force report supported such tax benefits, refrained from urging higher fuel economy requirements and urged development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The documents, many with large portions marked out, were ordered released by two federal judges as part of lawsuits brought by private groups trying to determine who influenced the administration's energy plan. The disclosed papers stem from Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. The Energy Department withheld 15,000 pages, citing exemptions for information related to internal agency practices, deliberations and personnel. The administration also faces a similar lawsuit by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. That lawsuit was not involved in Monday's releases. --- Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 French Communists attack Blair tendency in Jospin FRANCE: March 26, 2002 PARIS - Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin is showing worrying signs of a policy shift to the right following in the footsteps of his British counterpart Tony Blair, Communist Party leader Robert Hue said yesterday. Hue, who is running for president against Jospin and conservative rival President Jacques Chirac, told Le Parisien newspaper he could not be part of any future Jospin-led government with "right-wing policies a la Tony Blair". "In that case, of course I would not be involved. And the Communists wouldn't be either," warned Hue, whose Communists have, along with ecologist Greens, formed part of Jospin's coalition government for the past five years. Blair is the leader of Britain's ruling Labour Party, which he reformed by ditching many of its strong union links and bringing it into the centre ground. Jospin, seeking middle-of-the-road voters, has pledged tax cuts and a crackdown on crime. Hue bemoaned the lack of a more leftist commitment to public services in Jospin's manifesto. Hue's comments follow a turbulent weekend for Jospin, who is running neck and neck with Chirac in opinion polls published yesterday, after the presidential candidate of the Greens Party also threatened to withdraw its backing due to differences over nuclear power. The Greens' own candidate, Noel Mamere, is polling at about five percent of the vote, about the same as Hue. Hue and Mamere are not expected to get past the first round of voting on April 21, after which the two frontrunners go on to a run off on May 5. Whether they endorse Jospin in the second round is seen as crucial. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 4 Terrorists could pass background checks, it says TheDay.com: By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 03/26/2002 U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey Security is so lax at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants that terrorists could be working at them, awaiting orders to assist in an attack or sabotage, U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., charged in a report released Monday. Those employed at commercial reactors undergo a domestic criminal background check, but that check is not sufficient to uncover illegal activities abroad or possible terrorist ties among foreign nationals working in the nuclear industry, the report concluded. “In short, it appears that Al Qaeda operatives ... could pass the narrow nature of the criminal screening still in use at U.S. nuclear power plants and gain unescorted access to the controlled area of a plant, just as they obtained visas to attend flight school,” the report said. President Bush has confirmed that information about nuclear plants in the United States was among documents seized from terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan. Markey has long been an outspoken critic of the nuclear industry and the agency that regulates it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is one of several lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., to introduce the Nuclear Security Act. The act calls for federalizing security forces at nuclear plants and beefing up security rules. Private security forces now protect plants. The industry reacted swiftly and harshly to the report. “These are just more baseless allegations from Congress' leading anti-nuclear ideologue,” said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The institute, funded by the industry to promote nuclear power and lobby Congress, accused Markey of “headline hunting.” “The possibility is that terrorists could be anywhere, couldn't they? Even on congressional staffs. But the reality is that nuclear power plants are virtually unique in the rigor of the security checks that they put employees through,” Kerekes said. Nuclear plant employees are subject to FBI criminal checks, psychological investigation, random drug and alcohol testing and extensive reference checks. The industry's employee list also has been cross-checked against the FBI's list of suspected terrorists, Kerekes said. In his report, Markey contends that none of that is enough to assure that terrorists have not slipped through the system and are now employed at nuclear facilities. The NRC leaves too much of the responsibility for security checks to the companies holding the licenses to operate the nuclear plants, the report concluded. “It is unacceptable that the NRC neither has a policy on screening of foreign nationals, nor does it know what its licensees' policies are,” Markey said in the report. Michal Freedhoff, a congressional aide who helped prepare the report, said it is based on more than 100 pages of NRC responses to questions raised by the congressman. In responding to one of Markey's inquiries, the NRC stated that it does not know how many foreign nationals are employed at nuclear reactors. Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Millstone Power Station in Waterford, said the nuclear station conducts an intensive background check of all employees, including those brought in by independent contractors doing work at the plant. He said he could not imagine a terrorist slipping through the cracks. “It would be very difficult ... for someone to hide that particular aspect of their life,” Hyde said. Markey also contends that when nuclear plants are subjected to security tests by undercover teams, they fail about half the time. “The NRC identified weaknesses that allowed the attack force to reach a target ... and simulate destruction of that equipment,” Markey's report said. Both NRC and industry officials contend that Markey mischaracterized the results. While security lapses were detected during some of the drills, that does not mean that security systems failed, said Victor Dricks, an NRC spokesman. Security has improved as a result of such drills, he said. Dricks, however, confirmed that since Sept. 11, the security drills have stopped. The NRC feels that at this time nuclear plant security officials must focus on real threats, and not be distracted preparing for mock attacks, he said. Dricks said all nuclear plants were ordered to their highest level of security following Sept. 11 and remain there. Additional orders to boost protection levels at the plants were announced by the NRC on Feb. 26, but details were not released for fear of compromising security. At Millstone, more security guards have been added and a checkpoint set up at the access road leading to the nuclear station. Markey said that because the NRC suspended the drills that tested security “(it) has no way of knowing whether the enhanced security measures it ordered Feb. 26 actually succeed in enhancing security.” Dominion, which owns Millstone, has lobbied for a change in state law that would allow the security guards at Millstone to carry automatic weapons. Such weapons are prohibited in Connecticut, but Virginia-based Dominion contends that an exception should be made for guards protecting nuclear facilities. The Judiciary Committee failed to act on the bill Monday, effectively killing it, but proponents hope to resurrect the proposal by amending it to another bill. The Markey report maintains that nuclear plants, and particularly the high-level radioactive waste contained in storage pools at each facility, are vulnerable to the kind of suicide airplane attacks witnessed Sept. 11. Even a small plane, or some other type of attack, could damage vital systems and “result in a catastrophic nuclear accident,” the report said. Markey called for placing anti-aircraft weapons at nuclear facilities, a position also endorsed in Connecticut by the state's Nuclear Energy Advisory Council. The NRC has rejected the idea, saying improved airport security to prevent a plane hijacking is the best and safest means of avoiding more suicide plane attacks. Bill Matthews, vice president of nuclear operations at Millstone, said the risk of an innocent plane being shot down would be too great if anti-aircraft batteries were erected at nuclear plants around the nation. The NRC, Dominion and the Nuclear Energy Institute are united in their opposition to federalizing security forces at nuclear plants. They argue that private security forces at nuclear plants consist of highly trained, well-qualified personnel. Bringing in federal guards would create a costly, needless bureaucracy with no apparent benefit, Kerekes said. © 1998-2002 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 5 Editorial: Timely reforms are antidote to scandals Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 It's too bad that it took the Enron scandal, serving as it did to exemplify Washington awash in corporate money and influence, to finally win over enough support in Congress for the campaign finance bill that cleared the Senate on Wednesday with a 60-40 vote. Sen. Harry Reid voted for the reform legislation and Sen. John Ensign voted against it, a bill that President Bush has pledged to sign. For now, the clout enjoyed by corporations and wealthy individuals with their six-figure checks will be more subdued in Washington. Under the bill, the hay rides of "soft money" to national political parties will end. Because these unlimited soft contributions provided millions, and because the parties had wide discretion on how to spend the money, the limits on contributions to individual candidates were all but negated. The reform allows direct contributions to campaigns to double, from $1,000 to $2,000, and allows single contributions of up to $10,000 to state and local political parties. This reduces the influence of any single special interest. But the day will come when another campaign-finance bill will be needed. Campaign reform is like an antibiotic -- effective until the harmful strain it's attacking ultimately develops a resistance. When big money of the harmful variety figures out how to beat this latest reform, which it will, we hope it won't take Congress another three decades to approve a stronger antidote. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 Energy Contacts Disclosed (washingtonpost.com) Consumer Groups Left Out, Data Show By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, March 26, 2002; Page A01 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with 36 representatives of business interests and many campaign contributors while developing President Bush's energy policy, and he held no meetings with conservation or consumer groups, documents released last night show. The information was released by the Energy Department just a few hours before a court-ordered deadline, and after 11 months of resistance by the administration to lawsuits by public interest groups seeking to determine who influenced the writing of the administration's energy plan. A first review of the 11,000 pages of documents bolsters the contention of Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups that the Bush administration relied almost exclusively on the advice of executives from utilities and producers of oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy while a White House task force drafted recommendations that would vastly increase energy production. Of the corporations that met with Abraham, all but a few were large contributors of unregulated soft money to the Republican Party during the 2000 election cycle. A dozen of the companies that had meetings with Abraham contributed $1.2 million to the GOP, mainly for Bush's election. Ten of the 12 gave more soft money to Republicans than Democrats. Large portions had been deleted from the documents released last night by the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Most attachments were missing and in many cases documents were withheld except for the subject line. Thousands of other documents were withheld entirely, and the groups that won release of the documents through lawsuits said they may return to court. Abraham's meetings, between Feb. 14 and April 26 of last year, included groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Top executives of Westinghouse Electric Corp., Duke Power, Entergy, Exelon Corp., UtiliCorp United (now Aquila Inc.), American Coal Co. and others sat down with Abraham. Environmental groups said their efforts to meet with the energy task force were rebuffed. The Energy Department has said that environmental groups did not respond to its request for input, and the administration has said it held at least one substantive discussion with 10 environmental groups in late March, prior to the May release of the energy policy. Because of the deletions and omissions, there is little information about what the donors and business interests were seeking in their high-level meetings. The documents released include hundreds of unsolicited suggestions from citizens, companies and lawmakers, most of whom received form responses promising the ideas would receive "close and careful attention." Among the items released is a letter from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers favoring tax credits for hybrid-fuel and fuel-cell vehicles and similar incentives for fuel efficiency that were included in the Bush energy report. One company, Citgo, urged the administration "to exercise federal authority to prevent states" from establishing separate fuel standards. These "boutique fuels" cause distribution problems for the industry, and Bush's energy plan directed the EPA to work with states to eliminate them. An Energy Department e-mail indicating close coordination with industry notes that Texaco was seeking to help Bush's energy policy rollout. Texaco "has offered to try to produce an announcement on a 1500 megawatt facility at a TVA site in harmony with such a rollout," the May 7 e-mail said. "Finally there is some evidence of who was actually shaping the energy policy," said Sharon Buccino, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which won the court order on Feb. 27 requiring the Energy Department's information release. Buccino said the group plans to challenge many of the omissions in court. The Energy Department released a chart suggesting Vice President Cheney's task force had adopted nine NRDC recommendations, which Buccino called "an outright lie." Another 15,000 pages were withheld for privacy, security and other reasons, Energy officials said. Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, the watchdog group that won the court order requiring the OMB, EPA and Agriculture releases, said the White House appeared to be "playing games" with the release. He said he expects to "go back to court to seek testimony as to why we don't have the substantive e-mails." Trent Duffy, OMB's spokesman, would not explain the deletions beyond saying, "The items that were part of the deliberative process were redacted." Abraham issued a statement calling the energy plan "a balanced and comprehensive energy plan for America," and said that the administration "not only sought but included all viewpoints." Several of the documents indicate that officials were aware of efforts to obtain information about their actions under the Freedom of Information Act, and they adjusted their correspondence to limit the release of materials. "We have an FOI request for all NEPP material," said one April 25 e-mail, referring to the task force. "Keep in mind that whatever I get I will have to include with it." Another e-mail about the FOIA requests asked, "Did you want me to include Kyle?" -- an apparent reference to Abraham's chief of staff, Kyle McSlarrow, whose e-mails were not included in the release. Abraham held meetings with more than 20 other heads of oil companies and energy trade groups while the report was being written, but the Energy Department said those meetings included other topics. Abraham's staff had several meetings with Enron officials, the documents showed. Enron, a major Bush donor that collapsed late last year and is facing a criminal probe, met with other representatives of the task force six times, the administration has disclosed. Energy Department officials said most of their meetings with Enron were not related to the energy policy. Abraham met with two Enron executives on March 29 as part of a meeting of 16 industry officials about the California electricity shortage. Energy officials said Abraham declined requests for meetings with Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay of Enron Corp. The OMB materials that were released also indicate the energy task force's emphasis on production over conservation. One e-mail from Feb. 22 listed seven chapters for the energy policy report: short-term supply disruptions, consumers, economic impact, alternatives, increased production, infrastructure and energy security. There was no mention of conservation. An e-mail from March 22 made reference to an "energy efficiency" chapter, and a March 27 e-mail indicates that an "environment chapter" had been included. By April 2, there were "energy conservation targets." The Energy Department documents indicate a late surge of activity to include more renewable fuels in the energy report. Karen Knutson, the deputy director of the task force, wrote to the Energy Department on April 27 seeking information about solar energy. The OMB documents indicate Bush was involved in the shaping of the report well before it was released May 16. The task force briefed him on March 19, a schedule indicates, and a final report was circulated on April 23. The e-mails also indicate that the task force was involved in Bush's March 13 decision to reverse a campaign pledge to characterize carbon dioxide as a pollutant that should be restricted, a position shared by environmental groups. A March 7 e-mail among task force staffers refers to "CO2 as a Pollutant." Ultimately, the report did not take a position on whether to raise fuel economy standards for vehicles, but the e-mails indicate there was extensive work on making recommendations about the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. The EPA and Agriculture documents were also stripped of content except for meeting and publication schedules and interoffice chatter and bureaucratic fencing. "Lots of typos and the like," said an EPA official, "but I assume they'll catch those." A long redacted section in one memo closed with a comment, "just kidding -- Mona." Included among stacks of documents from the EPA and Agriculture Department were a few position papers from industry groups, including the Fertilizer Institute and the Clean Energy Group -- a coalition of electric power companies urging a "reasonable time frame" for pollution control strategies. Their pitches to the administration appeared to be familiar agendas the groups have lobbied for and testified about many times. The subject lines on thousands of pages of government e-mail traffic described the wide horizon of energy and resource issues, from "boutique" gasolines blended for a particular region's needs to rules on offshore drilling disputes. The documents released indicated some dissension about how the energy report was assembled. A March 28 OMB e-mail requests that "if you see any particularly egregious recommendations that you alert me to by tomorrow 10:30 . . . . I could raise it in the meeting to highlight the process problems." A Feb. 26 e-mail states: "The agency/chapter meetings got a little discombobulated." Bush's energy plan encourages increased production of fossil fuels, including relaxed regulations and subsidies for the coal and nuclear industries, oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and construction of 1,300 to 1,900 power plants over the next 20 years. Most of Bush's energy recommendations were incorporated in a bill that passed the House in August after heavy lobbying from labor unions. The Senate has begun debating its version and is expected to take up the most controversial part, the Arctic drilling, when lawmakers return from recess in two weeks. Large donors meeting with Abraham included Duke Energy, which contributed $61,500 in soft money, all to the GOP, according to figures kept by the Center for Responsive Politics. Constellation Energy gave $38,950, all to the GOP. Northeast Utilities contributed $43,580, all but $2,000 to the GOP. UtiliCorp United gave $66,000, all to the Republicans. American Coal Co. gave $20,500, all to the GOP. Kerr-McGee gave $240,350, all but $20,000 to Republicans. Exelon Corp. gave $454,305, 74 percent to the Republicans. Staff writers Peter Behr and Dan Morgan contributed to this report. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 7 Kazakhstan trains first nine nuclear engineers BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 26, 2002 Text of report by Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency Semipalatinsk, 26 March: The Shakarim Semipalatinsk State University (in Semipalatinsk in East Kazakhstan Region) has trained nuclear engineers for the first time in Kazakhstan. The first deputy rector [head] of the university, Mikhail Panin, told an Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency correspondent that the country had not been training specialists of this profession before. The first and only nine nuclear engineers in the country are graduates from the university who underwent studies specializing in "Nuclear reactors and power-generating facilities". Panin noted that the studies for this profession took six and a half years. The students also underwent advanced training at the National Nuclear Centre (in Kurchatov in the region) formed from the former Semipalatinsk nuclear testing ground which operated in the country between 1949 and 1989. He underlined that professors from the Tomsk Polytechnic University (in Russia) had taken a "significant part" in the education process. The Tomsk Polytechnic University is one the main universities where nuclear engineers had been trained in Soviet times. Panin also said that the National Nuclear Centre had already employed six honours graduates. In addition to the Semipalatinsk State University, the Al-Farabi Kazakh State National University (in Almaty) started to train nuclear engineers in the country in 2001. Source: Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency, Almaty, in Russian 1257 gmt 26 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 8 Greens support for France's Jospin under threat FRANCE: March 26, 2002 PARIS - Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin faced a dangerous split in left-wing ranks as his ecologist allies threatened at the weekend not to back him in France's presidential poll if he does not agree to end nuclear power. Noel Mamere, Greens party candidate in the two-round vote, attacked Jospin for what he called his "declaration of war" by saying in an interview that his Socialist Party had never agreed to Greens demands to phase out nuclear energy. Jospin is currently neck-and-neck in the opinion polls with President Jacques Chirac, the conservative incumbent he hopes to unseat. About a dozen candidates will run in the first round on April 21 but only two will contest the runoff on May 5. Opinion polls say Greens make up about 10 percent of the left-wing vote and Jospin would need their support in the second round to win. Mamere told Reuters on the weekend that Jospin's refusal to consider ending nuclear power "will not encourage me to urge Greens to back him in the second round". "This declaration is a real knife in the back," he said during a rally in Toulouse, southern France. "It proves that, in pleasing the Communists and the nationalist left, Jospin gives way on the nuclear issue. "This is very serious. Given these conditions, I don't see how I could call on people to vote for him in the second round," he said. He repeated his warning on the weekend, telling France Inter radio Jospin was taking a major political risk. "There cannot be a (left-wing) coalition," he warned, "if there is not a strong signal from the Socialist candidate for a nuclear phase-out." BROAD SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER France has one of the highest concentrations of nuclear power generation in the world, with more than 75 percent of its electricity output coming from its network of nuclear plants. Jospin's Communist allies in his left-wing coalition are staunchly pro-nuclear, seeing France's large atomic energy sector as a key employer, while left-wing nationalists led by Jean-Pierre Chevenement see it boosting France's economic independence. The threat from the Greens came after Jospin slipped in the polls and lost his lead over Chirac. Pollsters say voters disapproved of his recent comment that Chirac was old and worn out. An IFOP poll published in the newspaper Journal du Dimanche on the weekend showed Chirac gaining a percentage point and a half to draw even with Jospin in the crucial second round. The poll had Chirac, who also supports continued nuclear power, ahead by two percentage points in the first round. Mamere, who polls show has picked up five percent of voters, said Jospin's latest comments on the nuclear issue "changed the whole picture" of the race. "Such a statement at the heart of the campaign smacks of provocation, of a declaration of war against the Greens. The prime minister knows that the exit from nuclear power is an indisputable point within an eventual government accord," he told the daily Le Monde in an interview. Jospin said he never planned to phase out nuclear power, which he lauds as cheaper - with short-term operating costs lower than for fossil fuels - and as a guarantee of French independence in the energy sphere. France is the world's top power exporter, sending abroad about 18 percent of the electricity it generates. Story by Robert Elliott REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 9 Feature: Bush seeks nuclear rebuild United Press International: By Nicholas M. Horrock Senior White House Correspondent From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 3/25/2002 5:51 PM WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Despite President George W. Bush's pledge to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal, his administration is proposing to build the first new nuclear weapons in a decade and critics charge that by 2012 the United States will still have the same number of weapons that it has today. The Bush administration's plans to rejuvenate the nation's nuclear arms industry and news reports about the United States reportedly targeting several nations for possible attack have reopened old debates of the Cold War in both the United States and Western Europe. In the past three months, the administration has announced plans to recruit a new generation of nuclear weapons builders, design and construct new weapons, restore some of the laboratories and weapons plants and begin to make tritium, one of the key ingredients of a weapon, in a civilian nuclear plant. The United States has not needed to build a new nuclear weapon in more than 10 years. But in February, Gen. John A. Gordon, under-secretary for nuclear security at the Department of Energy, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Bush administration wants "an ability to innovate and produce small builds of special purpose nuclear weapons." These new weapons would "act to convince an adversary that it could not expect to negate U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities." Gordon did not propose a weapons conglomerate of the Cold War dimensions with tens of thousands of workers from Hanford, Wash., to Rocky Flats, Colo., to Savannah, Ga., but he did describe a costly and extensive rejuvenation of this deadly arms business that could produce significant numbers of weapons. Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brooking's Institution and a member of President Clinton's national security council, sees in the Bush weapons program a dangerous shift of policy. He claims that the plans for "special purpose nuclear weapons" appear for the first time to mean weapons are going to be developed for actually fighting wars, not deterrence. The aggressive plans for a nuclear arsenal were largely obscured until March by Bush's calls for arms reduction in his negotiations with the Russians. Bush has presented his administration as desiring to end the nuclear confrontations of the Cold War. But on March 9, the Los Angeles Times published portions of a secret Nuclear Posture Review written by the Defense Department for Congress that said the United States reserves the right to target seven nations for nuclear attack including Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria. The startling proposal to target the five nations without nuclear forces -- Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria -- has drawn attention to Bush's nuclear weapons program. Bush claims Iraq, Iran and North Korea have what he calls "weapons of mass destruction," including chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them against enemies and if these dangerous weapons were determined to threaten the United States it might require a nuclear response. Bush labeled these three nations the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union Address and has warned that they may be capable of supplying weapons to terrorists. Many in Washington suggest that the Los Angeles Times news leak was part of Bush plan to convince these nations that the United States is willing and able to use nuclear weapons against them. Indeed on March 14, he warned Iraq that "everything was on the table" as the United States examined options to deal with Saddam Hussein. In addition to making it possible to build new weapons, military and Department of Energy planners are considering developing a "low yield" nuclear device that could dig into the earth and destroy deep caves and bunkers. The United States already has such a weapon, the so-called "earth penetrator," a nuclear bomb called the B-61 that was modified so it would bury itself and go off. Experts like Dr. Robert S. Norris, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, claim that the Bush administration is engaging in the same "mind games," as he calls it, that the Reagan administration used against the Soviet Union. Leaking internal military options to warn an adversary that the United States can surmount them. "Now they are complaining that the yield on the B-61 is too high and it needs a lower yield, Norris said. See, this puts us back in the mind game again. If we have such huge weapons, the adversaries won't believe we'll use it. So what do we need, they ask? We need a low yield earth penetrator and that should put the fear of God in Saddam Hussein. "So that's what they're trying to do." Joseph Cirincone and Jon Wolfsthal, writing an analysis for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned Bush earlier this month that there is "strong evidence" that nuclear threats do not deter countries, "that such threats only increase the incentives for additional states to build there own nuclear weapons." Norris agrees. "Adversaries don't like to be threatened. We found that the first time out with Russians and spent 40 years threatening one another, by some miracle making it out alive." The president said the United States would unilaterally reduce its strategic, long range, nuclear missile stockpile over the next decade from about 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin's administration agreed to a similar reduction in December and the two sides are trying to work out an agreement on verification and disposal issues. President Bush said on March 14 that he hoped to sign an agreement with Putin during a trip to Russia in May. But a group of nuclear experts at the NRDC, a liberal Washington think tank, charge that "not since the resurgence in the Cold War in Ronald Reagan's first term has there been such an emphasis on nuclear weapons in U.S. defense strategy." They issued figures based on government numbers that they claim show that a decade from now, even if Bush's planned cut becomes a reality, the United States in 2011 will still have some 10,000 intact nuclear warheads and the potentiality to quickly build another 5,000. The events of Sept. 11 and the "war on terrorism" have helped Bush and the Pentagon sell the nuclear weapons program, but in fact he brought the plans into office with him long before Sept. 11. Bush was heavily influenced by Dr. Keith Payne and retired Army Gen. William Odom, former chief of the National Security Agency, among others, who advocated that the U.S. nuclear arsenal needed to be completely overhauled after the Cold War and made into a "credible" 21st Century deterrent. Gordon outlined an extensive program in his Feb. 14 testimony: * Recruit a new force of young physicists to replace the "aging" arms makers in the nuclear program. * Modernize weapons plants at Pantex in Texas, Kansas City and the Savannah River Plant. * Develop new warheads to counter "emerging threats." * Maintain production capacity to build the new warheads. In Reagan's buildup 20 years ago, the United States produced a 1,000 weapons a month. Gordon wants a smaller capacity, perhaps in the hundreds. * Be prepared to conduct underground tests. The NRDC and other public interest groups question why the U.S. needs to develop new warheads when it has the largest and most diverse nuclear weapons program in the world. The NRDC claims that even when the United States reaches Bush's target of 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear weapons in 2012, it will still have: * 7,800 other nuclear warheads including 800 "non-strategic bombs;" * 1,350 missiles in the "responsive force;" * 240 missile warheads on the two Trident submarines in overhaul at any one time; * 320 "non-strategic" sea launched cruise missiles; * 160 spare "spare" strategic and non-strategic warheads * 4,900 intact warheads in the "inactive reserve." The Defense Department has not challenged these figures. Currently it is not clear whether in reducing the nuclear force to reach Bush's goals of 1,700 to 2,200 there will be destruction of the weapons or simply moving them an "operationally deployed" status to a reserve status. U.S. negotiators in Geneva last week said the Russians wanted the weapons destroyed, but the U.S. wanted them moved to reserve and suggested a compromise might be reached in the number or how they were to be stored. In the late Cold War there were major public anti-nuke groups in Western Europe and the United States that would have loudly opposed a nuclear expansion as now envisaged by Bush. But now Norris agrees that, "there is no strong anti-nuke force in politics." "The American people never like to think very much about it and when it appeared the major threat was over and the Russians weren't coming, all the better to lull yourself into a false sense of security," he said. "I think we went to sleep for a decade, no one was listening." Gordon's testimony in February was to obtain money from Congress for the significant cost of reviving a nuclear weapons industry, but Norris doesn't think there will be significant opposition in even the "razor-thin Democratic controlled senate." Against the backdrop of the war on terror, Norris thinks, "they probably get most of what they want." Copyright © 2002 United Press International Copyright © 2002 United Press International. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Abraham Met With 36 Industry Leaders on Energy Plan Bloomberg.com : Energy News 03/26 10:59 By Glen Justice and Holly Rosenkrantz Washington, March 26 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with at least 36 industry executives who sought to influence the administration as it was writing an energy policy, government documents show. Officials from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Westinghouse Electric Corp., the American Coal Co., Constellation Energy, Exelon Corp., and CSX Corp. were among those meeting with Abraham, according to the Energy Department documents. The positions of environmental and conservation groups were collected from their Web sites, policy papers and in meetings with department staff. The more than 11,000 pages of letters, position papers and reports, released last night under a federal court order, offer the first detailed look at how Vice President Dick Cheney's task force operated in crafting administration energy policy last May. ``That list speaks for itself,'' said Sharon Bussino, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the two advocacy groups that sued to get the papers. ``Secretary Abraham seemed to spend his time meeting with energy executives. I don't see any conservation groups on that list.'' Abraham defended the task force's final product. ``The national energy plan is a balanced, comprehensive plan,'' he said in a written statement accompanying the report. The task force ``not only sought, but included all viewpoints.'' Speaking Directly While Abraham met with energy industry officials, other task force members, including Cheney, met with ``numerous'' other groups, including representatives from environmental and consumer organizations, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``News flash: it's no surprise that the secretary of energy meets with energy-related groups,'' Fleischer said. ``It's no surprise to anyone that he would meet with energy companies to formulate and energy plan.'' One set of documents illustrates how corporations took their message directly to the Energy Department. Among those who met with Abraham were John Snow, chief executive, and Arnold Havens, vice president for federal affairs, of CSX, the largest railroad in the eastern U.S. and a major coal hauler. In a follow-up letter, Havens said he appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of a policy ``that maximizes the use of abundant domestic fuel sources including coal.'' He added that it would be a good idea to drop an ``unjustified'' fuel tax his company pays. The energy plan earmarks $2 billion for developing technology for cleaner burning coal that would make it a more attractive fuel for new power plants. Checking the Web Environmental groups have said the administration slanted its policy in favor of businesses and gave short shrift to conservation and the environment. Abraham's schedule included no meetings with environmental groups, according to the documents. The Energy Department's statement said that ``in many cases'' it obtained the positions of interested parties from their Web sites. The agency's documents also said officials encountered ``a lack of responsiveness'' from environmental groups including ``the occasional response of `check our Web site.''' Department officials had at least one ``substantive discussion'' with nine environmental groups in late March. Some environmental groups did get meetings with staff members from Cheney's group. Overall, the task force created about 26,000 pages, making only part of it available. The department said it wasn't required to disclose such items as early drafts of the report. Abraham said the documents release ``assures the American people that it was an open and appropriate process.'' Democrats Critical The lawsuits by the Council and the advocacy group Judicial Watch that prompted the release of the documents are separate from one filed by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Spurred by Democrats in Congress, the GAO has sued for information about who Cheney met with as he was heading the task force. The Senate will take up legislation on energy policy when it returns from a recess during the second week of April. Included in the task force's 105 recommendations were steps to increase oil and gas exploration and construct more power plants and transmission lines over the next two decades, actions favored by Enron Corp. and other energy companies. Democrats renewed criticisms of Bush's plan this year following Enron's bankruptcy. The company's former chairman, Kenneth Lay, is a friend of President George W. Bush. He and other Enron officials donated $736,800 since 1993 to Bush's presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. Bush fought release of the energy documents, saying that to do so would hamper his ability to get candid advice. Skilling Denied The Energy Department listed 23 requests for meetings from energy companies that Abraham declined, including those from Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, Enron's former chief executive. Skilling asked for a meeting on July 12, and Lay requested one on July 31, both after the energy policy was released. Lay ultimately got a hearing. He, along with Conoco Inc. Chief Executive Officer Archie Dunham and Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Lee Raymond were among the executives who told Bloomberg News last May they met with Cheney as his panel was making its report. Other energy companies or interest groups that met with department or task force staff, or presented materials, included the American Gas Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and AARP. Campaign Contributors Some who got meetings were donors to Abraham's failed 2000 Senate campaign. CMS Energy Corp., for example, had two meetings with the secretary, the documents show. Abraham met with CMS Chairman William McCormick Jr. on March 20, along with several other executives from different companies. CMS gave about $30,000 to Abraham, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance. Abraham raised more money than any other Senator in the 2000 elections from the energy sector, about $441,000. Both Bush and Cheney are former oil industry executives and received overwhelming campaign support from the industry. Bush was the sector's top recipient at more than $2.9 million in direct contributions. ©2002 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service, ***************************************************************** 11 NRC inspects Oconee Nuclear The Daily Journal By AMANDA RYLANDER amanda@dailyjm.comMarch 25, 2002 SENECA - Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and three in-house NRC inspectors were present Monday afternoon at Oconee Nuclear Station's World of Energy during the annual assessment inspection review. Two years ago, the commission developed a new strategic layered inspection plan, under which four white findings were noted. White findings subsequent to inspections are considered by the commission to have low to moderate safety concerns. The nine-month inspection was performed out of synch to allow the assessment inspection schedule to catch up to a fiscal calendar. NRC officials noted three white findings in reactor unit two, while one lingering degraded mitigating systems finding still remains in unit one since last October's inspection. Unit one is currently in "outage" and is undergoing refueling, maintenance, cleaning and repair. The combination of white findings in the two reactors places Oconee Nuclear Station as one of the nation's eight nuclear power stations with degraded inspection cornerstones. These findings also place ONS as the only plant with a degraded cornerstone in the Southeast. The findings in unit one relate to the plant's capability to provide reactor coolant makeup using the spent fuel pool, which is a procedural deficiency and only relates to problems resulting from a tornado. NRC projects chief Bob Hague said assessments on that specific finding aren't complete at this time, and a follow-up meeting will be scheduled upon completion. The second finding noted by NRC officials is an inadequate procedure which potentially increased the likelihood of water not being established within the required 40-minute period. This procedural deficiency also relates only to tornado threats. NRC inspections chief Bruce Mallett said degraded cornerstones don't necessarily mean that a specific area failed an inspection, but that all criteria weren't met during the process. "These are design problems," he said, and applauded ONS staff for being able to pinpoint and improve upon their own issues in an efficient and long-standing manner. "The challenge is prioritizing and correcting problems as they arise," Mallett said. McCollum said both hardware and procedural changes have been implemented both as results of NRC inspections and in-house inspections. When asked if cracks similar to those found during an annual inspection at Davis Bessie Nuclear Station near Toledo, Oh., were cause of more detailed inspection or reactor cap replacement plans here, McCollum said Duke Energy ordered reactor vessel heads were placed on order last year, and will be installed during scheduled outages at each of ONS's three units in 2003 and 2004. ©The Daily Journal / Messenger 2002 ***************************************************************** 12 EDITORIAL Move reactors' spent fuel rods New Haven Register EditorialMarch 25, 2002 One of the things that has changed since Sept. 11 is the opposition of most of the state's congressional delegation to moving tons of radioactive waste out of Connecticut. The waste in the form of spent fuel rods is stored in pools on the grounds of nuclear reactors in Waterford and Haddam Neck. These storage pools are far more vulnerable to terrorist attack than the reactors, which have heavily reinforced containment shells, concrete radiation shielding and steel pressure vessels. Although experts differ, there is a fear that an attack could ignite the fuel rods, sending smoke and radioactivity across the state and Long Island Sound. There are 1,582 metric tons of spent fuel rods stored at the state's Millstone and Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plants. Nationally, there are 40,000 metric tons of fuel stored at power plants in 36 states. The on-site storage was supposed to be temporary, but has lasted for decades as the federal government debated what to do with it. Recently, President Bush designated vaults deep under Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national storage site for nuclear waste. The mountain has been the subject of years of environmental and geological study to determine its suitability for storing spent fuel that will remain radioactive for 10,000 years. The plan is not new. The House and Senate approved it in 2000, although both of Connecticut's senators, Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph I. Lieberman, voted against it. In the House, both Christopher Shays and Rosa DeLauro opposed the plan. President Clinton vetoed the plan, even though power plants were running out of room to store spent fuel. Dodd and Lieberman say they are now reconsidering their opposition to moving the fuel rods to Yucca Mountain, although Lieberman still sounds less than convinced. Shays, on the other hand, now sees the potential threat. "This is a potential target for terrorists," he told the Register. "We need to get it to a site that is safe." First-term U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons has always backed using Yucca Mountain. All four of state's active and shutdown nuclear power plants and their storage pools are in his eastern Connecticut district. DeLauro has consistently voted against storage at Yucca Mountain. Now, she says, "we're going to do what is best for the state." Doing what is best for the state is putting these tons of spent, radioactive fuel under a mountain in the Nevada desert. Even if the move is only temporary, it is better than leaving it here, exposed to terrorist attack. ©New Haven Register 2002 ***************************************************************** 13 U.S. Orders Checks for Corrosion at Nuclear Reactors March 26, 2002 By MATTHEW L. WALD WASHINGTON, March 25 — Nuclear reactor operators have been ordered to check their reactor vessels after the discovery that acid in cooling water had eaten a hole nearly all the way through the six-inch-thick lid of a reactor at a plant in Ohio. The corrosion left only a stainless-steel liner less than a half-inch thick to hold in cooling water under more than 2,200 pounds of pressure per square inch. At the 25-year-old Ohio plant, Davis-Besse, near Toledo, the stainless steel was bent by the pressure and would have broken if corrosion had continued, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where officials were surprised by the discovery. They said they had never seen so much corrosion in a reactor vessel. The commission, which has warned plants for years to watch for any corrosion, has ordered all 68 other plants of similar design — pressurized-water reactors — to check their lids. The commission is particularly worried about a dozen of the oldest plants and ordered them to report by early April whether they were safe enough to keep in service. The commission told these plants to demonstrate that technicians there would have noticed such corrosion in their normal inspections, had it occurred. The Toledo Blade The discovery of a corrosion problem at the Davis-Besse nuclear power station, near Toledo, Ohio, has puzzled federal regulators. If the liner had given way in the Ohio reactor, experts say, there would have been an immediate release of thousands of gallons of slightly radioactive and extremely hot water inside the reactor's containment building. The plants have pipe systems that are meant to pump water back into a leaking vessel, but some experts fear that if rushing steam and water damaged thermal insulation on top of the vessel, the pipes could clog. In that event, the reactor might have lost cooling water and suffered core damage — possibly a meltdown — and a larger release of radiation, at least inside the building. Such extensive corrosion "was never considered a credible type of concern," said Brian W. Sheron, associate director for project licensing and technology assessment at the regulatory commission. Small leaks of cooling water are common, Mr. Sheron said, but engineers always thought that if cooling water leaked from the piping above the vessel and accumulated on the vessel lid, the water would boil away in the heat of over 500 degrees, leaving the boric acid it contains in harmless boron powder form. At Davis-Besse, however, it appears that the water was held close to the metal vessel lid, or head, perhaps by insulation on top of the vessel. Boric acid is used in cooling water to absorb surplus neutrons, the subatomic particles that are released when an atom is split and go on to split other atoms, sustaining the chain reaction. Engineers are not yet certain why the corrosion occurred. A nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit watchdog group that is often critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the discovery was troubling. "This is really something that shouldn't happen," said the engineer, David Lochbaum. "You shouldn't get such a huge hole in a pressure-retaining vessel." Edwin S. Lyman, the scientific director of the Nuclear Control Institute, an anti-proliferation group based here, said: "This is a pretty serious issue, and it has generic implications. And it was discovered by accident." Workers stumbled on the problem in the process of fixing a leaking tube that connects to the vessel head, which is 17 feet in diameter and weighs 150 tons. The tube is part of the reactor control system; inside it there is a control rod, which operators can lower into the core to smother the flow of neutrons and stop the chain reaction, or raise to allow the reactor to run. Technicians discovered that the metal that supports the tube had mostly disappeared. The plant owner, FirstEnergy Corporation, is hoping to patch the hole, an irregular opening about 4 by 5 inches. But the commission is skeptical about whether this is possible. No one in this country has replaced a reactor vessel head, although several plants have ordered parts to do so. FirstEnergy ordered a new head just before the extent of the problem became obvious. A company spokesman said the company hoped to install it in the spring of 2004. That date reflects how the industry, with no new reactor orders in decades in this country, has limited production capacity for such parts. The plant might also be able to use a vessel head from a reactor in Midland, Mich., that was never completed, or from a similar plant that was retired in 1989. Davis-Besse, which began operating in 1977, was not designed with the idea that the head would be replaced; technicians would have to cut a bigger hole in the steel-reinforced concrete containment building to get the new head into it. The company has not said what the job will cost, but Duke Power Company, which operates three reactors similar to Davis-Besse, plans to replace the heads of all three for about $20 million. FirstEnergy could spend nearly that much each month for electricity from alternative sources if it must wait for the replacement part. Because of the discovery at Davis-Besse, the regulatory commission ordered a dozen other plants to report back within two weeks and prove that inspections they have done in the past would have found any corrosion. The inspection cannot be done while the plant is running, and if the utilities cannot convince the commission, they presumably face shutdowns of perhaps several weeks just for the checks. Such shutdowns occurred intermittently in the 1970's and 80's but have become extremely rare as reactors have improved their reliability. The industry is hopeful, however, that inspections it began under commission orders several years ago, to look for leaks, would have found any similar cases. Those inspections began after the heads of French reactors showed signs of leaks and corrosion. "It could be something unique to Davis-Besse," said Alexander Marion, director of engineering at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. A goal for the investigation at the plant, he said, would be to find out not only why the corrosion occurred but also why it was not noticed sooner. "The plants are getting older and we're starting to see these kinds of problems," Mr. Marion said. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy ***************************************************************** 14 NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Co. March 26 to Discuss Monticello Nuclear Power Plant Performance NRC: Press Release Region III - 2002 - 5 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-005 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Company in Monticello, Minnesota, on Tuesday, March 26, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. The facility is located in Monticello. The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the Xcel Energy Training Center, 2100 West River Street, Monticello. Before the meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer any questions from members of the public. The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year. A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Nuclear Management Company addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mont_2001q4.pdf Current performance information for Monticello is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MONT/mont_chart.html ***************************************************************** 15 NRC to Meet with Detroit Edison Co. March 28 to Discuss Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Performance NRC: Press Release Region III - 2002 - 6 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-006 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Detroit Edison Company in Monroe, Michigan, on Thursday, March 28, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant. The facility is located near Monroe. The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Monroe City Hall, 120 East 1st Street, Monroe. Before the meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer questions from members of the public. The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year. A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Detroit Edison Company addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ferm_2001q4.pdf Current performance information for Fermi 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_chart.html ***************************************************************** 16 Czech nuclear municipalities to join GMF Hoover's Online UK - March 25, 2002 11:09pm Source: Czech News Agency, March 25, 2002 DUKOVANY, South Moravia, March 25 (CTK) - Towns of Dukovany and Rouchovany, both south Moravia, and Tyn nad Vltavou, south Bohemia, will join the group of European municipalities in nuclear areas (GMF) by July this year, Dukovany Mayor Vitezslav Jonas said today. Also other municipalities from the area of the nuclear power plant in Temelin, south Bohemia, and Dukovany, consider joining the group, Jonas added after negotiations with GMF representatives in Brussels. The group's aim is the promotion of interests of small regions around nuclear facilities and exchange of information. While in Western Europe also larger regions are members of the GMF, similar associations of municipalities around nuclear facilities have not been created in the Czech Republic yet. After negotiations, Czech mayors said that the legislative and economic position of municipalities from nuclear areas in Western Europe is significantly better than in the Czech Republic, which is one of main motives of Czech municipalities to join the GMF. Dukovany, the Czech Republic's first nuclear power plant, has been in operation since the 1980s, while Temelin, the second nuclear plant, started to be launched in October 2000. okl/dr/ms Copyright © 2002 Financial Times Limited, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 17 NRC to Meet With Nuclear Management Co. March 28 to Discuss Prairie Island Nuclear Power Station Performance NRC: Press Release Region III - 2002 - 7 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-007 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Company in Welch, Minnesota, on Thursday, March 28, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Station. The two-reactor facility is located near Welch. The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. in the Prairie Island Training Center, 1660 Wakonade Drive West, Welch. Before the meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer any questions from members of the public. The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year. A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Nuclear Management Company addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/prai_2001q4.pdf Current performance information for the Prairie Island facility is available on the NRC web site at: (Unit 1) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI1/prai1_chart.html and (Unit 2) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI2/prai2_chart.html ***************************************************************** 18 NRC to Meet With STP Nuclear Operating Company to Discuss Safety Performance at South Texas Project NRC: Press Release Region IV - 2002 - 12 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov No. IV-02-012 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of STP Nuclear Operating Company on Monday, April 1, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant. The facility, which has two operating reactors, is located near Bay City, Texas, and is operated by STP Nuclear Operating Company. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Bay City Convention Center, 201 Seventh St., Bay City. NRC staff will be available before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions from the public. A letter sent from NRC Region IV to STPNOC addresses plant performance during the period April 1 to December 31, 2001, and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stp_2001q4.pdf. Current performance information for South Texas Project Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP1/stp1_chart.html. Unit 2 information is at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP2/stp2_chart.html. ***************************************************************** 19 NRC to Meet with NPPD to Discuss Safety Performance at Cooper Nuclear Station NRC: Press Release Region IV - 2002 - 13 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov No. IV-02-013 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nebraska Public Power District on Tuesday, April 2, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Cooper Nuclear Station. The facility is located near Brownville, Nebraska, and is operated by NPPD. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Brownville Concert Hall, Atlantic Ave. & 2nd St., Brownville. NRC staff will be available before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions from the public. A letter sent from NRC Region IV to NPPD addresses plant performance during the period April 1 to December 31, 2001, and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cns_2001q4.pdf. Current performance information for Cooper Nuclear Station is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CNS/cns_chart.html. ***************************************************************** 20 Hijackers qualified to work at nuke plant United Press International: By P. Mitchell Prothero From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 3/25/2002 5:16 PM WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Federal regulators have no set requirements for checking backgrounds of nuclear plant security employees and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers could have qualified to work as security guards, according to a report released Monday by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The report also claims that most plants could not withstand a plane crash. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a critic of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for years. After the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, he demanded that the agency explain its security requirements for plant operators, including employee screening ad ability to withstand various terror attacks. The responses did not sit well with the opponent of nuclear power. "There is little comfort to be found in the agency's response to my questions," Markey said in a statement. "Black hole after black hole is described and unaddressed. Post 9/11, a nuclear safety agency that does not know -- and seems little interested in finding out -- the nationality of nuclear reactor workers or the level of resources being spent on security at these sensitive facilities is not doing its job." The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association representing the industry, disputes the allegations, and a spokeswoman said the charges are consistent with Markey's opposition to nuclear energy in general. "The vast majority of this report is inaccurate," said NEI spokeswoman Thelma Wiggins. "This is just part of Mr. Markey's long-standing attempt to shutdown the nuclear power industry." According to the NRC, employees with access to nuclear power plants, which are mostly operated by private firms, only need to pass a criminal background check that covers the United States. No investigation into the background of a foreign citizen in their home country is required. The NRC was also unable to tell Markey the number of foreign citizens working at nuclear facilities. "In short, it appears that al Qaida operatives such as Mohamed Atta or Marwan al Shehhi could pass the narrow nature of the criminal screening still in use at U.S. nuclear power plants and gain unescorted access to the controlled area of the plant, just as they obtained student visas to attend flight school," the report says. "As long as they have no criminal record in this country, al Qaida operatives are not required to pass any security check intended to find ad expose terrorist links prior to their employment." The NRC also does not require plant operators, or licensees, to provide detailed information on security operations to federal regulators, but Wiggins claims the report distorts the truth about measures put into place to screen and monitor employees. "Nuclear plant employees are required to pass stringent security and background checks," she said. "And their behavior and performance is monitored daily. As an industry, employees get the same background check performed by the FBI and this is mandated by the NRC. They are constantly evaluated for fitness for duty." As for the claims about foreign nationals working in plants, Wiggins said the vast majority are long-time residents of the United States, usually educated in the country and have extensive work histories that can be verified. As for a terror attack similar to the Sept. 11 crashes that took the lives of thousands, the Markey report finds serious design problems with most of the 103 commercial reactors that would leave most susceptible to an airline attack. "There are 103 active civilian nuclear reactors in the U.S.," the report says. "According to the NRC, the licensees of 43 of those reactors on 28 sites did not even consider the probability of an accidental aircraft impact when the reactors were designed, built and licensed. In an additional 56 reactors on 37 sites, the licensees concluded that the probability of a accidental was so low that it did not have to be incorporated into the design of the reactors." NRC documents show that four reactors were designed to withstand the impact of aircraft weighing up to 12,500 pounds, about 3 percent the size of the Boeing 767's that hit the World Trade Center. Only the Three Mile Island facilities were found sufficiently reinforced to withstand a crash by a large airliner. Copyright © 2002 United Press International Copyright © 2002 United Press International. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 NRC to Meet with Arizona Public Service To Discuss Safety Performance at Palo Verde NRC: Press Release Region IV - 2002 - 14 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov No. IV-02-014 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Arizona Public Service Co. on Thursday, April 4, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant. The facility, which has three operating reactors, is located near Wintersburg, Ariz., and is operated by Arizona Public Service Co. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Estrella Mountain Community College, Estrella Hall, South Community Room, 3000 North Dysart Rd., Avondale, Ariz. NRC staff will be available before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions from the public. A letter sent from NRC Region IV to Arizona Public Service addresses plant performance during the period April 1 to December 31, 2001, and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/palo_2001q4.pdf. Current performance information for Palo Verde Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO1/palo1_chart.html. Unit 2 information is at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO2/palo2_chart.html. Unit 3 information is at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO3/palo3_chart.html. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC Determines Inspection Finding for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant To Be of Substantial Safety Significance NRC: Press Release Region I - 2002 - 23 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov No. I-02-023 March 25, 2002 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov [opa1@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that an inspection finding for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant pertaining to the facility's security program should be characterized as "yellow," meaning it is an issue of substantial importance to safety. Additional NRC inspections will be conducted at the plant as a result of the finding. The plant, located in Vernon, Vt., is operated by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. The finding is based on the NRC's assessment of a security exercise conducted at the plant between Aug. 20 and 23 of last year. During the exercise, known as an Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE), an NRC team evaluated Vermont Yankee's security program through table-top drills, assessed tactical training and firearms proficiency, and conducted four challenging force-on-force drills designed to identify potential vulnerabilities, as well as areas where the program could be strengthened. The NRC team determined through the table-top drills that there were potential vulnerabilities in the security program's response strategy. The finding was subsequently confirmed by the results of two of the force-on-force drills. It has been determined by the NRC staff to be "yellow" because the weaknesses were generally predictable, repeatable and indicative of a broad programmatic problem. Because plant safeguards information is involved, the exact nature of the weaknesses identified cannot be provided. However, no weaknesses were of such significance that they could not be dealt with promptly through compensatory measures. Vermont Yankee did establish such measures immediately, and longer-term improvements, including improved internal and external strategies and organizational improvements, were also begun. The NRC inspectors determined that the plant's security program was sound before departing the site. The NRC has also conducted subsequent reviews of the plant's security and found it to be satisfactory. At a closed regulatory conference on Jan. 18 and in a written evaluation, Vermont Yankee disagreed with the "yellow" finding, contending that the two failures during the force-on-force exercises were inconclusive because of various artificialities that adversely affected the outcome of both drills. However, after carefully considering the contentions, the NRC has determined that the finding is appropriately characterized within the context of the agency's Reactor Oversight Process. "In making this determination, we considered the exercise artificialities and controller decisions that occurred during the exercises," NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to Vermont Yankee. "... We acknowledge that the exercise artificialities and controller's decisions may have had a degree of influence in the exercises, however, it would not be practical to rerun the exercises to further assess the issues. Nonetheless, the scenarios adequately served to confirm the vulnerabilities (i.e., response strategy deficiencies) identified during the table-top portion of the OSRE." Vermont Yankee has 10 days to appeal the NRC staff's determination of the significance of the finding. Under the agency's significance determination process, NRC officials classify certain conditions at nuclear power plants as being one of four colors which delineate increasing levels of safety significance. The indicators begin with "green," which is considered to be the least significant, and progress to "white," "yellow" or "red," which is considered to be the most significant. Any finding of white or above can result in additional inspections. ***************************************************************** 23 Notebook: Report fears for N-plants The Seattle Times: Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 12:03 a.m. Pacific WASHINGTON — The nation's 103 nuclear-power reactors are vulnerable to a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack but have taken few safety countermeasures since Sept. 11, a congressman says in a report released yesterday. Citing Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the nation's commercially operated reactors are at risk from sabotage from foreign workers who were not screened adequately for ties to terrorist organizations, and are vulnerable to the same kind of suicide hijackings that leveled the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. He also said guards at nuclear plants are underpaid, undertrained and incapable of repelling an attack from terrorists. Markey is co-sponsoring a bill to allow the federal government to assume security at nuclear plants in much the same way it has at airports since Sept. 11. Nuclear-regulatory officials said Markey's report was far too critical and inaccurate in places. Intelligence official believes bin Laden is in Afghanistan KABUL, Afghanistan — A senior Afghan intelligence official said yesterday he is confident Osama bin Laden is hiding in a southeastern Afghanistan. Gen. Niamat Ullah Jalili, head of intelligence at Afghanistan's Interior Ministry, said information he had received over the previous two days had convinced him that bin Laden, suspected of directing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was in the remote mountainous area between the eastern Afghanistan town of Khost and the Pakistan border town of Miram Shah. He said bin Laden, accompanied by close advisers, was moving constantly to evade detection. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 24 Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant Comes Close To Disaster davis-besse press release NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404, Washington, D.C. 20036 202.328.0002; fax 202.462.2183; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 13, 2002 CONTACT: Paul Gunter and Kevin Kamps, NIRS, Washington, DC 202-328-0002 Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast, Asheville, NC 828-251-2060 As Lax Regulator Places Company Interests Ahead of Public Safety (Washington, DC) First Energy, an Ohio electric utility, drove its deteriorating Davis-Besse nuclear power station dangerously close to a catastrophic accident it was revealed today. Moreover, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) capitulated to First Energy pressure to delay inspections of a vital safety component beyond a requested December 31, 2001 deadline in order to accommodate the industry rather than force an early shutdown to conduct inspections on deteriorating equipment. Following the February shutdown for refueling outage and inspection at the Davis-Besse nuclear power station, 21 miles Southeast of Toledo, Ohio, operators discovered a cavity had eaten through 6-inches of carbon steel on the top of the 6½-inch thick reactor pressure vessel, the apparent result of corrosive coolant leakage from the reactor core. Less than a half inch of the reactor vessel's stainless steel liner remained in the bottom of the 4"X5"X6" cavity separating the reactor's highly radioactive and pressurized internal environment (2500psi) from blasting into the reactor containment building damaging safety equipment and possibly setting into motion a core melt accident. Initial company inspections additionally found cracks in the welds on five of the 69 nickel alloy sleeves that penetrate the reactor pressure vessel head to allow for control rod insertion to safely shutdown the reactor. "First Energy pushed this reactor beyond all reasonable safety margins and the NRC basically allowed it," said Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for Washington, DC-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "This was a dangerous nuclear experiment on public safety that came damn close to exceeding the strength of a fundamental piece of reactor safety equipment, the reactor pressure vessel," he said. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had earlier granted operators at Davis-Besse a delay from a December 31, 2001 inspection report deadline on the same vessel head area of the reactor pressure vessel as was required of all other pressurized water reactor operators issued in a NRC industry bulletin on August 03, 2001. First Energy successfully fought NRC's request to shutdown early to inspect for damage to the region control rod drive mechanism vessel head penetrations for cracking and corrosive coolant leakage. "Davis-Besse is a highly susceptible reactor with known deteriorating margins of reactor safety in this area," said NIRS staffer Kevin Kamps. "First Energy operators calculated the risks of running the reactor to their scheduled February outage to maximize their profits," said Kamps. "Such high-stakes risk taking means gambling with the health and safety of very large numbers of people," Kamps concluded. The reactor coolant at Davis-Besse as at other nuclear reactors is a solution of boron and water. Reactor coolant escaping through cracks and around flanges on the control rod drive mechanisms allows the corrosive boron to drip, crystallize and attack the carbon steel exterior surface. While the corrosive action of the boron crystals apparently stopped at the stainless steel liner, given a wide enough cavity in the carbon steel, the reactor pressure vessel could have ruptured as the result of the extreme internal pressure exceeding the sheer stress of the steel liner tearing a hole through the vessel wall from the inside out. Reactor coolant released as a high-pressure jet stream of radioactive water much like a super fire hose could damage reactor safety equipment located directly above the reactor vessel and potentially introduce a shock wave sufficient to break already cracked control rods ejecting them as missiles further damaging equipment including other control rods needed to shut down the reactor. Davis-Besse now plans to find a used reactor pressure vessel head or alternately weld metal plates on the interior and exterior sides of the vessel head to plug the hole until a new vessel head could be fabricated and installed two years from now. First Energy is also considering grinding out the cracks in welds on vessel head penetrations for control rod drive mechanisms and re-welding the sleeves. "The First Energy repair option on the cavity in the reactor vessel has no standard or code to measure its reliability and safety by," said Gunter. "Such a repair could very well introduce additional stresses to this safety component to make the repair unreliable and risk public safety again later on down the line," Gunter concluded. --30-- ***************************************************************** 25 Hole in reactor sends industry scrambling The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released this photo of past work on the Davis-Besse reactor as part of its investigation. After Ohio find, regulators want other plants to report by April 1 March 26 — The startling discovery last month of deep corrosion in the “lid” capping the reactor at an Ohio nuclear power plant is raising the specter of long, costly shutdowns at other plants using a similar design. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered such plants to report back by April 1 on what they’ve found inside their reactors. THE CORRODED cavity was found in the reactor vessel head at FirstEnergy’s 25-year-old Davis-Besse nuclear power station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. During a scheduled refueling outage that began Feb. 16, engineers found boric acid — used in the primary coolant bath surrounding uranium rods in the reactor core — had leaked at the base of five of the 69 control rod nozzles that penetrate the reactor vessel head. The bottom of the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head before the corrosion. At one of the nozzles, the acid had eaten all the way through the 6-inch thick vessel head — a massive 150-ton, 17-foot wide piece of carbon steel bolted down on top of the reactor. Federal inspectors said the hole was the largest ever discovered on top of a U.S. nuclear plant reactor. The corrosion was so severe that a 3/8-inch thick stainless steel liner inside the reactor was the only barrier left between the reactor core, which operates under enormous pressure, and the metal shroud surrounding the reactor vessel. A second but smaller cavity has also been discovered. While FirstEnergy and federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials described the corrosion as “serious” and “not anticipated,” they point out it posed no danger to the public since the entire reactor is housed in a steel-reinforced concrete containment building. Even if the acid had penetrated the massive cap and allowed steam to escape, safety systems would have immediately cooled the reactor, said NRC spokesman Jan Strasma. The steam would contain some radioactive material, but would have been confined by the reactor containment building. Anti-nuclear activists counter that it would only take the failure of a backup system to start a chain reaction that could lead to a meltdown of the reactor core. BOILING-WATER REACTOR Water is used as both coolant and moderator, and it boils in the radioactive core. The steam can be used to drive a turbine and electrical generator, which produces electricity. To view the reactor, click here. PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR Water is kept under high pressure and at a high temperature in the primary system. The heat is transferred from the core to an exchanger by the water. Steam is produced in a different circuit. This is the most widely used reactor to produce electricity. To view the reactor, click here. (MSNBC is not responsible for content of Internet links.) PEBBLE-BED MODULAR REACTOR An experimental, small-scale reactor using helium gas to turn a gas turbine. Natural radiation, convection and conduction are sources for cooling down the core. Modular construction lowers costs. To view the reactor, click here. (MSNBC is not responsible for content of Internet links.) GAS-COOLED REACTOR Widely used in Europe, this reactor uses gas both to cool the radioactive core and to run gas turbines that create electricity. To view the reactor, click here. (MSNBC is not responsible for content of Internet links.) OTHER PLANTS TOLD TO CHECK Concerns raised by Davis-Besse have spread far and wide through the industry, prompting the NRC last week to order operators of 68 other pressurized water reactors — more than half of the nation’s 104 nuclear generating units — to double check the condition of their reactor heads and report back by April 1. Boiling water reactors, the other basic design used at U.S. nuclear power plants, were exempt from the order. The NRC has been aware of tiny cracks forming around nozzles in some reactor heads for over a year and repairs have already been carried out at some plants. But none of the reactors inspected so far has shown anywhere near the damage found at the 860 megawatt Davis-Besse unit. EXPENSIVE FIXES Aside from safety concerns, the economic implications of the discovery are huge. The fear of other plants closing for repairs is pushing up energy prices as traders brace for the possibility of shrinking nuclear supplies over the next few months. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent of U.S. power generation. “The markets are behaving as if lengthy outages are a strong possibility. But it’s still too early to tell,” Sam Brothwell, utility analyst with Merrill Lynch in New York, told Reuters. At Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy estimates that in a best-case scenario, repairs to the reactor head will take three months and cost $10 million to $15 million. In a worst-case scenario, it could take two years. That’s the time it would take to manufacture a replacement head. While the company hopes judicious welding work can patch the hole, FirstEnergy officials confirmed that in February they ordered a new reactor head from Framatome ANP, Inc. in France for delivery in 2004. FirstEnergy estimates the cost of replacing the reactor head at about $20 million. And downtime at Davis-Besse, which generates 7 percent of FirstEnergy’s electricity, will force the company to spend anywhere from $10 million to $15 million a month buying replacement power for the 4.3 million customers served by its seven subsidiary utilities, they said. OTHER PLANTS The problem has focused industry attention on six other plants, all sharing the same Babcock and Wilcox design as Davis-Besse and all built about the same time. The plants in question include the Crystal River 3 nuclear power station in Florida, owned by Progress Energy, and Duke Energy’s three reactors at the Oconee plant in South Carolina. The other two units in the group are Entergy’s Arkansas 1 unit in Arkansas, and Amergen’s Three Mile Island 1 reactor in Pennsylvania. Entergy, Progress Energy and Amergen officials said reactor heads at their plants had all been inspected and repaired as needed during scheduled refueling outages last autumn. Duke Energy, the first to grapple with this problem, found small cracks and boric acid leaks at one of its three Oconee units back in November 2000. Since then, Duke has checked and repaired all three Oconee reactor heads, and ordered new heads for each unit, scheduled for delivery next year. Lawmaker: 'Black holes' in plant security EYES ON NRC REVIEW Meanwhile, the energy markets are anxiously awaiting the NRC’s review next month of the inspection and maintenance reports requested from plant operators, on which it will decide the need for further inspection outages. “This is the next big thing to watch,” said Merrill Lynch’s Brothwell. “So far, this is still a single-plant and single-company issue. However, if it spreads, it could rekindle the nuclear risk premium of yesteryear,” he added. The NRC has its own team of engineers and metallurgists at Davis-Besse and others at the headquarters working on the corrosion problem. David Lochbaum, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, participated in an NRC meeting last week on the issue and said afterward that he was satisfied the agency is properly handling the situation. “Their answers were helpful,” he said, while adding that “there is still a lot that is unknown.” The NRC has created a special section on its Web site with background, at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.html. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. ***************************************************************** 26 Ohio nuke woes raise fear of lengthy plant outages Yahoo - [Reuters] Monday March 25, 4:10 pm Eastern Time By James Jelter SAN FRANCISCO, March 25 (Reuters) - The startling discovery last month of deep corrosion in the ``lid'' capping the reactor at an Ohio nuclear power plant is raising the specter of long, costly shutdowns at other plants using a similar design. That fear also is pushing up electricity and natural gas prices as energy traders brace for the possibility of shrinking nuclear supplies in the market over the next few months. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent of U.S. power generation. In the Midwest, prices for wholesale electricity delivered during the summer rose about 12 percent last week. The move spilled into the natural gas market, pushing futures prices 15 percent to 20 percent higher last week as traders bet gas-fired plants would be called on to close the gap left by outages at one or more nuclear units. ``The markets are behaving as if lengthy outages are a strong possibility. But it's still too early to tell,'' Sam Brothwell, utility analyst with Merrill Lynch in New York, told Reuters. Triggering the alarm was a corroded cavity found in the reactor vessel head at FirstEnergy's (NYSE:FE [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=fe&d=t] - news) 25-year-old Davis-Besse nuclear power station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. During a scheduled refueling outage that began Feb. 16, engineers found boric acid -- used in the primary coolant bath surrounding uranium rods in the reactor core -- had leaked at the base of five of the 69 control rod nozzles that penetrate the reactor vessel head. At one of the nozzles, the acid had eaten all the way through the 6-inch (15-cm) thick vessel head, a massive 150-ton, 17-foot (5.2-metre) wide piece of carbon steel bolted down on top of the rector. The corrosion was so severe that a 3/8-inch (1-cm) thick stainless steel liner inside the reactor was the only barrier left between the reactor core, which operates under enormous pressure, and the metal shroud surrounding the reactor vessel. ``NOT ANTICIPATED'' While FirstEnergy and federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials described the corrosion as ``serious'' and ``not anticipated,'' they point out it posed no danger to the public since the entire reactor is housed in a steel-reinforced concrete containment building. But the economic implications are huge. FirstEnergy, based in Akron-Ohio, estimates that in a best-case scenario, repairs to the reactor head will take three months and cost $10 million to $15 million. In a worst-case scenario, it could take two years. That's the time it would take to manufacture a replacement head. While the company hopes judicious welding work can patch the hole, FirstEnergy officials confirmed that in February they ordered a new reactor head from Framatome ANP, Inc. in France for delivery in 2004. FirstEnergy estimates the cost of replacing the reactor head at about $20 million. But downtime at Davis-Besse, which generates 7 percent of FirstEnergy's electricity, will force the company to spend anywhere from $10 million to $15 million a month buying replacement power for the 4.3 million customers served by its seven subsidiary utilities, they said. THE WIDER PROBLEM Concerns raised by Davis-Besse have spread far and wide through the industry, prompting the NRC to order operators of 69 pressurized water reactors -- more than half of the nation's 103 nuclear generating units -- to double check the condition of their reactor heads and report back by April 1. Boiling water reactors, the other basic design used at U.S. nuclear power plants, were exempt from the order. The NRC has been aware of tiny cracks forming around nozzles in some reactor heads for over a year and repairs have already been carried out at some plants. But none of the reactors inspected so far has shown anywhere near the damage found at the 860 megawatt (MW) Davis-Besse unit. The problem has focused industry attention on six other plants, all sharing the same Babcock and Wilcox design as Davis-Besse and all built about the same time. The plants in question include the 860 MW Crystal River 3 nuclear power station in Florida, owned by Progress Energy, and Duke Energy Corp's three reactors at the Oconee plant in South Carolina, each rated at 846 MW. The other two units in the group are Entergy Corp's Arkansas 1 unit in Arkansas, and Amergen's 786 MW Three Mile Island 1 reactor in Pennsylvania. Amergen is owned 50 percent each by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. and British Energy plc of Scotland. Entergy, Progress Energy and Exelon officials said reactor heads at their plants had all been inspected and repaired as needed during scheduled refueling outages last autumn. Duke Energy, the first to grapple with this problem, found small cracks and boric acid leaks at one of its three Oconee units back in November 2000. Since then, the Charlotte, N.C.-based company has checked and repaired all three Oconee reactor heads, and ordered new heads for each unit, scheduled for delivery next year. Meanwhile, the energy markets are anxiously awaiting the NRC's review next month of the inspection and maintenance reports requested from plant operators, on which it will decide the need for further inspection outages. ``This is the next big thing to watch,'' said Merrill Lynch's Brothwell. ``So far, this is still a single-plant and single-company issue. However, if it spreads, it could rekindle the nuclear risk premium of yesteryear,'' he added. ***************************************************************** 27 residents oppose ratification of Slovene-Croatian nuclear plant accord BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Mar 26, 2002 [Announcer] At its session last night, the Krsko municipality council disagreed with the ratification of the Slovene-Croatian contract on the [Krsko] nuclear power plant and proposed the purchase of the Croatian share in the nuclear power plant. New starting points will be needed in order to reach a new agreement. Irena Majce reports: [Reporter] The municipality council again strongly opposed ratification. Mayor Franci Bogovic said: [Bogovic] We suggest that the Slovene government prepare a new contract using different starting points. [Reporter] The local community wishes to participate in such a process. The council reached a conclusion: [Bogovic] The Slovene government should examine the possibility of Slovenia buying the ownership share in the Krsko nuclear power plant from the Croatian partner. In this way, the Slovene government should take over full responsibility for the building and should be able to manage it alone. [Reporter] The state secretary for energy, Robert Golob, says that if the contract is not ratified by 1 July: [Golob] - it is clear that negotiations will have to start all over again or that other solutions will have to be found. [Reporter] New negotiations may take several years. This is why it would be better to try to find other solutions. [Golob] Another solution may be in Slovenia trying to take over the entire ownership of the Krsko nuclear power plant. [Reporter] Does this involve new starting points? [Golob] Of course. This has to involve new starting points. If the parliament rejects ratification of the current contract, it will have to give reasons for that. If it comes to this, I hope that it will approve new starting points for a new contract at the same time... Source: Radio Slovenia, Ljubljana, in Slovene 0600 gmt 26 Mar 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 28 Tajiks arrested with stolen uranium BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Tuesday, 26 March, 2002, 19:35 GMT Numerous cases of nuclear theft occur in ex-Soviet republics Authorities in Tajikistan have arrested four men caught with two kilos of stolen uranium. A spokesman for the Tajik security ministry said the group was arrested in the northern city of Chkalovsk. The reports have raised fears that the stolen material might be used to build a nuclear device or a 'dirty bomb' They refused to say where they obtained the uranium or what they were planning to do with it. But laboratory tests showed it to have been stolen from the Vostokkredmet metal plant in the town of Taboshar, near Chkalovsk. An official investigation is under way. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous incidents involving the theft of radioactive materials have been reported in former Soviet republics. Officials have said that all such thefts involved low-concentration substances in small quantities unfit for making nuclear weapons. But the incidents have raised fears that the stolen material might be used to build a crude nuclear device or a "dirty bomb". Radiation released A "dirty bomb" is made by wrapping radioactive material such as spent nuclear fuel rods around ordinary high explosives, then detonating the device. The package could be used in a car bombing or a similar attack. Damage is not caused so much by the explosion, but by the radiation released into the atmosphere. [Fuel rods] Fuel rods could be used to make dirty bombs That could cause deaths, cancers and other health problems over many years, as happened after the nuclear accident at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine. Concerns over the security of former Soviet biological weapons have also been voiced. On Tuesday, a United States senator called for the clean up of a former testing facility in Uzbekistan. Tonnes of biological weapons lie buried on an island in the Aral Sea. Senator Bill Nelson said action must be taken to prevent lethal bacteria falling into the hands of terrorists. ***************************************************************** 29 hlw: peoples summit 4-12 to 4-14 Nuclear Information & Resource Service is proud to co-sponsor The People's Summit on High-Level Nuclear Waste: Rethinking the Waste Crisis sponsored by Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) The People's Summit on High-Level Nuclear Waste is a gathering of people from impacted communities to discuss our country's high-level waste crisis; to confront conflicts among us and develop consensus to unify ourselves and solidify our commitment to a waste policy inclusive of ordinary people's needs. The People's Summit on High-Level Nuclear Waste: Rethinking the Waste Crisis April 12-14, 2002 Wesleyan University Middletown, CT If groups can act in solidarity rather than self-interest, we can create a sane, safe, and far-sighted national high-level nuclear waste policy. The Summit will bring together affected people from reactor, transport and dump communities, radioactive waste and other experts, as well as local, regional and national environmental organizations to engage and address issues that vitally affect our communities - irradiated fuel, onsite storage, fuel pool expansion, transport, burial and terrorism. Our goal is to initiate a discussion that can develop into a HLW policy that is both inclusive and addresses the reality of Environmental Racism - that poor, rural, and people of color communities are disproportionately chosen for nuclear sacrifice. With the assistance of professional facilitators, the group will identify the critical issues, broaden and deepen participant's knowledge base and promote consensus building in order to strategize effectively and move forward in solidarity and with clear direction. The People's Summit will be held at Wesleyan University April 12-14, 2002. The Summit will open with a reception and keynote speaker on Friday night. Saturday will include alternating whole group discussions and smaller working groups focused on reactor, transport and dump issues including the themes of Environmental Racism and terrorism. Sunday will focus on building consensus and strategizing around next steps. An important aspect of the Summit is breaking the issues down to levels that everyone can understand. For questions about registration or The Peoples Summit : www.nukebusters.org Phone : (860) 345-2157 email : ctcan@snet.net www.nukesbusters.org Please see the attached brochure about the Summit, as well as the attached logistics information, including travel directions as well as info. on how those in need of financial assistance for travel or lodging can obtain it. ***************************************************************** 30 Taguchi eyes YMP protection plan Pahrump Valley Times By DOUG McMURDO, News ReporterMarch 22, 2002 Nye County Commission Chairman Jeff Taguchi on Tuesday urged his peers on the board to create a plan designed to protect residents in the wake of President Bush's decision to designate Yucca Mountain as the site to store the nation's radioactive waste. And he wants the plan implemented without any input from federal agencies. Nye County has long held a neutral stance regarding Yucca Mountain, said Taguchi, who made it clear his comments were personal and not representative of the board as a whole. As a result of that neutrality, Taguchi said Nye County was able to develop one of the best science programs in the state. Through the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository oversight program, Taguchi said the early warning drilling system and alluvial tracer complex were established. He lauded the use of federal funding to implement and administer the programs "on behalf of the public interest." In the aftermath of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's recommendation to approve Yucca Mountain and Bush's subsequent decision to green light the project, however, Taguchi implored his fellow commissioners to enhance their neutral position. In a strongly worded statement, Taguchi said the county has to be proactive in developing a "community action plan, a living document that categorizes and prioritizes our issue. Our plan needs to be presented before those who have the ability to insert these protections ... " he said. Taguchi conceded the decision to site the project - tasked with storing roughly 77,000 metric tons of the nation's high-level nuclear waste - is "out of our hands," and therefore it was "incumbent" on the commissioners to advocate the health and welfare of Nye County residents. While Taguchi said he would rather the repository find a home outside of Nye County and Nevada, he reasoned the county should get its plan included early in the process. He said the goal would be to have the plan included in future legislation so time is a factor. Appropriations could also play a role, and Taguchi proposed the county form its plan before "all aspects of the decision making process are completed (and) our protections might be viewed as minimal or too late," he said. Taguchi said he didn't believe the county's neutral stance would be affected by "advocating our protections." He said the responsibility rests with the commissioners, and the needs of the county must be defended. With that in mind, he directed county staff to place two items on the April 16 meeting agenda. One was a discussion regarding a proposed resolution that "quantifies and qualifies" suggested protections. Taguchi directed officials with the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office to draft the resolution. The second item the chairman wants on the agenda is a discussion related to a $50,000 augmentation to the county's lobbying fund. "When critical decisions are being formulated outside of our ability to input, our physical presence becomes even more crucial," he said. Pahrump Commissioner Henry Neth agreed with Taguchi. Several weeks ago Neth said the time had come to negotiate with the Department of Energy. On Tuesday he said the county's neutral position has "served us well." Neth added, however, that science hasn't proved Yucca Mountain isn't a suitable site, and questioned the sincerity of state leaders who adamantly oppose the project. "Over the years 800 bombs were detonated at the Nevada Test Site and nobody at the state or federal level said anything," said Neth. "They just turned their heads." ©Pahrump Valley Times 2002 ***************************************************************** 31 Yucca: Tuesday morning quarterbacking Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: Steve Sebelius Now, we know in part ... " wrote St. Paul in the oft-quoted 13th chapter of his epistle to the church in Corinth. And how true it is, in this mortal life, that our knowledge is imperfect. And that's what those who supported a 1975 legislative resolution inviting the federal government to store nuclear waste at the Nevada Test Site are saying. Among the resolution's supporters: then-state Sen. Richard Bryan, who voted for it, and former Gov. Mike O'Callaghan, who signed it. (Both men have since lent their names, reputations and talents to fighting the dump.) Why the change of heart? In 1975, despite the rising tide of Watergate and the mendacity surrounding the Vietnam War, people still trusted the government not to lie to them. If those 1950s-era above-ground nuclear tests were safe, surely storing nuclear waste in the ground was safe, too? We now know that those above-ground tests were not safe, and that people exposed -- both knowingly and unknowingly -- have a greater risk of developing cancer. You could argue that the government had absolutely no idea of the risks, but then again, you could argue the Earth is flat. About the same number of people would believe both. There's nothing wrong with someone -- even a politician -- changing his mind on an issue because of new information. In fact, the stubbornness that causes leaders to cling to ideas they later discover are wrong can cause more harm than good. Does anyone doubt that Bryan or O'Callaghan have always done what he thought was in the best interests of Nevada? If you said yes, you don't know either man. But the embarrassing little episode of the 1975 resolution came up in an interesting way: The Nevada Policy Research Institute, the best state-based, free-market think tank you've never heard of, recently sent out an e-mail dispatch saying it was the chase of filthy federal lucre that caused the politicians such rhetorical pain. They only wanted jobs. But wanting to create jobs in your state, especially in a time of high unemployment, is not a bad thing. If Yucca Mountain is built, it will bring plenty of jobs to the state. And if that happens, it will have a lot more to do with the Silver State's lack of influence on Capitol Hill in 1987 than it does with a forgotten resolution passed in 1975. And speaking of imperfect knowledge, today will be the first day critics will charge me with going easy on my friends in the gambling industry, due to the Review-Journal parent company's new deal with Park Place Entertainment and the Mandalay Resort Group to sell hotel rooms via the Web site lasvegas.com. I will press ahead regardless, knowing that the most skeptical of those critics -- those actually in the gambling industry -- will be unpersuaded that I have joined the team. But the news that Nevada is home to a much greater than average percentage of pathological gamblers bears some comment. We've been told for years by the gambling industry that research shows about 1 percent of the general population has a gambling problem. But here in Nevada, a study by Northampton, Mass.-based Gemini Research says, the percentage is as high as 6.4 percent, or between 72,800 to 117,400 people. It's not like the industry has been lying; research on the subject is notoriously inexact. And it shouldn't be any surprise that more gambling addicts live in Nevada than other places. Is it a surprise that alcoholics frequent bars or sex addicts enjoy going to strip clubs? And while no one credible has yet suggested it, even the most drastic solution -- banning gambling outright -- wouldn't solve the problem gambling problem. In fact, it would be the problem gamblers who would frequent the underground casinos. (Has the drug ban solved the drug problem? Or did banning liquor solve alcoholism during Prohibition?) But gambling addiction differs from drug and alcohol addiction in that treatment for the latter ailments is more readily available; in Nevada, there is hardly any treatment for problem gamblers. And since the gambling industry pays millions in taxes every year, some of that money should logically be put toward the treatment of gambling-related problems. While some casinos have donated money to the treatment of problem gamblers, a state-run program would ensure programs are available regardless of whether generosity waned on the Strip. But, you object, where will we get the money to replace those funds siphoned from the state budget for gambling problems, to say nothing of the millions more that are needed for education, health care and road-building projects, to name just a few? Well, that's where that broad-based business profits tax comes in. And the fact that I'm advocating a tax that has long been sought by the casino industry is, I promise, pure coincidence. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at Steve_Sebelius@lvrj.com. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 32 Yucca: Who'll lead the way? Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. NOW WOULD be a really good time for some leadership. I don't know how many campaign slogans over the years have extolled various candidates with catchy words and flowery phrases designed to capture the attention and the vote of the electorate, but I would think that in almost every case the word leader was among them. Proven leadership, the ability to lead, a leader for our time -- you name the slogan and I can find a candidate who used those words as a stepping stone toward election. So, if my count is correct, practically every member of the Nevada Legislature got there in some way by convincing the voters that he or she was a leader and just the person we need to help us find our way to a better tomorrow. So where are they now that we need them? I can't think of a time in the history of our state when so daunting a task lay before us as the fight this summer against the federal government's plan to send the nation's high-level nuclear waste to a site just a short drive from Las Vegas. Nothing else we have had to face as a state has ever posed a real and present danger to the existence of this state as a tourist mecca as has the specter of this deadly poison coming our way. It is so dangerous that no one else in the entire country wants this stuff in their back yard, so they are content to put it in ours. If ever there were a moment in time when unanimity of thought and action would be expected and required it would be right here and right now because this is the time when Nevadans write the plan for our future. Will we forever be known as the place where poison lives and not much else or will we continue to be the tourism capital of the world, a rich and inviting oasis that promises the very best of fun, food and frolic to travelers from around the globe? And, at the same time, provides work for thousands of people each and every month for as long as we can see. So where are the leaders to stand up and lead the fight against President George W. Bush's plan to bury us under 77,000 tons of radioactive waste? Where is the leadership in the state capital and state Legislature that will join in the fight being led by our congressional delegation in Washington, which is fighting almost insurmountable but still winnable odds? Gov. Kenny Guinn has told us he wants a special session to appropriate the needed funds without which our fight would be futile. Speaker of the Assembly Richard Perkins has told us he stands with the governor and will do what he can to make sure Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign have the financial resources they need to win this fight. Our two senators have asked both men to get them the money now so they can mount an effective strategy designed to win the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans who don't yet know the dangers that will travel their own streets, highways and railways and over their waterways and, perish the thought, sink to the bottom of them. But Gov. Guinn and Speaker Perkins aren't enough, it seems. The Sun will soon publish a report indicating the level of support for a special legislative session to provide the money requested by Sens. Reid and Ensign. It doesn't look good because it looks like the Senate, led by Reno Sen. Bill Raggio, is coming down against any such notion of helping ordinary Nevadans avoid lifetimes of anxiety and concern about when and where the shoe will drop upon them and their families. Sen. Raggio is a Republican and so is most, but not all, of the negative support for the special session. That is unfortunate because this is a Nevada fight, not a Republican or Democratic one. There are times when national parties and loyalty to a president who has broken his word to Nevadans that he gave as a mere electoral calculation should not count for anything. This is one of those times because it is our health and safety, our livelihoods and our futures that hang in the balance. Whether you are one of those who believe this is the worst thing that could happen to us or just a bad thing, the fact remains that there is nothing good that can come from sending radioactive garbage through Nevada to what would be a suburb in many Eastern states. But it is a fact that President Bush made the decision to send that stuff here when he could have decided not to do so. It seems also that the facts will be that most Republicans in the Nevada Legislature will spurn their party leader and Nevada's governor in his quest to get the much-needed funds to give us a fighting chance against the nuclear power producers and their allies in the federal government who are imposing this solution upon us against our will. And, yes, it appears that some Democrats are also firmly in the "no" column when it comes to providing the help that the voters need. Shame on all of them. In one respect, it is a good thing that this fight will probably be over by the time the elections come around this November. If we lose for lack of money, the voters will have a very clear picture of those who helped and those who didn't. They will have an unequivocal view toward those who led on this issue and those who hid from it. And they will know exactly who to blame for not making a stand against a tyrannical federal government hellbent on destroying that which the world recognizes as one of the 21st century's stellar cities. It doesn't have to be this way. Bill Raggio can be a leader. He can do what his governor wants and encourage his party faithful to let loose with the money that Reid and Ensign need. If he needs some more encouragement, Sen. Ensign should be ready, willing and able to bring that point home in a very clear, concise and maybe even a public way. The same goes for the errant Democrats. Sen. Reid cannot win this thing unless the state is behind him and if he needs to make that clear to the voters about who is standing in the way, he should do just that. And, as for our good governor, he knows where the money has to come from however difficult it may be to find the millions required. His job is to call that special session and get the money. If he leads the way I know he can, the money will be forthcoming and the feds will know they are in a fight. If he is not successful, at least the voters will know exactly where to place the blame because there will be blame to be sure. Not everyone can pick up and leave this state when that poison starts rolling through our streets and seeping into our drinking water. There will be 1.5 million people in Clark County alone who will have to stay and live with the constant fear and trepidation that those trucks will roll into their lives. They will know who led and who failed to follow. And, because it is their families who may suffer, they will not forgive. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Poll says Americans are evenly divided on Yucca issue Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 By Benjamin Grove Yucca poll The Ipsos poll surveyed 1,000 people nationwide selected by computer using a random-digit dial, pollsters said. The poll found: + Men, whites and Republicans tend to favor Yucca Mountain. + Fifty-eight percent of men support Yucca Mountain, and 58 percent of women oppose it. + Fifty percent of whites favor the project while 35 percent of minorities do. + Sixty-five percent of Republicans support Yucca, with 29 percent opposed; 36 percent of Democrats support it, with 59 percent opposed; 29 percent of Independents support it, with 59 percent opposed. WASHINGTON -- Americans are evenly split in their opinion of Yucca Mountain, according to a new poll that Nevada officials believe will bolster their position in the fight against Yucca Mountain. A nationwide survey of 1,000 people found 47 percent supporting the nuclear waste project and 47 percent opposing it, but the poll showed the public has concern over the transportation of nuclear waste. Nevada officials are trying to build national opposition to the project by publicizing the possible risks of transporting the waste through 43 states to Nevada. Congress is expected to decide this year if the government should send 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain. When the people surveyed were told nuclear waste could be shipped through their state, 61 percent said they were either "somewhat" or "much more likely" to oppose the Yucca project. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she noted that the poll runs counter to the assertion made by nuclear industry officials that the majority of the public outside Nevada supports Yucca Mountain. Berkley said the poll confirms that people react negatively to the Yucca project based on the transportation issue. "As long as this remains a Nevada issue, it remains off the radar screens of fellow Americans," Berkley said. "But when you begin to educate people about the risks of transportation, all of a sudden there is a heightened concern. People understand instinctively that nuclear waste is dangerous and they don't want it coming through their cities and towns." The poll was taken March 14 to March 17 by Ipsos Public Affairs, an international polling company. The firm conducts weekly polls on a variety of topics. In an effort to drum up free publicity, Ipsos routinely attaches a few questions on news topics to its weekly polls and then distributes its results to media. The poll has a margin of error or 3.1 percent. When respondents were first asked their opinion on Yucca Mountain, 23 percent supported it; 24 opposed it. But Ipsos president Tom Riehle said 53 percent said they did not know about Yucca Mountain. Riehle said many people nationwide are simply not familiar with the issue of nuclear waste. Pollsters explained pros and cons of Yucca Mountain by declaring three statements commonly made against the project and three statements commonly made in favor of it. After hearing the six statements, 47 percent favored and 47 percent opposed Yucca Mountain -- still an even split. "Both sides have some effective arguments, so in the end it turns out as a wash," Ipsos vice president Trent Ross said. Nevada officials have a "fairly effective" argument in stressing the dangers of shipping nuclear waste, but stressing risks to groundwater is also a persuasive argument, Ross said. The Ipsos poll shows that a public information campaign is needed, said Nathan Naylor, spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., have talked with Gov. Kenny Guinn about calling a special session to spend as much as $10 million on the fight against Yucca Mountain. Guinn said he would decide this week on calling a special session. The money would fund a public relations push that would include television commercials and a grassroots campaign. "This is something we have known in our guts for some time -- that not enough people are aware of the facts surrounding Yucca Mountain," Naylor said. "When they become aware of the facts, they are opposed to the plan. This clearly shows us what our next step needs to be. A public information campaign is just what the doctor ordered." Nevada officials are seizing on the poll, especially on a question that asked what people thought about high-level radioactive waste being shipped through their state. Sixty-one percent of those polled were against shipments. "It shows that the transportation issue is one that concerns a majority of people in this country," said Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera, who is running for Nevada's new congressional seat. "I think if people knew how dangerous (Yucca) could be, especially on the transportation and homeland security issues, those numbers would be much higher." Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he expects the poll will be used as part of the anti-Yucca campaign being waged by Nevada officials. Nevada officials now have the difficult job of moving the data found in the poll into a national debate about Yucca Mountain, Gibbons said. Gibbons was not surprised by the even split, he said. "A lot of people are in tune with Nevada's position once they learn the facts," he said. Gibbons said a question about groundwater pollution could also help make Nevada's argument, as 69 percent of those polled said they were opposed if the site caused pollution. "Water is such a necessity for life," Gibbons said. "Whenever you start talking about polluting groundwater, whether it is in New York or Nevada, people are going to be upset with it." Officials from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's lobbying arm, declined comment on the poll. NEI has done polling on the issue on the past, officials said, but has not asked about Yucca Mountain in the last few years. The construction of Yucca Mountain as a national waste repository is key to the future of the industry, officials say. The Ipsos pollsters asked six questions on Yucca Mountain and recorded the responses, which follow: + "Storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could lead to groundwater contamination." (14 percent said they supported Yucca after this statement; 69 percent opposed) + "Nuclear waste would be transported to Yucca Mountain from storage sites all over the United States, which could mean that nuclear waste would be transported through your state." (31 percent supported; 61 percent opposed) + "The mountain is located just 90 miles from Las Vegas" (28 percent supported; 56 percent opposed) Statements in favor of Yucca Mountain: + "Scientists say that Yucca Mountain's very dry climate, less than six inches of rainfall a year, and its extremely deep water table make Yucca Mountain a good choice for a national storage facility." (63 percent supported Yucca after this statement; 30 percent opposed). + "Scientists say the rock will keep the waste sufficiently isolated for thousands of years so that the radioactive material will pose about the same risk or less risk of health effects to the public as that of unmined uranium ore." (62 percent supported; 29 percent opposed). + "Some people say that it is better to have one central storage facility for nuclear waste rather than storing it in numerous facilities as is the current case." (59 percent supported; 32 percent opposed). All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Environmental groups form anti-Yucca lobby Las Vegas SUN March 26, 2002 LAS VEGAS SUN Many of the nation's leading environmental groups are standing as one lobbying force to Congress urging lawmakers not to approve a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. A coalition of 16 environmental activist organizations sent letters today to U.S. senators outlining problems with the proposed dump reported by the General Accounting Office. "The Yucca Mountain finding reneged on a promise President Bush made to the people of Nevada during the 2000 presidential campaign that no waste would come to Nevada unless the decision was based on 'sound science,"' the letter states. The letter is signed by the presidents of American River; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Environmental Defense; Environmental Working Group; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace; League of Conservation Voters; National Environmental Trust; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Interest Research Group; Scenic America; the Sierra Club; and The Wilderness Society. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 Stop Construction of Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain Petition March 27, 2002 We the undersigned, endorse the following petition: Stop Construction of Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain Target: President George W. Bush Sponsor: Ellen Pearce [egreentree@hotmail.com] [pen nib] SIGNATURES: 272 [pen nib] GOAL: 10,000 [pen nib] DEADLINE: Ongoing ... The proposed new nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not in the public interest. The U.S. Department of Energy has not been able to show that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain would be safe. The nuclear waste that would be buried there would remain dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years. Yucca Mountain will not solve our nuclear waste problem. The project will add to our problems by creating another, new, contaminated site. The highly radioactive waste would also have to be shipped to Nevada, passing through as many as 45 states by highways and railroads, endangering millions of people enroute. Nuclear power plants were originally licensed to operate for 40 years. Now the old nuclear power plants are being re-licensed, allowing them to operate for another 20 years. The power plants should be phased out. As the parts and equipment age, they can malfunction and the radioactive waste is an enormous problem. There is also a new terrorist threat that cannot really be ignored. A bad nuclear accident would affect thousands of people. The cost of a nuclear accident would be paid for by taxpayers, not by the nuclear power industry. Many people died immediately at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and many more people have died in the years that followed that accident. Nuclear power plants can be phased out. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump is not a solution to nuclear energy's problems, it is an irresponsible venture and not in the public interest. Nuclear power plants need to be phased out. ..... See full petition below MOST RECENT 25 of 272 SIGNATURES E-mail this petition to your friends. [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/711740242/tf_link] Stop Construction of Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain Dear President Bush, The proposed new nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not in the public interest. The U.S. Department of Energy has not been able to show that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain would be safe. The nuclear waste that would be buried there would remain dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years. Yucca Mountain will not solve our nuclear waste problem. The project will add to our problems by creating another, new, contaminated site. The highly radioactive waste would also have to be shipped to Nevada, passing through as many as 45 states by highways and railroads, endangering millions of people enroute. Nuclear power plants were originally licensed to operate for 40 years. Now the old nuclear power plants are being re-licensed, allowing them to operate for another 20 years. The power plants should be phased out. As the parts and equipment age, they can malfunction and the radioactive waste is an enormous problem. There is also a new terrorist threat that cannot really be ignored. A bad nuclear accident would affect thousands of people. The cost of a nuclear accident would be paid for by taxpayers, not by the nuclear power industry. Many people died immediately at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and many more people have died in the years that followed that accident. Nuclear power plants can be phased out. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump is not a solution to nuclear energy's problems, it is an irresponsible venture and not in the public interest. Nuclear power plants need to be phased out. Sincerely, The Undersigned E-mail this petition to your friends. [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/711740242/tf_link] Note: This Stop Construction of Nuclear Waste Dump at Yucca Mountain petition was submitted by Ellen Pearce [egreentree@hotmail.com] . ThePetitionSite.com is a free service provided to help concerned citizens rally support for issues they believe in. The opinions expressed by this petition do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of ThePetitionSite.com or Care2.com. There is no express or implied endorsement of this petition nor any newsletter offers (except those from Care2.com) by Care2.com, Inc, ThePetitionSite.com, or our sponsors. If you believe this system is being abused, please send a message with the title and URL of this petition to support@earth.care2.com. If you disagree with the opinions of this petition, speak out in the Care2 discussion boards [http://www.care2.com/community/cafe/list.html?num=94&category_id=21] . Powered by © 2002 Care2.com,Inc. [http://www.care2.com] ***************************************************************** 36 Abraham on Yucca: One Safe Site Is Best (washingtonpost.com) By Spencer Abraham Tuesday, March 26, 2002; Page A19 Imagine that at the dawn of the nuclear age, President Truman and Congress had agreed to bury all the radioactive waste that this new source of energy would produce in sturdy casks covered by a secure shield 800 feet beneath a barren desert owned by the government, guarded against intruders, under federally restricted airspace and located 90 miles from the nearest major population center. Had that choice been made, would anyone today argue that it would be safer to remove all this high-level nuclear waste and scatter it around the nation to 131 sites located near cities and waterways, and to place the waste in temporary, above-ground storage facilities? Of course not. But this is essentially what the critics of the decision to select Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's permanent site for nuclear waste are asking us to believe -- that the current temporary surface storage system for high-level nuclear waste is preferable to the permanent underground solution offered by the Yucca Mountain site. Scientists have studied the safety and suitability of Yucca Mountain for the past 24 years at a cost of more than $4 billion. Experts from around the world have mapped the mountain's geologic structure, collected 75,000 feet of core samples and more than 18,000 geologic and water samples, and built more than six miles of tunnels to map its interior features at the repository level. After all this analysis, the scientists concluded that Yucca Mountain would be safe. In fact, extensive studies prove the repository will secure this material so well that tough Environmental Protection Agency standards will be met for 10,000 years. Here's what this means: Someone living 11 miles away from the site 10,000 years from now would be less exposed to radiation than he would be on a normal plane flight from Las Vegas to New York. In making this determination, the experts used worst-case assumptions. We took earthquakes into account: Yucca Mountain would still meet EPA radiation protection standards. Volcanic eruptions affecting the repository? The likelihood is one in 70 million per year. And Yucca Mountain would still meet the EPA standards. What about corrosion from water that might drip 1,000 feet down into the cavern? Yucca Mountain is located near Death Valley and has an average precipitation of under 8 inches a year, less than half an inch of which actually makes it below the surface. We even analyzed what would happen during the next ice age when Nevada's climate changed and rainfall increased dramatically: Yucca Mountain would still meet the EPA standards. This project is critical for national security. Spent fuel from our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines must be permanently disposed of if we are to continue using these valuable systems. And Yucca Mountain is indispensable to joint U.S.-Russian efforts to secure nuclear materials. The project is critical for energy security as well. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity, emits no airborne pollution or greenhouse gases and now gives us one of the cheapest forms of power generation we have. Securing these benefits requires finding a permanent, safe and secure site for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is essential for homeland security. More than 161 million people live within 75 miles of one or more nuclear waste sites, all of which were intended to be temporary. We believe that today these sites are safe, but prudence demands we consolidate this waste from widely dispersed above-ground sites into a deep underground location that can be better protected. The science is sound, and the national interests served by a permanent repository are compelling. That's undoubtedly why opponents of Yucca Mountain have now resorted to scare tactics. They argue, for example, that transporting materials to the site would be unsafe because of potential accidents or terrorist attacks. But we've transported radioactive materials for more than 30 years, covering some 1.6 million miles, without any harmful release of radiation. Europe has already safely moved about as much nuclear material from place to place as we expect to ship over the entire active life of the Yucca Mountain Project. So far as terrorists are concerned, why wouldn't they first attack stationary, above-ground facilities that lie in known locations near heavily populated cities, rather than wait 10 years until the material is being moved -- in secret -- in secure containers surrounded by heavily armed guards? If the critics think a "no" on Yucca Mountain means this material will stay put, they are dreaming. Already, the Goshute Indian Tribe in Utah, in consortium with a group of electric utilities, is moving forward on approval of a temporary above-ground nuclear waste storage site on its reservation. Whether or not the Goshutes are successful, sooner or later others will open new sites, and this material will move. At this point, the administration is simply seeking permission to have independent experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission objectively and scientifically decide whether to approve construction of the repository. That will take at least three years and yet more scientific studies. But those who oppose Yucca Mountain don't even want the NRC to bring its widely recognized impartial and detached scientific judgment to the table to make an independent determination. They would cut short this extended process in the vain hope a miracle will occur and this problem will just go away. It won't -- and it's our responsibility to solve it. The writer is U.S. secretary of energy. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 37 Japan: Nuclear waste to fill 400,000 bins by 2048 Japan Today Japan News - Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 18:00 JST TOKYO The Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute said Tuesday the amount of nuclear waste from its facilities stored in 200-liter drum containers will reach 400,000 containers by the year 2048. The mid-century projection for nuclear waste emitting low levels of radiation was issued by the government-funded institute based on both waste already stored and waste expected to result from its nuclear plant operations. (Kyodo News) ***************************************************************** 38 Realtors sign up for Yucca Mountain fight Las Vegas Business Press It appears as though the real estate industry is joining the rank and file in the battle against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. According to a press release from Gov. Kenny Guinn's office, leaders in Southern Nevada's real estate/development sector have contributed $70,000 to the Nevada Protection Fund. The Molasky Companies donated $50,000, and the Nevada Association of Realtors contributed $20,000, "in the state's fight against the development of a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain." As stated in the press release, the Nevada Protection Fund was established to support the numerous challenges the state has and will undertake in fighting Yucca Mountain, and fund a communications effort in other states along the transportation route. In the release, Guinn said, "Members of the Molasky family are lifelong Nevadans with roots dating back 50 years. They are passionate about the issues facing this state, and have been actively engaged in the fight against Yucca Mountain for years. "Simultaneously, the (Nevada Association of Realtors) represent the home buying public, and recognize the need to aid us in this battle." According to Guinn's office, the Nevada Protection Fund has reached $6 million after the governor received $4 million from the State legislature, with the balance coming from Nevada's cities and counties. Copyright 2002 Las Vegas Business Press ***************************************************************** 39 USEC plans, sales tax may be connected The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Two lawmakers from Paducah are looking for a way to revive the bill. They say refusal may affect the company's future plans. By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 FRANKFORT, Ky.--If the General Assembly fails to approve a sales tax exemption for enriched uranium manufactured at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, it could have a negative effect on decisions that USEC Inc. makes about future development in Kentucky, according to Rep. Frank Rasche, D-Paducah. The key decision will concern where to build a new plant that will use gas centrifuge, the next generation of enrichment technology, Rasche said. The plant will cost more than $1 billion and create hundreds of new jobs. "I think USEC officials perceive that failing to pass the bill is an indication that they are not wanted in Kentucky," Rasche said. "But that isn't so." Rasche and Sen. Bob Leeper, R-Paducah, said that because of that concern, efforts are being made to revive the bill that was effectively killed in the House last week because of opposition from the Paper Allied-Industrial Chemical &Energy Workers Union. PACE represents workers in Paducah and at USEC's closed plant in Portsmouth, Ohio. Rasche said PACE workers in Ohio are upset because of USEC's announcement last month that it was moving the final shipping operation from Portsmouth to Paducah by this summer. It will mean a loss of 440 jobs at the Ohio plant. PACE leaders in Paducah joined in that opposition, but no one from the local union has been available for comment. Leeper said he'll participate in a conference call today with USEC and members of PACE who met Monday at USEC's headquarters in Bethesda, Md., to discuss the issue. "It is my understanding that some progress was made to resolve the issues," Leeper said. "I don't know if everything was resolved. I assume we will find that out during the conference call." Leeper said if the union removes its opposition, he has a plan ready to see that the tax exemption is approved. He would not discuss his strategy. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle would not confirm that a meeting was held between USEC and the union but did say USEC is concerned about the failure so far of the legislature to pass the bill. "The fact of the matter is, our company is disappointed ... and hoped Kentucky would support us in our effort regarding the tax exemption issue," Stuckle said. "We certainly would like Kentucky's support both on this issue and any other endeavors that we pursue." One of them is the location for the gas centrifuge plant. "At some point, we will go out and will look to see what individual states have to offer to attract centrifuge," she said. "We are still considering our position." ***************************************************************** 40 Scientific illiterates oppose storage of nuclear waste in Nevada The Union Leader & New Hampshire Sunday News - Columns - March 26, 2002 Jonah Goldberg: IT’S AN OLD joke, but it’s still true: More Americans were killed by Ted Kennedy’s car than by nuclear power. Washington’s about to have another big debate about nuclear power, and amid all of the inevitable fearmongering and hysteria, you should keep that joke in mind. The reason for the debate is President Bush’s recommendation to Congress to designate Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. I recently visited Yucca Mountain and the only thing uncontroversial I can report to you is that it is a big hole in the ground; a big, expensive hole in the ground. Beyond that, opinions differ. My opinion is that it’s a perfectly good place to store nuclear waste for 50 to 300 years, though it’s designed to hold it — quite safely, thank you — for at least 10,000 years. Now I know, Nevadans don’t want the nation’s nuclear garbage in their back yard. I have sympathy for them. As in many Western states, Nevada feels like it gets the shaft from the East Coast. Indeed, roughly 95 percent of the waste intended for Yucca Mountain will originate east of the Mississippi. The federal government owns 87 percent of Nevada’s land and it has a history of being an arrogant landlord. Heck, it detonated some 800 nuclear bombs on Nevada. That’d tick off anybody. But that’s as far as my sympathies go. Federalism, after all, is a pretty thin reed for Nevadans to stand their opposition on. Yucca Mountain is already federal land (it sits adjacent to the Nevada Test Site and Ellis Air Force Base, making it virtually terrorist proof). And it’s not like Nevada is famous for opposing federal subsidies, roads and military bases. Currently there are 103 nuclear power plants in 39 states, generating 20 percent of America’s electricity and zero percent of greenhouse gasses. The radioactive waste from these plants — roughly 42,000 metric tons of it so far — is scattered in 131 different locations. Almost all of it is held in “temporary” holding facilities. By law — and good conscience — the feds need to find a permanent home for it. One day, we’ll be able to send it into the sun or render it benign with a few squirts from an eyedropper. But for right now, burying nuclear waste deep underground away from people and water is, according to scientists and engineers from all around the world, the best solution. Environmental and anti-nuclear groups say they favor geologic storage, too, but just not at Yucca. They’ve been denouncing the project as a “geologically unstable” white elephant. They’ve been particularly eager to scare the bejeebers out of Nevada residents, telling them that it’s not a matter of if there will be a major disaster, but when. The reason for all of this nonsense is simple. If we don’t put nuclear waste underneath Yucca Mountain, it will probably mean the end of the nuclear power industry in the United States (which is why the utilities are spending lots of money in favor of Yucca). No nuclear plant has been built since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Power companies want to build new reactors, but nobody’s going to finance or license them until the nation figures out where to dump our nuclear garbage. If Yucca is killed, it could take 20 or 30 years to find another viable (but less qualified) site. Sen. Harry Reid has been leading the anti-Yucca fight in Congress. His latest desperation ploy is to try to scare the rest of America the way Yucca opponents have scared Nevadans. He’s doing this by claiming that the waste packages used to transport spent fuel are “mobile Chernobyls.” Reid and others leave out the fact that there have been more than 3,000 waste transports in the United States since 1964 without a single radioactive spill. (By the way, nuclear waste doesn’t actually “spill.” Before shipping it is processed into a hard, dry ceramic.) These waste containers have been cooked in aviation fuel, dropped onto unyielding concrete and plunged onto steel spikes, and they have come through with flying colors. And, even if one did spill its cargo, it wouldn’t be the horror story it’s made out to be. You could stand a half mile from the very worst waste and get less additional radiation than you do from the cosmic rays we’re all exposed to every day. Nuclear waste is dangerous. But so are coal and oil. Opposing Yucca Mountain, or nuclear power in general, because you’re afraid of radioactivity isn’t an informed position. It’s a sign of scientific illiteracy. Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online. The Union Leader. ***************************************************************** 41 More wells are tested in Hematite STLtoday - news BY TIM ROWDEN Of the Post-Dispatch 03/25/2002 09:13 PM Clarissa Eaton of Hematite her family were recently informed that their well and, 17 of the wells that belong to their neighbors could have been contaminated by chemicals from a plant that once produced nuclear fuel rod assemblies. (Dawn Majors/P-D) State officials were taking samples of drinking water from wells near Hematite on Monday as residents continued to worry about the contamination of their water from a former nuclear fuel plant. Four of the wells in a subdivision near Hematite, about 35 miles south of St. Louis, were found to be contaminated with traces of trichloroethylene and tetrachoroethylene. The chemicals have been linked to cancer and other health problems. One well in the neighborhood was found to contain a byproduct of the chemicals. The same chemicals turned up in a well northeast of the plant last month. Clarissa Eaton can't see the plant from the front porch of her home in the River's Bends subdivision, but waste from the plant's operations have landed squarely on her doorstep. Eaton learned last week that her well and those of three of her neighbors were tainted with chemicals believed to have come from the operations of the plant in the 1950s and 1960s. Officials with Westinghouse Electric Co., which owns the plant, tested 18 wells in the area last week. The shuttered plant west of Festus produced nuclear-fuel-rod assemblies for commercial power plants. Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. opened the facility in 1956. Westinghouse bought the plant two years ago and closed it last summer, consolidating operations in Columbia, S.C. Chuck Hooper, an environmental specialist with the state Department of Health and Senior Services, says the chemicals are believed to have been buried in one of 40 unlined pits on the plant site in the early years of the plant's operations, before federal environmental laws prohibited such practices. Hooper said state officials took additional water samples in the area Monday. Meanwhile, Westinghouse is paying to have charcoal filters installed on the contaminated wells. Kevin Hayes, manager of environmental health and safety at the plant, said the same filter system had proven effective in safely reducing the contaminants at the well northeast of the plant. Hayes says officials believe they have found the edge of the contaminant plume, which could help speed a cleanup. "Unfortunately, we found ... more houses that need filtration," Hayes said. "The good news is that the majority of the houses we obtained samples from had nothing found." Officials did not test in the subdivision last week for radiological contamination, but Hayes said testing of other wells in the area had shown no signs of radioactivity. Hooper, the state Health Department spokesman, said a long-term solution to the chemical contamination could involve digging up the pits to remove the contaminants and pumping the water out of the aquifer to be treated. Or the solution might involve waiting to see whether removing the source of the contaminants would clean up the water. He said officials would retest the wells in about a month and planned to develop a long-term monitoring program. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be host a public meeting at 6 p.m. April 3 at the First Christian Church in Hematite on Highway P to discuss the decommissioning of the plant and the planned cleanup of the property. Reporter Tim Rowden: E-mail: trowden@post-dispatch.com Phone: 636-931-1017 ***************************************************************** 42 Logbook of Hiroshima's destruction for auction Times Online March 26, 2002 By Alan Hamilton FOR Captain Robert A. Lewis of the US Army Air Corps, the terrible moment was seared into his memory for ever. “My God,” he wrote in his logbook, “what have we done?” As co-pilot of Enola Gay, the B29 Superfortress that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, he was a witness to the birth of the nuclear age. His stunned reaction has been widely quoted in histories of the event, but his original 11-page logbook is still expected to fetch up to £215,000 when it is auctioned at Christie’s tomorrow. Captain Lewis and his crew took off from Tinian airfield in the Marianas Islands on a 5-hour flight to the target. The logbook records the moments after the bomb, codenamed Little Boy, was dropped from 31,000 ft. On the back of his logbook he drew a sketch of the giant mushroom cloud he saw soaring above the city. “There in front of our eyes was without doubt the greatest explosion man has ever witnessed,” he said. “I am certain the entire crew felt this experience was more than any one human had ever thought possible. It just seems impossible to comprehend.” He sold the logbook for $37,000 (£26,000) in 1971, 12 years before his death, and it is being offered for sale tomorrow by a private collector. In the same sale is an unmailed draft of a letter written in 1939 from Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt, telling him that “recent advances in theoretical physics” had suggested ways to harness the power of the atom to build powerful bombs, and urging him to establish an atomic research project immediately. Roosevelt then ordered the launch of the secret Manhattan Project, which later enabled Captain Lewis to undertake his deadly mission to Hiroshima. Christie’s believe that the letter could fetch up to £860,000. http://www.thetimes.co.uk Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 43 Is nation's new nuclear policy a sound move? News-Sentinel illustration by Don Wood New policy reduces circumstances for which weapons will be used By Barry M. Blechman, For The Los Angeles Times March 24, 2002 The Bush administration's new nuclear policy has received a great deal of criticism over the suggestion that U.S. nuclear weapons play a role in deterring hostile nations that don't possess nuclear weapons but are armed with other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. The criticism -- that the new policy lowers the bar for use of nuclear weapons -- is misplaced. In fact, by linking U.S. nuclear and conventional precision-strike capabilities, the policy narrows the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy, reduces the circumstances in which they might be used and sets the stage for even deeper cuts in nuclear forces. The planned reduction in nuclear warheads deployed with operational submarines, bombers and land-based missiles -- from about 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 -- is quite an accomplishment. It will decrease the cumulative risk of technical mishaps and unauthorized or inadvertent launches, and it should reassure the Russians politically by moving the United States to a force level that Russia appears to be seeking itself. Critics of the new policy have complained that many of the warheads coming off U.S. forces will be placed in reserve rather than dismantled immediately. Getting 4,000 warheads off alert is very important in its own right. It would take time to put the weapons back on missiles or into active bomber inventories. Given the international furor that would accompany such a move, no president would take it without very serious reason. Meanwhile, having the option to beef up U.S. forces is only sensible given the uncertainties of world events. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said, when it comes to international threats "the only surprise is that we're surprised when we're surprised." Weapon and stockpile requirements are reviewed periodically. If international developments continue favorably, either further reductions in operational weapons or the destruction of stockpiled weapons would certainly be possible. The new policy recognizes that Russia is no longer our enemy, and there is no longer a need to plan for massive attacks against that nation. It would move the United States away from a single, integrated operational plan for nuclear attacks to "capabilities-based targeting." Instead of massive, society-destroying nuclear strikes, the United States would plan to have capabilities to conduct limited nuclear strikes aimed at specific objectives. In its classified form, the policy mentioned nations for which planners need to prepare such options, causing a furor. The only thing new here from previous administrations is that the names of the nations leaked out. In its most important development, the new defense policy pairs U.S. nuclear forces with precise, conventional strike capabilities. In this formulation, the new policy greatly circumscribes the potential role of nuclear weapons. Recognizing the immense capabilities of modern aircraft and missiles armed with conventional weapons, the new policy implies that, for the first time in 50 years, the United States may not have to respond to nuclear threats in kind. We may be able to defeat such threats by attacking enemies with conventional weapons, relying on missile defenses to stop any threatening forces that survive. This is a huge change in thinking, allowing for even more nuclear-force reductions as conventional strike and missile defense capabilities advance. Administration officials have a way to go before the new policy is fulfilled. They have to work closely with the U.S. Strategic Command to ensure that the planned changes in targeting are implemented properly. The nuclear departures of more than one previous administration have been thwarted in their implementation phase. And the administration will have to move expeditiously to set in place the transparency measures and other arrangements to reassure the Russians and others that the shift from negotiated arms-control agreements to unilateral reductions in forces is not a subterfuge. These steps notwithstanding, the new policy is a major accomplishment and an important advance toward ending nuclear dangers. Barry M. Blechman was assistant director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1980. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Even nuclear arms might not bust enemy bunkers, scientists say Kansas City Star | 03/26/2002 | By SCOTT CANON The Kansas City Star There is good reason the United States put its doomsday command center inside a mountain and its shadow government in subterranean bunkers. It is the same reason al-Qaida fighters take to caves and that, the world suspects, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein stashes his deadliest weapons underground. Because even when chased by a military with the most amazing bombs, an enemy on the run or trying to cache supplies can expect that a bunker dug deep enough rarely buckles. "There's a race on between people who want to hide their stuff or themselves underground and the people they're hiding from," said Robert Hewson, the London-based editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons. "Right now, the people who are hiding have the edge." Simply put, experts in areas ranging from geology to engineering to warfare concur that a low-tech refuge carved sufficiently deep into rock can withstand assault from even the most sophisticated of 21st-century bombs. The government estimates 1,100 such bunkers exist from North Korea to Iraq to hide the nastiest of weapons or the highest ranking of enemy leaders. In fact, leaks this month suggest that American frustration with cat-and-mouse has the Bush administration contemplating a taboo -- unleashing nuclear firepower on targets previously reserved for conventional weapons. A draft of the Nuclear Posture Review -- echoing the thoughts of Bill Clinton's nuclear war planners -- calls for the military to study using nuclear weapons against hardened targets in a handful of nations. "But a nuclear weapon is not a magic bullet," said Steve Fetter, a physicist and public policy professor at the University of Maryland who worked in the Defense Department under Clinton. Theory and practice While nuclear weapons represent the most extreme approach, they also show how hard it is to crumple an underground compound. Experts expect an attack on, for instance, an Iraqi bunker probably would be an earth-penetrating B61-11 -- partly assembled at the Honeywell plant in Kansas City. It would be carried by the B-2 stealth bomber, which flies nonstop to anywhere in the world from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. In theory, that relatively small nuclear warhead's shape and super-hardened steel nose would knife deep into the earth's surface before exploding. Instead of Hiroshima-style blinding light and mushroom cloud, the energy of this atom-splitting would run out in shock waves through the earth to collapse caves or bunkers. Or perhaps not. Princeton University physicist and arms-control specialist Robert Nelson studied how the B61-11 might work in practice. In test drops from a B-2 cruising at 40,000 feet, the bomb usually burrowed 20 to 30 feet in the Alaska permafrost. (It does, however, have a tendency to skip off the ground if it strikes at too shallow an angle.) But a nuclear explosion at 20 feet underground actually maximizes radioactive fallout. "The fireball breaks through the surface of the earth, carrying into the air large amounts of dirt and debris," Nelson wrote last year. "This material has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation, which adds to the radioactivity from the fission products." To contain the radiation from a 5-kiloton explosion -- relatively small by today's standards -- such bombs at the Nevada Test Site were buried 650 feet. "We're back where we started with nuclear weapons," said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. "The fallout, both radioactive and political, is just too great." Checking the science Another physicist looked at what destructive power a buried nuclear bomb could wreak. "I figured if you buried a nuke, it was going to destroy a lot of stuff underground," said Geoffrey Forden, a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's security studies program. But in preparing an article for Jane's Intelligence Review, Forden needed to check the science first. He combed through decades-old research that explored the use of nuclear explosions to build reservoirs or to clear a channel for a canal across Panama. Forden used that data to analyze the likely damage to underground bunkers from a bomb penetrating about 100 feet -- five times deeper than B61-11s burrow and well beyond what physicists believe is possible. "Even a (10 kiloton) nuclear weapon cannot destroy or even damage the equipment in an underground facility buried 300 meters in granite," Forden wrote. The Pentagon acknowledges the 700-pound B61-11 does not penetrate deep enough to reach some bunkers. It recommends studying whether a 5,000-pound version could do better, although physicists say the existing bomb is already at the limits of how far a projectile could sink into the earth without breaking apart. Even a bunker less than a quarter-mile underground might survive a nuclear bomb that misses by fewer than 200 yards -- which is quite possible considering the B61-11 comes without a guidance system. Forden studied the problem posed by the suspected underground chemical weapons near Tarhunah, Libya. The plant is believed to have a pair of tunnel entrances. Which direction those tunnels lead, however, is a mystery. That means a nuclear bomb might strike the area and still spare the bunker, Forden concluded. All this strategy is based on the assumption that the bomb would even go off. That is no sure bet. An earth-penetrating bomb would meet a shock equal to 10,000 times the force of gravity. Consequently, it uses a warhead adapted from the technology used for atomic artillery shells -- they were subject to similar forces when shot from a cannon -- that are no longer in use. But the package of earth-penetrating shell and atomic warhead never has been tested as a whole. The U.S. has operated under a self-imposed nuclear testing ban for more than 10 years. A new role The Bush administration has dismissed suggestions that it is considering anything very new for American nuclear policy. Yet high-ranking officials also have stressed that the United States stands willing to use a range of options to deter chemical or biological attacks. Stephen Younger, a nuclear-weapons specialist who recently went from a top spot at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to a key policy-making post in the Pentagon, wrote two years ago in favor of a new