***************************************************************** 02/27/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.51 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 UK: Battle looms over nuclear plants 2 British Energy and BNFL Sign Reactor Agreement 3 Russia said to honour its commitments in building Iran nuclear 4 UK: Nuclear firms to consider new reactors 5 US: Newly Released Documents Show Texas PUC Leader’s Ties to Enron 6 UK: £9bn scheme to build nine nuclear stations 7 US: The Enron-ergy Bill Hits the Senate 8 Tenex agrees to uranium pricing 9 US: Editorial: Stubborn refusal to open up records 10 USEC, Russia reach agreement 11 USEC-security talks under way NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 US: Millstone: What Isn't in a Name? 'Nuclear' 13 Ukraine: Nuclear reactor restarted after repairs 14 Lithuanian leader adamant on keeping nuclear power plant 15 Slovenia: Krsko nuclear plant reconnected to power grid 16 Lithuania's nuclear plant closing date will depend on costs - EU 17 US: Gilbert has radioactivity false alarm 18 Canada: Decommissioning of nuclear reactor prompts Steelworkers 19 US: NRC upgrades security at U.S. nuclear plants 20 US: Entergy defends N.Y. plant NUCLEAR SAFETY 21 US: DHEC not focused on uranium-tainted wells 22 US: Interactive Risk and Dose Calculator Web site NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 23 Russian court strikes down decision to allow nuclear waste 24 Nuclear reactor decision heightens risk, say Greens 25 British Energy, BNFL quell fuel reprocessing contract dispute 26 US: Mill to take radioactive waste 27 AU: Threat to push nuclear dumps on SA 28 Hungarian Nuclear Waste Barred 29 US: Corridor still alive in plans 30 US: State Senate panel opposes Yucca plan 31 IMMINENT THREAT FROM JAPANESE PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT – PERFECT TERRORIS 32 Status of the USEC Russian HEU Purchase Contract 33 US: Letter: Nevada targeted from the start 34 US: Utah ready to officially join fight against nuke dump 35 US: Federal proposal says two more nuclear plants need to use MOX 36 Russian court strikes down decision to allow nuclear waste imports f 37 US: Perma-Fix processes first shipment of federal government 38 US: Utah tribe told to disclose payments for storing nuclear waste 39 US: Senate panel endorses opposition to Nevada nuclear storage NUCLEAR WEAPONS 40 UK: Shall we tell Queen about nuclear war? 41 US: Doomsday Clock to Be Change 42 Russia, U.S. Extend Key Uranium Deal 43 Queen left out of nuclear war preparations 44 'Axis' harbours nuclear plan: CSIS 45 Annan to Press Baghdad On Weapons Inspectors 46 Report Faults Security of Russian Arsenal 47 Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services 48 Maralinga: The Clean-Up of a Nuclear Test Site US DEPT. OF ENERGY 49 DOE science nominee faces few questions 50 Livermore Lab seeks input on director search 51 Nuclear security agency delivers progress report 52 Flats deadline on verge of going critical 53 Rocky Flats manager waits for shipments 54 S.C. Govenor Hodges wants plutonium plans 55 U.S. check of nuclear site sought 56 Rocky Flats wants plutonium out 57 Hodges discusses SRS metal shipment truce ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Battle looms over nuclear plants The Scotsman - Politics - 27th February 2002 DAVID SCOTT Scottish Government Editor dscott@scotsman.com A FRESH row over nuclear power in Scotland developed last night, after it was claimed that Westminster could overrule Holyrood on the siting of plants north of the Border. The Scottish executive has previously insisted that planning laws would allow decisions to be taken in Scotland about the building of new nuclear power stations. However, George Foulkes, the Scotland Office minister, suggested last night that responsibilities under the Electricity Act, relating to energy provision for the whole of the UK, would put decisions on Scottish plants in the hands of Westminster. "Anyone looking at it logically would think it wouldn’t be right for a legislature which has powers devolved from Westminster to be able to then thwart the policy of the United Kingdom government on areas that are clearly reserved to Westminster, like energy, like defence," he told BBC Reporting Scotland. Mr Foulkes added: "It would look a wee bit daft if, in reserved areas, decisions were made north of the Border which had a very significant impact south of the Border." His comments enraged the SNP. John Swinney, the leader, said: "What we’re not prepared to tolerate is Labour ministers in London scheming against the powers of the Scottish parliament to make sure that London gets its way and Scotland doesn’t decide for itself." An executive spokesman insisted that Scottish ministers had been given the power to decide on planning decisions in Scotland, including consents for power stations under the Electricity Act. ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 2 British Energy and BNFL Sign Reactor Agreement LONDON, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- British Energy and BNFL today signed an agreement on work to assess the feasibility of the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced pressurized water reactor design as a potential nuclear power station option to replace BE's existing UK nuclear power stations when they reach the end of their planned operating lives. Robin Jeffrey, British Energy's executive chairman, said, "The government's Energy Policy Review acknowledged the key role which could be played by nuclear power in ensuring a balanced, stable and secure energy supply. This conclusion, coupled with the clear recommendation last week from the House of Lords Select Committee on security of supply that the UK should maintain a nuclear share in generation of no less than 20%, signals a positive future for the UK's nuclear industry. Today's Agreement will assess licensing and regulatory issues, and deliver robust cost estimates for the new stations we propose." Speaking at the signing of the formal agreement in London, BNFL's Chief Executive Norman Askew said: "BNFL, through our Westinghouse business, has developed one of the world's most advanced reactor technology systems, the AP1000. This reactor design is ready for deployment now and we are delighted that British Energy want to pursue this option with us further. "This agreement is the first concrete commitment from two companies since the publication of the PIU report and represents a significant step forward in the quest to build a replacement nuclear power station in the UK." British Energy has identified two potential reactor designs which could be commercially available on the right timescale for the UK -- the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Canadian CANDU, similar to reactors already operated very successfully by BE's Bruce Power subsidiary in Ontario. The agreement between BE and BNFL is similar to one already signed with the designers of the CANDU reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) and announced last November. The Agreement will initially run for a year, and will involve BNFL/Westinghouse as prospective vendors and British Energy as prospective customers in: -- Preparing a case to include AP1000 as an option for new plants in the UK. -- Assessing the technical suitability of AP1000 reactors on existing reactor sites. -- Preparing a business model addressing issues such as launch costs, economics and risk sharing. -- Documenting key factors associated with AP1000 and recommend an implementation strategy. Robin Jeffrey concluded, "Twenty-five percent of Britain's energy comes from nuclear generation, and it produces huge benefits by allowing us also to continue using gas and coal and still meet our environmental commitments. Britain can't afford to lose that. That's what British Energy's `Replace Nuclear With Nuclear' program is all about -- and this Agreement will allow us to develop firm proposals in time to allow us to assess whether AP1000s or CANDUs are suitable replacements for the UK's reactors. With a new nuclear program announced just ten days ago in the US, and Finland now preparing to build a new nuclear power station, Britain has a real opportunity to play a key role in taking forward nuclear generation on both sides of the Atlantic." SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company; BNFL Web Site: http://www.westinghouse.com Copyright © 1996-2002 PR Newswire Association Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 3 Russia said to honour its commitments in building Iran nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Tehran, 26 February: Cooperation between Russia and Iran "in using nuclear energy for civilian purposes is developing successfully and has good prospects", Russian ambassador to Tehran Aleksandr Maryanov told RIA-Novosti on Tuesday [26 February]. He said that Russia is not going to abandon its commitments in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant and "will be implementing in full all accords reached in connection with this project no matter what the prospects for expanding Russian-Iranian cooperation in the sphere of nuclear energy might be..." Thanks to efforts of Russian and Iranian experts in integration of equipment and building structures of the plant's first unit, the existing difficulties in activating the project have been largely overcome, Maryanov said. "A preliminary date has been set for launching the first unit of the nuclear power plant - December 2003," the ambassador said. He said, in particular, that two consignments of large-size equipment have already been delivered to Bushehr and a technical-economic report on building the plant's second unit has been handed over to the Iranian side for consideration. Source: RIA news agency, Moscow, in Russian 2055 gmt 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 4 UK: Nuclear firms to consider new reactors Reuters 26 February, 2002 16:19 GMT By Matthew Jones LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's two main nuclear power companies have agreed to study a new generation of reactors but have also said that building new nuclear plants would be too expensive at current wholesale power prices. Announcing a joint working group to consider replacing British Energy's ageing stock of reactors with a new British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) design, the two firms said on Tuesday that public acceptance and government backing was needed if the nuclear industry was to prosper in the UK. Earlier this month a government energy review pushed the responsibility of building new nuclear power stations firmly back into the private sector. But British Energy's executive chairman Robin Jeffrey said a deregulated electricity market which has pushed down wholesale power prices makes such a move uneconomic. "With current electricity (wholesale) prices at about 18-20 pounds per megawatt hour there is a gap with the 25-30 pounds per megawatt hour that replacement reactors would cost," he said. Nuclear provides about a quarter of the country's electricity needs, but this figure is set to fall below five percent in 2020 as current reactors come to the end of their working lives. State-owned BNFL's chief executive Norman Askew said moves to build new nuclear plants "must not get ahead of public opinion". "We have to be realistic. There is a long way to go in policy terms and in pricing economics," he said. Jeffrey said Tuesday's agreement with BNFL was similar to one signed last year with state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), to assess using the latter's CANDU reactor design. IMPROVED RELATIONS The working group venture between British Energy and BNFL also signalled a thawing in relations between the two companies which have been soured by a dispute over reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Jeffrey said British Energy was now putting on hold a move to refer a reprocessing contract with BNFL, which British Energy claimed was unfair, to the Office of Fair Trading. He also said it would probably take two to four years for his company to decide whether to opt for the Canadian design or for BNFL-owned Westinghouse's AP1000 model. Speaking to Reuters at the sidelines of the briefing, he said he was looking the to bring down the estimated $1,000 (700 pounds) per kilowatt cost of both the CANDU and the AP1000 designs which would put the price of replacing 9,000 megawatts of nuclear power due to be decommissioned at $9 billion. "We want them to get it (the cost) nearer to $800 per kilowatt," he said. Askew, keen to promote the AP1000, said up 5,000 manufacturing jobs could be created in the UK if British Energy opted to use the Westinghouse design in favour of CANDU. ***************************************************************** 5 Newly Released Documents Show Texas PUC Leader’s Ties to Enron Public Citizen Feb. 26, 2002 AUSTIN, Texas - Documents obtained by Public Citizen’s Texas office show a close working relationship between Enron and the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). The nearly 500 pages of documents released by the PUC in response to a records request by Public Citizen include: calendar entries showing that PUC Commissioner Brett Perlman or his staff met with Enron executives on 14 occasions over two years; more than 520 pleadings filed by Enron in 92 rulemaking proceedings from 1990-1999; and notes of meetings attended by Enron executives and Perlman. Also of interest were materials from a conference sponsored by Enron held last October in Washington, D.C., where Vice President Dick Cheney was to speak about energy policy. The conference was attended by Perlman and regulators. The conference was Enron’s attempt to explain to regulators why the California market had failed so dramatically. The papers also show Perlman’s advocacy for broadband technology, which Enron had planned to trade, and his attempts to provide information to investors in new energy technologies. "These papers show how deeply entwined Enron was with the leadership of the PUC," said Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen. "Enron met frequently with Commissioner Perlman, and Perlman helped Enron plan conferences to promote the broadband technologies it was developing." Perlman also sent invitations to investors to meet with those who were creating the new electrical