role for nuclear strikes. "Some very hard targets require high yield to destroy them," Younger wrote when he was at Los Alamos. "It might be desirable to retain a small number of higher-yield nuclear weapons in the arsenal as deterrents against enemy confidence in the survival of such targets." Still, many experts said conventional bombs currently may hold at least as good an answer to attacking buried shelters. While ordinary bombs could not be expected to cave in the buried Libyan depot, perhaps if guided by lasers or satellites they could reliably slam shut the entrances. "Then you just keep watching it to see if they dig it open," said Hewson, the British air weapons expert. "When they do, you just hit it again. Maybe you haven't destroyed their anthrax supplies, but you've put them out of reach." In Afghanistan, the U.S. military has tried new 2,000-pound "thermobaric" bombs. Instead of packing explosive power, they come as super-charged fire breathers that, when they hit the entrance of a cave or tunnel, can suck out the air from inside and reduce any occupants to ash. A barrier in a tunnel, however, can protect against that sort of attack. Among those answering the military's call for bunker-busting ideas was Paul Worsey, a University of Missouri-Rolla professor who deals with explosives and engineering as a mining specialist. Worsey's proposal assumes ground troops can grab the territory over a bunker for at least a few hours. Then, he said, a crew simply could drill a narrow hole from ground level into a bunker, pour in liquid explosives and stand back. "If they plug your hole, you just blast away the plug," Worsey said. "I suppose the Air Force would prefer to drop something off a stealth bomber, but that approach doesn't seem to solve the problem." To reach Scott Canon, national correspondent, call (816) 234-4754 or send e-mail to [scanon@kcstar.com] . ***************************************************************** 45 Bush's new nuclear posture IHT: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 While America tightens its control on smallpox supplies, it proposes to develop a new arsenal of smaller-yield nuclear weapons. If we worry that terrorists can get their hands on and possibly use the very limited supply of smallpox that exists, why can't we see the same danger in creating an arsenal of virtual dirty bombs? Not only could these nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands, the mere fact that the United States is preparing for this new kind of nuclear war now justifies, and in fact necessitates their development by other nations - friend or foe. In fact, in the minds of rebels and terrorists, it justifies their own quest for possession and detonation of dirty bombs. The moral high ground is entirely lost by the United States. While militarily, America may be able to use these new nuclear arms to win wars for the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, politically and socially the development and use of these weapons will only fan the flames of anti-American hatred. Empires don't last forever. The weapons Americans create can and will be used against them. Think anthrax on a much larger scale. At least for smallpox, a vaccine is possible. There can be no vaccine for nuclear devastation. Nuclear deterrence was one strategy. No country wanted to touch off the destruction of the world. And wisely, the United States and Russia have ceased to pursue that strategy. Strategic small-scale nuclear development and, God forbid, detonation is a step back in the evolution of an enlightened global community. It may also be suicide, if not for us, for many loved ones in the coming generations. Julie Whelan, London Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune ***************************************************************** 46 Policy Changes? What Policy Changes? (washingtonpost.com) By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 26, 2002; Page A17 Consistency is the hobgoblin of American foreign policymakers. To ordinary civilians, it would appear that the Bush administration has shifted foreign policy on a wide range of matters in recent weeks, from Russia to Colombia to Iraq to the Middle East. That is not how the administration sees it. Consider the question of increased U.S. involvement in Middle East peace. "The fact of the matter is there isn't anybody but us," Vice President Cheney said on television Sunday morning. "I think what we've seen is that, left to their own devices, the Israelis and Palestinians have been unable to resolve those issues." Cheney's offer to meet with Yasser Arafat would seem to be quite a shift from the administration's long-standing position that "it's for the two parties to make peace" and Americans should not impose a timetable. Not so. "The American position has been clear and consistent," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday. Or how about the administration's request last week that Congress remove all restrictions on military aid to Colombia, allowing a vast expansion of American involvement? "Very much what we have been talking about for some time on Colombia," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker. "It is obviously no surprise." The week before, President Bush was asked about the administration's nuclear posture review, which calls for allowing the use of low-yield nuclear weapons against nonnuclear rogue states. "The nuclear review is not new," Bush said. The next day, Fleischer brought out quotes from two Clinton administration officials to suggest that the apparent change "is not a new policy." Brookings Institution foreign policy expert Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton aide, said he counts eight unacknowledged changes in American foreign policy in recent weeks, including Iraq, foreign aid, Afghanistan, trade and nuclear arms reductions. "There is a political premium on making sure you don't zigzag in foreign policy," Daalder said. "Even as you change foreign policy you have to emphasize that it will always be the same." It's a trick that predates the Bush administration. "It has the benefit of reassuring outsiders of the continuity of foreign policy," he said. The pattern, generally, is that the administration gradually modulates its views on an issue without acknowledging any change. After several such modulations, the new policy is in place, and administration officials say it was always thus. To an extent, Bush's aides do this on domestic matters, too: farm policy ("consistent with what he's been saying"), the likelihood of more terrorist attacks ("that's what the president has always said"), even global warming ("the president has always said that the temperature of the earth is rising"). "The best way not to make news is to tell you we've said it before," a senior Bush aide said. The consistency imperative is even greater in foreign affairs. "When you're in the middle of a violent war you don't want to go out and say, 'Hey, we have a new policy on nukes,' " GOP strategist Jeff Bell said. The matter arose with Bush's "axis of evil" remarks, which suggested to many at home and abroad that a military attack on Iraq is increasingly likely. Nothing new here, the administration said. "He's always reviewing nondiplomatic, nonpolitical options," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice had the same message: "Ever since this president came into office, we have said that Iraq is a problem." Last April, it seemed to much of the world that Bush, in a CNN interview, had jettisoned the "One China" policy toward Taiwan. Eschewing decades of ambiguity, he said plainly that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. But that interpretation was ruled incorrect. "Our policy hasn't changed today, it didn't change yesterday, and it didn't change last year. It hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since 1979," Reeker said. Sometimes, the struggle for consistency does not pass the laugh test. When asked about Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher declared that "we're always happy to see him and talk to him." When a reporter pointed out that the United States wasn't so happy to see Musharraf a year ago, when he was seen as the dictator of a nuclear power, Boucher replied: "Well, we're always happy to see him now." At other times, no amount of argument can shake the administration's consistency claim. Bush for a long time railed about "Russian brutality" in Chechnya. But two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the administration was wooing Russia, the administration called on Chechen leaders to "immediately and unconditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups." Old news, said Fleischer: "That's been the long-standing position." © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 47 US and New Zealand leaders to discuss ban on nuclear warships Go Asia Pacific Breaking News Pacific - The United States says a long-standing dispute over a New Zealand ban on nuclear ships remains an impediment to ties between the countries. But, White house spokesman Ari Fleischer says it will not mar talks between New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and President George W-Bush at the White House on Tuesday. Both sides expect to touch on New Zealand's refusal to allow U.S. nuclear warships to dock, a position that effectively pushed the country out of the Australia, New Zealand and United States ANZUS defense pact in the late 1980's. Ms Clark said on Monday that post-September 11 security issues and pursuit of a free trade agreement with Washington would be her priorities. 26/03/2002 17:06:37 | ABC Radio Australia News ***************************************************************** 48 Submarines to cast off their shackles, take on new roles - Jane's Americas News 25 March 2002 By Mark Hewish Submarines today are working harder than ever. Although the US Navy (USN) fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has been nearly halved since 1989, the number of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions that they perform has almost doubled. Submarines are fast, stealthy and have very long endurance. They can arrive on the scene of a potential or actual conflict, unannounced, and perform missions ranging from covert long-endurance ISR to deep strike against targets far inland. A carrier battle group carries impressive firepower, and its high visibility may help to defuse a threatening situation, but it takes a very long time to transit the 11,000nm from San Diego to the Arabian Sea at 14kt. Nuclear submarines are the most effective means of providing assured physical access to a denied littoral region. They are largely invulnerable to coastal cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, and biological or chemical weapons. As a result, they will take on a greater role in intelligence preparation of the battlespace and in power projection. Despite their many advantages, submarines have traditionally suffered from deficiencies in terms of the weapons and sensors that they carry. Submarines operating in littoral areas may face increased threats from small patrol craft, helicopters and maritime-patrol aircraft. Shallow water, often containing obstructions (the existence of which may not be known), poses further constraints. When operating under these conditions, the natural inclination of an SSN commander is to keep his boat at a greater distance from target areas than if he were maneuvering in deep water. In such cases, operations against intelligence and combat targets may better be conducted using submarine-launched payloads such as manned mini-submarines, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and autonomous sensors and weapons. The last of these could include a new class of non-lethal device capable of incapacitating surface ships and submarines. This would allow submarines to participate more effectively in sanctions enforcement and other low-intensity conflict, as well as providing decision-makers with a wider range of options during periods of heightened tension. The US Naval Sea Systems Command's Submarine Future Studies Group (FSG) has addressed these questions when assessing potential roles for submarines in 2020. The FSG developed two concept statements designed to provide long-term guidance for submarine research and development. The first says that "current and future SSNs should be able to transport and deploy an order of magnitude [ie, tenfold] increase in payload capacity over existing designs. [They] should not achieve this goal by increasing hull displacement, unless technologies improve affordability". The second concept statement focuses on ISR. This says that the submarine force "should develop the capability to deploy, process and report information from a variety of offboard distributed sensors in order to greatly enhance its ability to contribute to battlespace preparation". 454 of 4602 words The USN will convert four Ohio-class SSBNs to SSGNs, allowing them to perform missions including deep strike and deployment of Special Operations Forces (SOF - partially replacing the decommissioned USS Polk and USS Kamehameha in the latter case). Swimmers are seen in this artist's impression departing from aDry Deck Shelter (right), with an Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS) mini-submarine docked alongside it. The ASDS, now entering service, is nearly 20m long by approximately 2.4m wide and displaces 55t when surfaced. It can carry up to 16 SOF personnel, in addition to its two-man crew, in a dry compartment. The ASDS is reported to have a range of 125nm at 8kt, and can stay on station for several days.(Source: Electric Boat) © 2002 Jane's Information Group. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 49 Missing Nuclear Material Could Make 'Dirty Bombs' [Weapons-grade nuclear material is missing all over the world.] Hank Plante Researchers at Stanford University have created the largest and most detailed database yet of stolen or misplaced nuclear material. And what they've discovered is a world awash in weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that nobody can account for. The break-up of the former Soviet Union left one of the world's largest nuclear programs fragmented and vulnerable. But few people understood how vulnerable, until Stanford researchers Friedrich Steinhausler and Lyudmila Zaitseva began tracking incidents of missing radioactive materials worldwide. One example was just two weeks ago. "Twenty kilograms of enriched uranium was found in Lithuania," Zaitseva said. "It is thought to be part of nuclear fuel rods found stolen in 1992." Zaitseva says they have confirmed 700 incidents of nuclear smuggling over the last ten years. At least 88 pounds of weapons-grade material has been stolen from poorly-protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union. Most of it has been retrieved, but at least four pounds of highly-enriched uranium taken from a reactor in Georgia is still missing. "From what we can tell, we have a collaborative effort," said Steinhausler. "Scientists in despair, disgruntled employees at the supply end." And at the other end? A potential market ranging from terrorist to rogue states to organized crime. Much of the material is low-grade radioactive waste, but even that could be deadly in the hands of a group that wanted to marry it to explosives -- creating what's known as a "dirty" nuclear bomb. "I would say in my personal ranking of worries, that this is the top of the list," Steinhausler said. Zaitseva -- who worked in the nuclear program in Kazakstan -- has helped identify the names of dozens of nuclear sites that were deliberately left off the map by Soviet officials. Besides the U.S., the pair has been contacted by Interpol, and other international agencies. But they're determined to make sure the information -- like the nuclear material itself -- doesn't wind up in the wrong hands. "We have to be careful who we trust and who we shouldn't," Steinhausler said. "We've already had questionable requests." The two scientists say the smuggling activity seems to be shifting from Europe toward central Asia. And while they are able to document what's missing, it's been a lot harder trying to pin down who may have ultimately taken delivery. ©MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 50 Logbook of Hiroshima's destruction for auction Times Online British News March 26, 2002 By Alan Hamilton FOR Captain Robert A. Lewis of the US Army Air Corps, the terrible moment was seared into his memory for ever. “My God,” he wrote in his logbook, “what have we done?” As co-pilot of Enola Gay, the B29 Superfortress that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, he was a witness to the birth of the nuclear age. His stunned reaction has been widely quoted in histories of the event, but his original 11-page logbook is still expected to fetch up to £215,000 when it is auctioned at Christie’s tomorrow. Captain Lewis and his crew took off from Tinian airfield in the Marianas Islands on a 5-hour flight to the target. The logbook records the moments after the bomb, codenamed Little Boy, was dropped from 31,000 ft. On the back of his logbook he drew a sketch of the giant mushroom cloud he saw soaring above the city. “There in front of our eyes was without doubt the greatest explosion man has ever witnessed,” he said. “I am certain the entire crew felt this experience was more than any one human had ever thought possible. It just seems impossible to comprehend.” He sold the logbook for $37,000 (£26,000) in 1971, 12 years before his death, and it is being offered for sale tomorrow by a private collector. In the same sale is an unmailed draft of a letter written in 1939 from Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt, telling him that “recent advances in theoretical physics” had suggested ways to harness the power of the atom to build powerful bombs, and urging him to establish an atomic research project immediately. Roosevelt then ordered the launch of the secret Manhattan Project, which later enabled Captain Lewis to undertake his deadly mission to Hiroshima. Christie’s believe that the letter could fetch up to £860,000. Copyright 2002 [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html] Times ***************************************************************** 51 Is nation's new nuclear policy a sound move? KnoxNews: Today's Editorial Tuesday, Mar 26 New policy reduces circumstances for which weapons will be used By Barry M. Blechman, For The Los Angeles Times March 24, 2002 The Bush administration's new nuclear policy has received a great deal of criticism over the suggestion that U.S. nuclear weapons play a role in deterring hostile nations that don't possess nuclear weapons but are armed with other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. The criticism -- that the new policy lowers the bar for use of nuclear weapons -- is misplaced. In fact, by linking U.S. nuclear and conventional precision-strike capabilities, the policy narrows the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy, reduces the circumstances in which they might be used and sets the stage for even deeper cuts in nuclear forces. The planned reduction in nuclear warheads deployed with operational submarines, bombers and land-based missiles -- from about 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 -- is quite an accomplishment. It will decrease the cumulative risk of technical mishaps and unauthorized or inadvertent launches, and it should reassure the Russians politically by moving the United States to a force level that Russia appears to be seeking itself. Critics of the new policy have complained that many of the warheads coming off U.S. forces will be placed in reserve rather than dismantled immediately. Getting 4,000 warheads off alert is very important in its own right. It would take time to put the weapons back on missiles or into active bomber inventories. Given the international furor that would accompany such a move, no president would take it without very serious reason. Meanwhile, having the option to beef up U.S. forces is only sensible given the uncertainties of world events. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said, when it comes to international threats "the only surprise is that we're surprised when we're surprised." Weapon and stockpile requirements are reviewed periodically. If international developments continue favorably, either further reductions in operational weapons or the destruction of stockpiled weapons would certainly be possible. The new policy recognizes that Russia is no longer our enemy, and there is no longer a need to plan for massive attacks against that nation. It would move the United States away from a single, integrated operational plan for nuclear attacks to "capabilities-based targeting." Instead of massive, society-destroying nuclear strikes, the United States would plan to have capabilities to conduct limited nuclear strikes aimed at specific objectives. In its classified form, the policy mentioned nations for which planners need to prepare such options, causing a furor. The only thing new here from previous administrations is that the names of the nations leaked out. In its most important development, the new defense policy pairs U.S. nuclear forces with precise, conventional strike capabilities. In this formulation, the new policy greatly circumscribes the potential role of nuclear weapons. Recognizing the immense capabilities of modern aircraft and missiles armed with conventional weapons, the new policy implies that, for the first time in 50 years, the United States may not have to respond to nuclear threats in kind. We may be able to defeat such threats by attacking enemies with conventional weapons, relying on missile defenses to stop any threatening forces that survive. This is a huge change in thinking, allowing for even more nuclear-force reductions as conventional strike and missile defense capabilities advance. Administration officials have a way to go before the new policy is fulfilled. They have to work closely with the U.S. Strategic Command to ensure that the planned changes in targeting are implemented properly. The nuclear departures of more than one previous administration have been thwarted in their implementation phase. And the administration will have to move expeditiously to set in place the transparency measures and other arrangements to reassure the Russians and others that the shift from negotiated arms-control agreements to unilateral reductions in forces is not a subterfuge. These steps notwithstanding, the new policy is a major accomplishment and an important advance toward ending nuclear dangers. Barry M. Blechman was assistant director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1980. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 Convention weapons would accomplish the purpose and not spread radiation KnoxNews: Today's Editorial Tuesday, Mar 26 By Sidney Drell, Raymond Jeanloz and Bob Peurifoy, For The Los Angeles Times March 24, 2002 A myth is emerging that we can develop low-yield nuclear weapons that will destroy hardened, deeply buried targets of military interest without contaminating the atmosphere with deadly radioactivity. Such weapons, delivered by bombers, must penetrate below the Earth's surface before detonating in order to create the maximum destructive ground shock. There are problems with this concept: Its validity is doubtful, and its consequences are dangerous. Low-yield nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness against buried targets, and they would disperse significant amounts of radioactivity. Perhaps more important, however, the deployment of such weapons would likely have an extremely harmful effect on ongoing efforts to slow -- if not prevent -- the proliferation of nuclear weapons. First, some technical facts. Yields greater than 1 kiloton are required to damage hard targets deeper than about 200 feet. Much larger yields -- in the range of 100 kilotons or more -- are needed to create enough ground shock to destroy a hardened structure at a 1,000-foot depth. Taking into account realistic limits on material strengths, 50 feet is about the maximum depth a warhead can dig and maintain its integrity in dry, hard soil, the likely locations for buried targets. Even a 1 kiloton warhead -- 1/20th the yield that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan -- detonated at a depth of 20 feet would eject about 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris from a crater about the size of ground zero at New York's World Trade Center. The United States has produced a high-yield weapon capable of destroying a number of underground targets of interest. Such an explosion would dig a much larger crater and create substantially larger amounts of radioactive debris. The U.S. capability against a reportedly growing number of military targets buried at relatively shallow depths -- fewer than 100 feet -- can be greatly enhanced by delivering several conventional bombs on the same target with precision guidance. If nuclear weapons are used to attack buried targets, however, there is no possibility of a so-called clean attack, free of extensive radioactive contamination spreading in the atmosphere. Actions by the United States to deploy new designs of nuclear warheads for new military missions also would strike at the heart of the current worldwide effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Currently, 185 nations have endorsed this effort by signing on to the indefinite extension of the Nonproliferation Treaty -- or NPT -- agreed to in 1995. Many of the NPT signatories based their support on the explicit assumption that the nuclear-armed powers would honor a commitment to cease all underground nuclear explosive tests and continue efforts to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons, rather than to create new missions for new ones. This commitment is supported by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States has signed -- along with more than 160 other nations -- but not yet ratified. A ban on all nuclear testing enhances our national security for the foreseeable future. The United States should ratify the test ban treaty, joining the 89 other nations that have done so, because the United States is the natural and necessary leader for advancing the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. Three nuclear powers -- Russia, England and France - and many of our NATO allies plus Japan have ratified the test ban. China has declared its intent to sign once the United States does, while India has also expressed interest. Bringing the test ban treaty into force requires U.S. ratification, which would trigger the completion of an international monitoring system to enhance our ability to verify worldwide compliance. Attaching false hopes to low-yield nuclear weapons for destroying buried targets is no reason to undermine the so-far-successful efforts to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And resumption of underground nuclear explosions in the quest for these so-called "more usable" nuclear weapons would harm the nonproliferation treaty and, thus, our national security. Sidney Drell is an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center. Raymond Jeanloz is a professor of geophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. Bob Peurifoy was vice president at Sandia National Laboratory. All have worked extensively for the U.S. government in technical issues of nuclear weapons. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 Energy Department Makes Public Over 11,000 Energy Task Force Papers energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: March 25, 2002 Documents Show Open Process with Both Environmental and Industry Views Represented With 9 of 19 Recommendations Included in National Energy Plan, NRDC's Own Energy Plan is Released Back to Them WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today made public over 11,000 pages of information related to the Department's involvement with the National Energy Policy Development Task Force, which includes all documents sent to DOE from outside groups. The release consists of much more than the approximately 7,584 pages estimated by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and instead comprises some 11,000 pages requested by NRDC and 16 other groups and media organizations under the Freedom of Information Act. The task force, established January 29, 2001, was convened to develop America's first comprehensive energy policy in a decade. The task force work resulted in the National Energy Policy (NEP), completed and released last May. Included in these documents is the substantial public input that went into developing the National Energy Policy. The Energy Department reviewed white papers, reports, Congressional testimony, a broad range of energy legislation, and issue papers released by various organizations. Department officials carefully considered the views of energy experts, stakeholders and public interest groups who chose to participate. In many cases, documents were obtained from the web sites of stakeholder organizations, many of which have been publicly available for the past year. "The National Energy Policy is a balanced and comprehensive energy plan for America," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "The information released today will only further confirm that it was indeed a balanced plan that not only sought but included all viewpoints. It assures the American people that it was an open and appropriate process. Most importantly, the National Energy Policy provides a much-needed plan for energy security for America," Abraham said. To ensure a wide diversity of views was considered, the Department solicited input and sought the advice from energy, environmental and related organizations and leading experts to incorporate policy recommendations. In some instances, DOE reached out and solicited the views of interested stakeholders that did not come forth with recommendations. For example, one document released today is an August 10, 2001 letter from DOE to the General Accounting Office (GAO) regarding the work of the energy task force. The GAO is conducting a review of the development of the National Energy Policy and asked DOE to provide additional information about contacts with environmental groups. DOE's response in the August 10th letter stated: Beginning March 21, 2001, staff from the former Office of Policy contacted environmental and energy efficiency non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Successful contacts and at least one substantive discussion was held with each of the following NGOs during the last 10 days of March, 2001: Alliance to Save Energy, Environmental Defense, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Sierra Club, Resources for the Future, World Resources Institute, Greenpeace, Association for Wind Energy, Tellus Institute. Not all organizations were responsive. Several did not return phone calls and messages. We asked each organization for policy suggestions that might be considered for inclusion in the national plan directed toward energy supply, conservation or efficiency. It was made clear in the course of discussion that we could not guarantee inclusion, but only consideration. In general, we encountered a lack of responsiveness to the offer to submit ideas for NEP consideration, reflected in the paucity of callbacks and the occasional response of ‘check our web site.' (SOURCE: August 10, 2001 DOE letter to GAO.) Even though contact was sometimes unsuccessful, DOE actively sought all viewpoints. For example, one document being released by DOE is an energy report issued by the NRDC, one of the 17 groups that sought documents under a FOIA action. This NRDC report, entitled "A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century," was carefully reviewed by DOE staff and resulted in 9 of 19 NRDC recommendations (47 percent) getting included in the National Energy Plan. (The NRDC report may be viewed at http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/repinx.asp [http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/repinx.asp] ). Many industry groups also had recommendations for the task force and proactively sent information to DOE. All of these materials are in today's release of documents. A comparison of the NRDC and industry recommendations to the National Energy Policy confirms that it is a balanced plan. For example, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents major oil companies, made 25 recommendations, but the NEP included only 4 of these (16 percent). A document was received from the National Mining Association, which represents coal companies and made 20 recommendations, but the NEP included just 2 of these (10 percent). Another document is from the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry and made 20 recommendations, but the NEP included only 5 of these (25 percent). Among the documents released today were the schedules for the Secretary and other senior DOE staff who did work on the National Energy Plan from January through September 30, 2001, when the Energy Task Force was dissolved. Though Energy Department officials routinely meet with representatives from the energy sector, Secretary Abraham's schedule during this time period shows only 10 such meetings whose purpose was the discussion of the national energy policy. DOE also released documents revealing that Secretary Abraham declined 23 other requests from outside groups for meetings on the National Energy Plan. The Secretary's schedule also shows he attended 8 NEP task force meetings from January 29 through July 13, 2001. The 11,000 pages released today were the result of a voluminous search of the Department's records conducted in consultation with the Department of Justice. This search ultimately located about 26,000 pages, but much of this information is exempt from release under the law. Most of these documents consist of drafts of chapters or drafts of sections of chapters of the NEP. The exemptions on which DOE relies to withhold certain documents or portions of documents are Exemption 2, Exemption 5 and Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2), (b)(5) and (b)(6) respectively. Exemption 2 protects information "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." Under this exemption, the release mainly excluded information relating to the security arrangements for the Secretary and information about DOE security programs. The information withheld from disclosure under Exemption 5 consists of pre-decisional and deliberative process material. In this case, the information deleted represents draft sections and chapters of the National Energy Policy, comments and questions about the draft NEP, and recommended revisions to the draft NEP. The information represents proposed sections and chapters of the draft NEP report that were being formulated for consideration by DOE officials and the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). These materials do not represent the final position of the government but were subject to review by DOE officials and by the NEPDG. Exemption 6 protects from disclosure "personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which could constitute unwarranted invasion of privacy." This would include the home addresses, personal telephone numbers, home electronic mail addresses, and social security numbers of individuals. It also includes information about personal matters such as birth dates and doctor and other personal appointments. NOTE TO EDITORS: DOE's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office will have a complete set of documents available for review in the office's reading room located in the Forrestal Building. Arrangements for photocopies of the documents can also be made through the FOIA office. + Letter to Natural Resources Defense Council + Letter to Judicial Watch Supporting Documents --> Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto 202/586-4940 Jill Schroeder, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-052 ***************************************************************** 54 Energy secretary got an earful from industry, met no environmentalists, documents show AP Wire | 03/26/2002 | H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham held at least eight private meetings with industry leaders but none with environmentalists as the administration crafted its energy plan, newly released documents show. The meetings between Abraham and the energy industry executives were disclosed in thousands of papers made public Monday related to agency participation in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in early 2001. Critics of the administration's energy policies have long argued that industry had an open door to top-level administration policy makers, while those advocating conservation, energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources were given largely lip service. Abraham said in a statement that the 11,000 pages of documents - everything from daily schedules to congressional testimony - "will further confirm" that the administration sought out a wide range of views, including that of environmentalists. But the papers document no top-level meetings with advocates of energy efficiency or renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power. The department took pains to note that the documents also catalogue 23 requests that were denied for meetings mostly with industry representatives to discuss the energy plan. Among those turned down were Houston-based Enron Corp.'s Kenneth Lay, ex-chairman, and Jeffrey Skilling, former chief executive officer. While documents included reams of energy policy statements including some from environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society, it was the industry executives who had the access to Abraham, a key member of Cheney's task force. In all, three dozen energy executives and lobbyists participated in eight meeting with Abraham from mid-February to late April of 2001. The Cheney energy report was released in May. He met with a top executive of the American Coal Co.; officials of the Independent Petroleum Association of America; the chairman of Utilicorp, a major power company to discuss electricity deregulation; and with a half dozen utility executives and other oil and gas industry leaders. A "drop-by" session to "discuss nuclear energy's role" in the Bush energy plan lasted 30 minutes on March 20 and included the head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, chairman of Westinghouse and the chief executives of a half dozen major nuclear power utilities. Industry's access was shown in other papers among the 3,000 Energy Department documents and 4,000 documents also released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. In one e-mail to Joe Kelliher, the DOE's point man on the Cheney task force, an official of Southern Company, the Atlanta-based power conglomerate, offers reasons why the administration should revamp a clean air regulation known as "New Source Review" which is at the heart of a series of ongoing lawsuits against Southern and several other utilities. "I hope this is helpful," the utility official, Michael Riith, wrote Kelliher, adding, "I look forward to lunch on Tuesday." The Cheney task force called for the EPA to review the clean air regulation - a review expected to lead to an easing of the regulation. Among the papers also were EPA documents revealing an oil industry push to ease state regulation of so-called "boutique" gasoline blends and auto industry pressure to ease federal fuel economy rules. One of the oil companies, Citco, urged the administration "to exercise federal authority to prevent states" from establishing separate fuel standards. The Cheney task force urged EPA to deal with the boutique fuels issue. Also among the Energy Department and EPA papers was a three-page memo from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers declaring that the federal auto fuel economy rule, known as CAFE, "is an ineffective energy policy." The alliance instead supported consumer tax credits for advanced technology vehicles, and urged development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The task force report supported such tax benefits, refrained from urging higher fuel economy requirements and urged development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The documents, many with large portions marked out, were ordered released by two federal judges as part of lawsuits brought by private groups trying to determine who influenced the administration's energy plan. The disclosed papers stem from Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. The Energy Department withheld 15,000 pages, citing exemptions for information related to internal agency practices, deliberations and personnel. The administration also faces a similar lawsuit by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. That lawsuit was not involved in Monday's releases. EDITORS NOTE: Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report. ***************************************************************** 55 Report: Labs Offer Hiring Changes to End Boycott Tuesday March 26 5:36 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three top weapons laboratories in the United States are offering to change their hiring and promotion practices in return for the end of a boycott by two Asian-American groups over the treatment of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Tuesday. Lee, the Taiwan-born nuclear weapons scientist who was suspected of spying for China, was fired from his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in 1999 and held in solitary confinement for nine months. He was never charged with espionage and the government ultimately dropped all but one of the 59 charges of mishandling nuclear weapons data against him. Lee admitted he had incorrectly downloaded classified data, but said others in the top secret lab also did this. The 63-year-old scientist has said he was targeted by U.S. investigators because of his Asian heritage. A Justice Department report released last year found the FBI had conducted a ``deeply and fundamentally flawed'' investigation of Lee's case. However, the report rejected claims Lee had been singled out because of his race. Angry about Lee's treatment, two academic organizations had urged Asian-American scientists in early 2000 to boycott the weapons laboratories by not applying for jobs there, the paper reported. But in light of the proposed changes, the professor who led the boycott, his organization, the Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education, and the Association of Asian American Studies are prepared to call off the boycott, according to the paper. Richard Mah, the lab's associate director for weapons engineering and manufacturing, told the Times the boycott has had a large impact on the Los Alamos lab's ability to hire Asian-Americans. If a formal agreement is signed, it will focus on creating better advancement opportunities for Asian-American scientists and addressing what professor L. Ling-chi Wang considers disparities in research opportunities, the paper reported. Last week, a class-action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of Asian-American employees was filed against the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, according to the paper. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited ***************************************************************** 56 Labs research earth-piercing nuclear bomb (March 26, 2002) The device would obliterate underground facilities producing weapons of mass destruction. By DAN STOBER San Jose Mercury News SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Pentagon and the Energy Department have directed the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories in Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M., to compete for the chance to design a hydrogen bomb that could destroy targets underground. The yield The B83 at high yield would be perhaps 100 times more powerful than "Little Boy," the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945. That would create an explosion about 2 million times more powerful than the huge "bunker buster" bombs the Air Force has used against Taliban and al-Qaida caves in Afghanistan. By disabling some features, the yield can be reduced dramatically. To the dismay of arms-control proponents, the Bush administration is advocating such weapons - which would slam into the earth at high speed and then explode underground - as a means of attacking command bunkers or biological and chemical weapons facilities possibly buried in such places as Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Work on preliminary designs for the weapon - known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator - begins next month at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in northern California and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Scientists at both labs will propose modifying weapons rather than designing a new bomb from scratch. That distinction plays a role in arms-control debates in the post-Cold-War era. Arms-control advocates say designing and building new weapons provokes other nations to follow suit, at a time when the fear of "rogue state" nuclear weapons is growing. The Bush White House, like the Clinton administration before it, says it has no plans for new nuclear weapons designs. But critics charge that extensively modifying an existing weapon for a new purpose is equivalent to a new design. "If I take my Honda into the shop and it comes out a Ferrari, that's not a modification, it's a new car," said Marylia Kelley of Livermore, who leads Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. She and other opponents argue that producing such weapons blurs the line between nuclear and conventional weapons, increasing the chances that nuclear weapons will be used. Preliminary design Proponents maintain that nuclear weapons could reach some buried targets that could not be destroyed by conventional bombs. Energy Department officials also say the preliminary design contest will help maintain the skills of scientists at the labs, 10 years after explosive testing of weapons in Nevada came to an end. Lawrence Livermore's candidate is the B83, a hydrogen bomb designed for the B-1 bomber. Los Alamos will work on the B61, which already has been modified 11 times, including for earth-penetrating use. The initial design work, officially called feasibility studies, was requested by the Nuclear Weapons Council, a coordinating body of military and Energy Department officials. The three members are Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Pete Aldridge, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics; and John A. Gordon, the administrator of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. The Air Force, which would drop the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator from its airplanes, is also involved in the studies, which are to begin in April after Congress is notified. "They would lay out the relative advantages or disadvantages of each," including cost, said Lisa Cutler of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a branch of the Energy Department. The decision to actually convert the weapons and build the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator has not yet been made, she said. But if the program goes forward, the next step would be to chose one of the two competing laboratories to design the weapon. Lawrence Livermore officials said they could not comment on its feasibility study, the second step in the seven- step process to design and produce a nuclear weapon. Modification of the weapon would keep the nuclear explosives portion of the bomb - known as the "physics package" - largely intact. But the bomb's casing and interior supports would be strengthened. The Bush administration nuclear weapons policy, laid out in January in the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, de-emphasizes strategic nuclear weapons but promotes the development of "advanced concept" battlefield weapons such as the earth penetrator. Delayed detonation Earth-penetrating weapons are built long and thin to smash through earth and rock at high speed. In some non-nuclear tests the weapon's exterior casing has melted from the friction. In tests to date, weapons have penetrated only a few dozen feet. The B83 is 12 feet long and 18 inches in diameter. It was developed at Livermore in the 1980s and has the advantage of already being built to withstand impact. It was designed as a "lay down" bomb, one that is dropped from an airplane at low altitude and high speed. It is constructed to smash into buildings, knock down trees or careen into cars, and still work. Its detonation is delayed to provide the plane time to clear the area; otherwise, the crew would be flying a suicide mission. Livermore scientists have studied the B83 as a potential earth-penetrating weapon since the 1980s. Both the B83 and the B61 have a feature known as "dial-a-yield" in which the bombs' explosive power, or yield, can be adjusted. The maximum yield is more than a megaton, the equivalent of a million tons of TNT, a mountain of conventional explosives. Copyright © 2002 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 DOE's Lasagna cleanup is fast - The work on removing the contaminant TCE at the Paducah plant is ahead of schedule. The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Cleanup of the contaminant trichloroethylene (TCE) from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is ahead of schedule by one year, according to the Department of Energy. The Lasagna Process, which sends electrical current through buried electrodes to remove contaminated water droplets from the earth and into a treatment zone, was scheduled to last three years. Instead, it was shut down after two years when preliminary tests showed it removed the particles faster than expected from a one-acre site. "This shows that we can develop breakthrough technology that allows us to clean up contamination more quickly and cost-effectively," said W. Don Seaborg, DOE's Paducah site manager. "We are extremely pleased that Lasagna achieved its goals in such a short time and was successful in removing the TCE before it could get to the groundwater." The Lasagna site at the plant was used for testing the strength of metal containers that housed depleted uranium in the 1970s, when some people became concerned they might break open if involved in a traffic accident. TCE was used in the test, and a large amount remained in the soil, according to the Department of Energy. Geologic conditions at other contaminated areas of the plant do not allow for Lasagna to be used, although the process is expected to be used at other plants with similar problems. ***************************************************************** 58 Report: Labs Offer Hiring Changes to End Boycott Tuesday March 26 5:36 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three top weapons laboratories in the United States are offering to change their hiring and promotion practices in return for the end of a boycott by two Asian-American groups over the treatment of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Tuesday. Lee, the Taiwan-born nuclear weapons scientist who was suspected of spying for China, was fired from his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in 1999 and held in solitary confinement for nine months. He was never charged with espionage and the government ultimately dropped all but one of the 59 charges of mishandling nuclear weapons data against him. Lee admitted he had incorrectly downloaded classified data, but said others in the top secret lab also did this. The 63-year-old scientist has said he was targeted by U.S. investigators because of his Asian heritage. A Justice Department report released last year found the FBI had conducted a ``deeply and fundamentally flawed'' investigation of Lee's case. However, the report rejected claims Lee had been singled out because of his race. Angry about Lee's treatment, two academic organizations had urged Asian-American scientists in early 2000 to boycott the weapons laboratories by not applying for jobs there, the paper reported. But in light of the proposed changes, the professor who led the boycott, his organization, the Asian Pacific Americans in Higher Education, and the Association of Asian American Studies are prepared to call off the boycott, according to the paper. Richard Mah, the lab's associate director for weapons engineering and manufacturing, told the Times the boycott has had a large impact on the Los Alamos lab's ability to hire Asian-Americans. If a formal agreement is signed, it will focus on creating better advancement opportunities for Asian-American scientists and addressing what professor L. Ling-chi Wang considers disparities in research opportunities, the paper reported. Last week, a class-action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of Asian-American employees was filed against the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, according to the paper. Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************