energy marketplace. Before his appointment to the PUC, Perlman worked as a consultant. According to his resume, one of his projects was "developing an opportunity assessment for the leading U.S. natural gas and electric trader." Perlman later acknowledged under oath that this had been Enron. "Perlman and Enron executives, including Ken Lay, frequently attended the same meetings," Smith said. The documents included invitations to the Houston Technology Center and Greater Houston Partnership conferences on electric deregulation. The documents also include detailed notes from Perlman on a variety of meetings he had with various market participants, including Enron. The documents also showed correspondence between Perlman and Dynegy. New Power, Enron’s marketing subsidiary, visited Perlman, the records show. New Power sent press releases announcing the company’s formation, but also detailed its concerns about PUC’s pilot deregulation program. Other documents showed that Enron voiced concerns about a number of failures in consumer protections. Enron complained about American Electric Power’s failure to give consumers information about their competitive options and steering their customers back to companies with which they were affiliated. Perhaps the most interesting documents are those from the Enron-sponsored conference, which was held after the California electricity market had collapsed. Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, was employed to provide its perception of what occurred in California. "Not surprisingly for a ‘not-so-independent’ auditor – Andersen blamed everyone but Enron," Smith said. The conference papers also included presentations on the wonders of derivatives and various future scenarios designed to "train" regulators to respond to threats to the deregulated marketplace. Curiously missing are documents between former Commissioner Max Yzaguirre and Enron. Just two documents were produced, both letters to Yzaguirre from Enron. One related to Enron’s bankruptcy and its plans to transfer customers to other power suppliers, and the other involved the transfer of ownership of some of Enron’s natural gas interests. "We wonder why there are so few documents in the file," said Smith. "It seems peculiar that there would be so few written communications. There is a marked contrast between the amount of written correspondence between Perlman and Enron, and Yzaguirre and Enron." ### ***************************************************************** 6 UK: £9bn scheme to build nine nuclear stations Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Paul Brown, environment correspondent Wednesday February 27, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] A £9bn plan to build nine nuclear stations to replace Britain's ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors is being drawn up by British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels, the country's two atomic power operators, in a joint venture announced yesterday. The plan, which would include a new manufacturing plant to make the parts, would create 5,000 jobs as well as keeping existing staff at stations employed. British Energy, which owns the sites, believes it can cut current costs by using the existing transmission lines and skilled labour force. In a joint statement, Robin Jeffrey, British Energy's executive chairman, and Norman Askew, BNFL's chief executive, emphasised that government agreement is still needed. The aim is to check that the programme is financially viable and all the regulatory and planning hurdles can be overcome. Mr Jeffrey said it was an ambitious scheme "but companies have got to create their own destinies and their own success". The two companies, which admit that moves to build nuclear stations "must not get ahead of public opinion," nevertheless named the sites for the first two stations, Hunterston in Ayrshire, which is in energy minister Brian Wilson's constituency, and Hinkley Point in Somerset. Both the existing AGR stations on these sites are due to close by 2011 and the new stations would need to be running by then. BNFL hopes that British Energy will replace these stations and seven other AGRs with a nuclear station design, the AP 1000, being developed by its US subsidiary, Westinghouse. It believes it can build these stations in three years. British Energy is keeping its options open by signing a similar joint venture with owners of the Canadian Candu reactor design to see which would be most suitable. The plan for new stations comes immediately after a sceptical government energy review. It would effectively revive the nuclear industry, which has had no plans for new building since the Sizewell B reactor was completed in Suffolk in the mid-1990s. It would, however, simply maintain nuclear's existing 25% share of the electricity market, which will have shrunk to less than 5% in 2020 as the AGRs close one by one. The aim of the joint venture is to assess the cost of nuclear building and get it down to a level at which it can compete with gas. Both companies say that electricity prices are so low that new building of any form of generation is not viable and Britain faces a series of California style blackouts unless the market is reformed. Mr Jeffrey also said it was "absurd" that the nuclear industry did not benefit from the climate change levy. His personal preference was for a pollution tax for those who dumped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which he called a "skyfill tax". The joint venture heals a rift between Britain's two nuclear giants, which had fallen out over the cost of reprocessing contracts. British Energy had said reprocessing of spent fuel was not necessary to its business and was so expensive it was pushing the entire company into the red. BNFL said the contracts were firm and it needed income from reprocessing to keep it financially viable. Yesterday both chief executives said that talks about cost savings for both companies were well advanced and an appeal by British Energy for the office of fair trading to intervene was on hold. Mr Jeffrey said the AP 1000 could burn mixed oxide fuel and so use up British Energy's stocks of plutonium building up from existing reprocessing at Sellafield. Spent fuel from new reactors would not be reprocessed but instead go for direct disposal. Environment groups condemned the plan, saying nuclear power was too expensive. Mark Johnston, for Greenpeace, said: "Ministers should rule out the nuclear option for good. Any new funding must go towards renewable energy and energy conservation. These options do not add to the long lived radioactive legacy that nuclear power creates." Bryony Worthington, for Friends of the Earth, said: "The British public do not want new nuclear power stations, and any attempt to force new ones on them will be vigorously opposed." Useful links British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/] HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 7 The Enron-ergy Bill Hits the Senate TIME.com: Whether it's Ken Lay's energy policy or Dick Cheney's, it's in the Senate now — and it's no sure thing BY FRANK PELLEGRINI [frank_pellegrini@timeinccom] JOHN TODD/AP Vice President Dick Cheney Monday, Feb. 25, 2002 Well, if Henry Waxman and the GAO really want to know what came out of Dick Cheney and Ken Lay's energy-policy deliberations last spring, here it comes. The Bush energy bill, which passed smoothly through the House of Representatives back when Enron was nothing to be ashamed of, is now ready for its close-up before Tom Daschle's altogether more hostile Senate. For Daschle's Democrats, the Cheney energy plan was bad enough nine months ago when California was dark and the White House, in chorus with the Ken Lays of the world, simply advocated more exploration, more production and more deregulation — oh, and for the personally virtuous, more conservation. There was indisputably more for business than for the environment in proposals to drill the Alasksan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. An unapologetic Bush was not going to curb coal, oil or nuclear energy — at least until he won West Virginia again. And now there's Enron, playing a dual coming-and-going-role for the president's critics: When Ken Lay was up, he had undue influence over policy; now that he's down, well, that's why you don't have those people in for secret energy-policy deliberations in the first place. That may be why Dick Cheney has left his secure location and hit the road, disclosing to friendly (and often paying) gatherings everything the GAO would ever want about how much he hates Saddam Hussein. Cheney even dissed Waxman on Leno — and got a big hand — but the vice president wasn't taking any Enron questions from non-talk-show-hosts, thank you very much. Bush is keeping the energy mood as light and green as he can, posing next to fuel-efficient, low-emissions, hybrid-type cars — a truck, an SUV, and a minivan, no less — but he doesn't appear to be backing down on ANWR or Yucca Mountain. And with House passage giving him some rhetorical leverage over Daschle — "the Senate must pass something," that sort of thing — Bush will be pushing pretty hard for the chance to notch a win on the domestic front. Daschle's Senate has proven a lot better at shouting than at passing legislation, however, and with the Democrats toting around a bill of their own — one that's expected to attract 200 amendments — well, there's just so much to fight about. ANWR and Yucca, CAFE standards and fuel cells. Should we subsidize coal to help make it cleaner, or subsidize cleaner energy? Give more tax breaks for producers, or for conservers? What about ethanol? And of course there's the deregulation fight, and the very NIMBYist issue of transmission-grid siting, which brings us back to Enron and California all over again. No wonder Congress-watchers and some legislators are predicting that energy legislation is just too big to pass. There are "a lot of ways this legislation might go off the rails," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico, of the rival bill — and he wrote the darn thing. But that won't stop senators from expending a lot of energy on it, and with everybody agreed on the need to reduce our dependence on that nasty foreign oil, some hybrid of the GOP and Democrat bills may even limp through into conference. But energy debates are extra tricky because of all the local interests involved. Everything's a hot-button for somebody, and it may be asking too much in an election year to have legislators compromise on anything. Or pass anything. Whoever's energy policy it was — Bush's or Cheney's or Lay's or Sherron Watkins' — it's out there on the road in plain sight, washed and waxed by the House and now very likely to be totaled by Democrats with a lot of different ideas about the energy policy America needs. And in the end, Americans will likely come away with none of the improvements in their energy world that everybody agrees are necessary. Sort of makes you wonder what the GAO is so exercised about — unless histrionic gridlock was Ken Lay's secret plan all along. Copyright © 2002 Time Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Tenex agrees to uranium pricing -- The Washington Times February 27, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS Russian and U.S. officials reached a breakthrough in a pricing dispute over uranium shipments to the United States that had threatened to disrupt both fuel supplies to nuclear power plants and a program to scrap Soviet missiles, the State Department said. The accord with USEC Inc. of Bethesda, the largest supplier of enriched uranium to nuclear plants, needs the approval of the U.S. and Russian governments, State Department spokeswoman Brenda Greenberg said. It allows for a continuation of the Russian uranium shipments, which faced suspension. The state-owned Russian company Tekhsnabexport, or Tenex, felt pressure to accept lower prices demanded by USEC because the U.S. government said it would allow no other buyers of the uranium, said Thomas Neff, a researcher who proposed the method for reusing old Soviet nuclear bombs in 1991. "This story is far from over," said Mr. Neff, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist. "The big hurdle is the Russian government," which previously rejected the prices that Tenex has now agreed to accept from USEC. The pricing dispute disrupted a 1993 agreement under which Russia promised to sell weapons-grade uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads to USEC. It also endangered the supply of fuel to U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, which provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. USEC has been seeking discounts from Russia to help it remain profitable. Spun off as a private company in 1998, it last month lowered its 2002 earnings forecast after reporting that profits last year dropped 60 percent to $41 million. USEC supplies about 32 percent of the global market for enriched uranium used in commercial nuclear power plants. It obtains most of that uranium from old U.S. and Russian weapons. It has only one remaining generation plant, in Paducah, Ky., for producing new uranium fuel. The proposed new pricing agreement would cover the remaining years, through 2013, of a U.S.-Russia agreement for destroying Soviet nuclear missiles. The State Department is not releasing details of the pricing agreement while the United States and Russia study whether to approve it, Ms. Greenberg said. An industry newsletter published by the Ux Consulting Co. LLC, an affiliate of the Uranium Exchange Co., described USEC as winning prices more than 20 percent below market levels. The agreed price is based on a formula that averages seven U.S. and foreign price indicators for three years preceding the delivery year, with an additional discount of about 12 percent, according to the newsletter, Ux Weekly. Under the proposed agreement, Ux Weekly said, the price this year would remain around last year's price of $90 per "separative work unit," or SWU, which is used to measure enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. The price in 2003 would then drop to about $77, $30 below the current U.S. market price of $107. A typical 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor consumes about 100,000 to 120,000 SWU a year. USEC's annual sales are about 11 million SWU. The agreement would provide USEC an annual profit margin of $120 million to $220 million a year, Mr. Neff said. "Tenex gave in because they had no choice," he said. USEC spokesman Charles Yulish said he could not comment. ***************************************************************** 9 Editorial: Stubborn refusal to open up records Las Vegas SUN Today: February 27, 2002 at 8:49:10 PST It was encouraging to hear Senate Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid say over the weekend that he would join a lawsuit filed by the General Accounting Office to force Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over records kept by a White House energy task force. The Nevada Democrat, who will file a "friend of the court" brief, wants to find out if the secret meetings Cheney held with energy executives influenced President Bush to abandon his 2000 campaign pledge that he would base his decision on Yucca Mountain on "sound science." Any information that could be gleaned from the secret meetings of the task force could be useful to Nevada's legal challenge of the president's decision two weeks ago to give the go-ahead to the construction of a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. The Bush administration suggests there is a separation of powers issue, and that Congress shouldn't meddle with the presidency. But the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, notes that Cheney was the head of a task force that advocated policy changes and, therefore, the task force's work can't be protected by executive privilege. Besides, the GAO correctly reasons, Congress previously has had access to White House operations, including records of presidential task forces. The real reason Cheney and Bush refuse to turn over the names of executives and the topics they talked about is that they want to prevent the public from knowing just how much energy executives, who were big contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign, ultimately influenced their policy decisions. But Nevadans, and all Americans, should know which executives were pulling the strings at the White House. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 USEC, Russia reach agreement The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Staff Report USEC Inc. issued a brief statement Tuesday confirming a new contract with Russia for cheaper units of enriched uranium derived from dismantled Soviet nuclear warheads. The statement said shipments will start in March, as scheduled. USEC said it will provide details as soon as the contract is approved by U.S. and Russian officials. "It's inappropriate for us to discuss the terms of the agreement until both governments have approved it," said USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. Various Washington sources, including energy workers' union officials, said Friday that USEC and Russian counterpart TENEX had signed the deal in Moscow, pending governmental approval. USEC says it needs cheaper prices for the Russian material to help offset higher-priced enriched uranium produced by the 1,500-employee Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The Russian contract is expected to be part of an agreement between USEC and the Department of Energy to keep the plant operational for several years. But union officials fear that if too much Russian material is imported, it will displace plant production and lead to shutdown. ***************************************************************** 11 USEC-security talks under way The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Staff Report Negotiations started Tuesday at J.R.'s Executive Inn for a new contract between USEC Inc. and Local 111 of Security Police and Fire Professionals of America. The current five-year contract, which expires at midnight Thursday, affects 34 security personnel at the Paducah uranium enrichment plant. John Driskill, government and public affairs officer for the group, declined to discuss contract issues. The Department of Energy, which owns the plant, has doubled annual spending there to more than $4.8 million since Sept. 11. USEC, which operates the facility leased from DOE, also has increased spending. However, union officials have expressed concerns over the number of work hours needed for increased patrol, as well as the effect that anticipated new Nuclear Regulatory Commission security regulations could have on the security force. The regulations will apply to all NRC-regulated facilities as a result of the terrorism. Driskill said earlier that the draft regulations, expected to come out in the next few weeks, might be used by DOE and USEC to silence the union, which has frequently spoken out on the need for heavier security at the plant. ***************************************************************** 12 Millstone: What Isn't in a Name? 'Nuclear' February 27, 2002 By DAVID M. HALBFINGER WATERFORD, Conn. -- The Virginia company that took over the nuclear power plant here last year wants you to know that security is tight. Very tight. Armed guards and a slalom run of concrete barriers have made it impossible to drive all the way up the half-mile access road to the plant. Aerial photographs have been pulled off the Web. And in case any terrorists happen by en route to the submarine base a few miles up the road, or perhaps while day-tripping to Mystic, the word "nuclear" has been removed from the sign out front. Millstone Power Station, it says. That'll fool 'em. Over the drawbridge in tiny Niantic, the name change, like most of what emanates from the power plant across the bay, was greeted by rolling eyes and biting cynicism. "Maybe no one'll notice now when it blows up," said Glenn Shea, the otherwise amiable guy behind the counter at the Book Barn. Sure, the new plant operator, Richmond-based Dominion, says the name was shortened strictly to be consistent, since neither of its two other nuclear plants, in North Anna and Surry, Va., have the N-word in their names. (There is a Dominion Hydro Station, but then people don't worry about getting wet as much as they do about glowing in the dark.) Dominion officials even went so far as to assure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that shortening the plant's name would not "affect the likelihood, the consequences, or introduce a new or different kind of accident" — which may be as unsettling to some as it is comforting to others. Not surprisingly, both the weather- beaten locals and nuclear opponents are having a bit of fun. "It's a good safety move," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's a little-known fact that the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island wouldn't have happened if `nuclear' wasn't in their titles." Mr. Shea, who lives in Uncasville, home of the Mohegan Sun casino, was reminded of another local bit of newspeak: how the gambling industry calls itself the gaming industry, so "it doesn't sound like you're gambling your children's inheritance away." Mr. Lochbaum, too, dared to suggest that public relations had played a role in the trim, although the plant's public relations man, Peter Hyde, held fast to his denials. Millstone was regarded as probably the worst-run nuclear plant in the country in the 1980's, and its image is still recovering from the shutdown in 1996 that lasted two years, Mr. Lochbaum said. All of which raises another question: why cut loose the "nuclear" when you've got "Millstone" around your neck? "We had a fleeting thought of dropping the Millstone name," said David Christian, the plant's chief nuclear officer. "But people here take a tremendous amount of pride, and we've turned around our performance significantly. Millstone's now a name the industry can be proud of." Indeed, Millstone's Unit 2 reactor just shut down for maintenance after 283 straight days in which both it and Unit 3 operated without a hitch — a plant record, the company said. (Unit 1, which opened in 1970, shut down for good in 1995 and is now being decommissioned.) And Mr. Lochbaum said he expected Millstone's performance to improve, judging from Dominion's record elsewhere: in a 1997 review of 10 nuclear plants by the Union of Concerned Scientists, its Surry station ranked best, he said. Not everything about Millstone is in tiptop shape just yet. Its Discovery Center, a storefront in Niantic that is part of the "Family Fun Trail" promoted by state tourism officials (their motto: "Connecticut — We're Full of Surprises"), is a bit worn. Its centerpiece, a scale model of Millstone, has been shoved behind a display case, for security reasons. Only pint-sized saboteurs will be foiled, however; anyone five feet or taller can lean over to get a nice long look. The interactive games for kids could use some updating, too. Maybe something along the lines of "Where's Waldo." Say, Find the Missing Fuel Rod. Old failings, after all, keep haunting Millstone's new owners. Like the spent uranium rods that were missing around 1980. "An exhaustive root-cause investigation," Mr. Christian said, concluded recently that the two 12-foot-long, lethal-for-a-millennium-or-so rods had been mislaid by crews cleaning up a spent-fuel pool because of faulty "fuel accounting procedures" — i.e., someone lost count. Mr. Christian said his best guess was that the rods wound up in nuclear dumps in South Carolina, Washington or California — unless they're still in the 40-foot-deep pool. Nobody has volunteered to don a wet suit to find out for sure. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 13 Ukraine: Nuclear reactor restarted after repairs BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 27, 2002 Text of report by Ukrainian news agency UNIAN Kiev, 27 February: Generating set No 4 at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant (VVER-1,000) was reconnected to the country's energy grid at 1812 [1612 gmt] on 26 February after the completion of planned repairs, which started on 20 December 2001. The set's capacity has been gradually increased, as UNIAN has learnt from the public relations department of the Enerhoatom national nuclear company. In addition, the capacity of generating set No 2 at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant was reduced to 450 MW at 2049 [1849 gmt] on 26 February due to fault in a condensing pump. After repairs were completed by replacing an automatic switch, the set's capacity was increased to 610 MW at 2130 [1930 gmt] on the very same day. Given that all six generating sets at the plant are operational, the output capacity has been limited to 5,300 MW. Ukraine's nuclear power plants have produced over 260m kWh over the past day. As of today, 13 power generating sets are in operation. The radiation level at and around the plant is within normal limits. Source: UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 0920 gmt 27 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 14 Lithuanian leader adamant on keeping nuclear power plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 27, 2002 Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus has reiterated that Lithuania must not decommission its Ignalina nuclear power plant and should consider modernizing it instead. Asked by Lithuanian radio to comment on a similar statement he made yesterday, President Adamkus said: "I am convinced that the Ignalina nuclear power plant must not be decommissioned. To me, the Ignalina nuclear power plant means more than just two reactors. It means infrastructure, people and their future. This means that Lithuania must not deprive itself of the option of building a new modern nuclear reactor that would comply with the EU's safety and environmental requirements. "That is my categorical position, to which I hope Lithuania's negotiators will adhere." Adamkus further said: "Of course, the European Union insists that Lithuania should undertake a commitment this year to decommission the Ignalina nuclear power plant's power unit two in 2009. I am convinced that Lithuania is not capable of doing this on its own. The demand to decommission power unit two in 2009 could be considered only if the European Commission and the member states of the European Union undertook a commitment to meet a considerable share of the costs associated with the decommissioning, so that Lithuania is able to resolve the technical, economic and social problems that will arise prematurely." Source: Lithuanian Radio, Vilnius, in Lithuanian 1255 gmt 27 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 15 Slovenia: Krsko nuclear plant reconnected to power grid BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 27, 2002 This morning, at 0243 [0143 gmt], the Krsko nuclear power plant was reconnected to the power grid. As already known, it had to be manually shut down in the night from Sunday [24 February] to Monday because of a fault with the temperature-controlling device on the ball-bearing of the reactor's cooling-pump engine. At the moment the nuclear power plant has an output of 50 per cent. It is expected to achieve full-operational output by tonight... Source: Radio Slovenia, Ljubljana, in Slovene 0800 gmt 27 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 16 Lithuania's nuclear plant closing date will depend on costs - EU negotiator BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Feb 26, 2002 Vilnius, 26 February: Lithuania's senior negotiator with the European Union (EU), Petras Austrevicius, has given a careful evaluation of the president's proposal to the government not to obligate itself to shutting down the country's Ignalina nuclear power plant (INPP) by 2009 before [the country joins] the EU. "I think Lithuania is holding and will stay with the position that having a safe and environmentally-friendly energy sector is an affair of every sovereign country," Austrevicius told BNS on Tuesday [26 February] afternoon. He also noted that the pre-accession negotiations with the EU "would reach a deadlock" if Lithuania failed to set a date for decommissioning the Soviet-built power plant by the end of this year. Austrevicius, director of the governmental European Committee, said that "any changes in the date of Ignalina closure should be based on decommissioning costs." A joint working group of the Lithuanian government and the European Commission is working to calculate the closure costs. In Austrevicius's opinion, the government will not make any decisions on the nuclear plant's shutdown until the closure costs are clear, which is expected no sooner than in May and June. "I think the character of discussions [on the INPP closure] will change after the costs are announced. Then we will have to see what we receive and what we lose," he told BNS, commenting on the unexpected opinion expressed by President Valdas Adamkus earlier on Tuesday... Source: BNS news agency, Tallinn, in English 1601 gmt 26 Feb 02 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. ***************************************************************** 17 Gilbert has radioactivity false alarm [http://www.azcentral.com] Patricia Biggs The Arizona Republic Feb. 27, 2002 GILBERT - As police helicopters hovered and town workers huddled inside Gilbert Municipal Center, hazardous-materials crews checked a large box Tuesday for radioactive leaks. The orange container, which turned out to be harmless, had fallen off a truck a block away at the intersection of Gilbert and Warner roads. Ominous symbols and radioactive warnings on the box didn't stop a well-meaning driver from picking it up and carrying it to Gilbert police headquarters. Hazardous-materials experts used Geiger counters to test the box, which was not leaking fluids or gases. They determined it did not pose a threat to residents or the environment. "It had full potential," said Capt. Gene Zehring, a Gilbert Fire Department spokesman. The box fell off a truck belonging to Tempe-based ACS Engineering Group as the vehicle traveled through the intersection of Warner and Gilbert roads shortly before 10 a.m. A man driving behind the truck with his family stopped, put the box in the car and took it to police. His name was not released. "As soon as (police) observed the box with the radioactive sticker on it, the Fire Department was called," Zehring said. "They got some readings, but they determined they were safe," said fire Capt. Gary Ehlers, who along with other firefighters said they would never pick up a box with such a warning label. "They were trying to do a good deed," Fire Department engineer Mike Rudolph said, but the risk was unnecessary. Emergency response workers from the state Radiation Regulatory Agency conducted further tests, then opened the box to find a device used to measure water vapor in asphalt. The Portaprobe, as it is called, contains a rod with two radioisotopes, americium 241/berylium and cesium 137. The rod is lowered into a bored hole in asphalt to determine how thick and how well compacted the roadway is. The state agency is investigating why the box fell off the truck. Radioactive materials are required to be secured while being transported. ACS Engineering Group may face a fine in the incident. Rich Baker, a health physicist with the Radiation Regulatory Agency, said the box and the items in it posed no risk to anyone, other than the danger the driver faced getting out of a car in an intersection. "It's better doing that than leaving it where it was," Baker said. But firefighters disagreed, and encouraged people to call 911 instead of taking the matter into their own hands. Reach the reporter at [patricia.biggs@arizonarepublic.com] or (602) 444-7961. contact The Arizona Republic Copyright 2002, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Canada: Decommissioning of nuclear reactor prompts Steelworkers to ensure and actively promote campus safety culture News@UofT -- Administration, staff join forces on health and safety -- February 25, 2002 Administration, staff join forces on health and safety by Jane Stirling Feb. 25, 2002 -- The university will work more closely with its employee groups on health and safety issues in the wake of concerns about the decommissioning of its nuclear reactor, says Professor Angela Hildyard, vice-president (human resources). “We are fully committed to working as partners with all employee groups to provide a safe and healthy work environment,” she said in an interview. “We know we can’t do this alone.” A report, commissioned by the office of environmental health and safety in co-operation with the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1998 (USWA), details some of the issues surrounding the decommissioning of the SLOWPOKE nuclear reactor components in 2000. SLOWPOKE was located in the Haultain Building on the St. George campus. In 1997 U of T decided to discontinue its use of the reactor, dismantle it, remove the nuclear fuel and renovate the premises for other purposes. The Human Context report, compiled by the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada, notes that the university’s safety culture should be improved. During the dismantling and storage of some reactor components — which took place over a two-week period on campus — some students, staff and faculty may have been inadvertently exposed to radiation. However, the report also notes that no member of the university was exposed to radiation above the maximum permitted by law for members of the public. “In fact, the most exposed person under consideration is estimated to have received a maximum additional radiation dose equivalent to about four per cent of the average radiation dose received, unavoidably, each year by every person in Canada from what is called ‘background radiation’ in nature,” the report says. The level of exposure, while not significant or “cause for concern or anxiety in relation to potential health effects,” nevertheless had some employees worried. Mary Ann DeFrancis, treasurer and chair of the USWA central health and safety committee, said it is significant that some people in nearby offices, classrooms or lunchrooms received an involuntary exposure of radiation. “It happened, they didn’t ask for it and they weren’t aware of it until the Radiation Safety Institute interviewed some of these individuals,” she said. “There was a lack of prior consultation with employees likely to be affected by the decommissioning and we want to make sure this type of situation never happens again.” Although she agrees that the radiation exposure received should not be of itself cause for concern over future health effects, she points out that her union continues to encourage and assist its members in ensuring that any exposure be appropriately recorded with the individual’s physician and with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for future scrutiny. There needs to be a change in the safety culture at U of T, DeFrancis said. “We want the university to see us and other unionized workers as capable partners in the pursuit of health and safety. We want a safety culture in which the human context, not only the technical context, is considered and our health and safety committees need to be fully involved in this change. One way we can do this is by providing input to procedures so they reflect not only the management view but also the workers’ view of healthy practices.” Hildyard said the university has already taken steps to ensure such a situation does not happen again. Since the decommissioning, U of T has increased its campus-wide radiation training program: over the last six months it has trained more than 500 people working in labs, caretaking and other areas. The Steelworkers’ union, Hildyard noted, has actively promoted health and safety awareness on campus. More joint health and safety committees have been formed at U of T and more committee members have been trained and certified in occupational health and safety law and workplace inspections, among other things. “The university is committed to making the local health and safety committees more effective,” she added, “and to providing additional training in all health and safety matters to committee members so they can be effective partners with us.” [jane.stirling@utoronto.ca] is the associate director of news services for the Department of Public Affairs. CONTACT: U of T Public Affairs, ph: (416) 978-2105; email: [jane.stirling@utoronto.ca] ***************************************************************** 19 NRC upgrades security at U.S. nuclear plants - February 27, 2002 CNN.com - WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued orders Tuesday to all 104 of the nation's nuclear power plants, upgrading the high-level security measures already in place. "Some of the requirements formalize a series of security measures that NRC licensees had taken in response to advisories issued by the NRC in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks," the commission said. "Additional security enhancements, which have emerged from the ongoing comprehensive security review, are also spelled out in the orders." The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced new security measures to shield nuclear power plants from terrorist attack. CNNfn's Steve Young reports (February 27) The agency provided few specifics, but new security requirements generally include: + Increased patrols. + Augmented security forces and capabilities. + Additional security posts. + Installation of additional physical barriers. + Vehicle checks at greater standoff distances. + Enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities. + More restrictive site access controls for all personnel. The commission said the requirements will stay in effect until the threat level has diminished or until other security changes are needed following a comprehensive re-evaluation of safeguards and security programs. Under the new orders, licensees are required to provide the NRC with a schedule for achieving full compliance within 20 days. Licensees would also have the same time frame to notify the agency if they feel they are unable to comply with any of the requirements or if implementation of any requirement would adversely impact safe operation of the facility. © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 20 Entergy defends N.Y. plant Published on 2/25/02 Ad campaign fires at 'anti-nuclear' group By SARA BONGIORNI Advocate business writer Entergy Corp. is running advertisements in the New York Times and other New York newspapers to counter pressure from politicians and public interest groups who say its Indian Point nuclear plant 35 miles north of Manhattan poses a target for terrorists and should be shut down. Plant opponents say a serious accident at the Indian Point nuclear complex could force the evacuation of 20 million people living within 50 miles of it, including the population of New York City. New Orleans-based Entergy insists the Buchanan, N.Y., plant, whose acquisition it completed last year, can continue to operate safely "under the specter of future terrorist attacks." It says anti-nuclear groups are taking advantage of post-Sept. 11 fears to advance a longstanding political agenda. Entergy operates two nuclear power plants on the Mississippi River in Louisiana: River Bend and the Waterford 3 plant in St. Charles Parish. Entergy also operates the Grand Gulf nuclear plant in Claiborne County, Miss., across the Mississippi River from Tensas Parish. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Entergy stepped up security at its Louisiana nuclear plants under provisions mandated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a Public Service Commission hearing in September, an Entergy official was asked if the nuclear units could withstand a terrorist attack similar to the hijacked airplanes that hit the World Trade Center towers in New York and at the Pentagon. PSC members were told the plants could "take a direct hit from a (Boeing) 747" and that the nuclear plants' walls are concrete 18-feet thick. Entergy spokeswoman Kelle Barfield said from Jackson, Miss., where Entergy's nuclear arm is headquartered, that concerns of the plant opponents in New York are not new. "You have people who are fundamentally opposed to nuclear power and have been since its inception 30 or 40 years ago," she said. The head of one of the groups spearheading the grassroots campaign rejected the anti-nuke label. "These are specific concerns about a specific plant," said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper Inc., a not-for-profit group that has battled Indian Point for years over its impact on fish populations in the Hudson River. "After Sept. 11, it became clear that this is a sitting bull's eye." Among anti-Indian Point groups' claims: an evacuation plan approved by Gov. George Pataki for the 10-mile zone around the complex doesn't account for clogged roads and could leave children stranded at schools. Matthiessen said he is certain the plant eventually will be shuttered. "I'm confident that will happen," he said. That would be an unprecedented step for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has never permanently closed a plant's operations. Groups opposed to Indian Point's continued operation have filed a petition with the NRC asking it to do just that. Barfield said it's unlikely that will happen because Indian Point is safe. "I don't believe the petitioners will be able to prove it's not operating safely because it's not true," she said. In the fall, the federal NRC announced it was beginning a top-to-bottom review of safety measures surrounding all of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors. In the meantime, a variety of security measures, including the use of National Guard troops, have been stepped up at the plants. Entergy spent more than $1 billion to acquire Indian Point's assets in deals made in 2000 and 2001. The complex, which contains two active, 1,000-megawatt reactors and a third inactive one, is not part of Entergy's utility system but belongs to a unit of the company that sells power on the open market at unregulated rates. As a result, Entergy's spending on the ad campaign will have no impact on its utility customers in Louisiana and elsewhere, Barfield said. She said she did not know how much the company has spent so far on newspaper ads and radio spots, which will continue indefinitely. Barfield said the company took the unusual step of pursuing a "printed war of words" because Entergy's perspective wasn't getting fair play in the New York area's editorial pages. "There was no alternative because we couldn't get proper balance in some cases," Barfield said. "We had to get correct information out there." Entergy's advertisements in the Times and other papers say the plant has extensive safeguards to protect against an attack. One ad says there would be no nuclear explosion even if an airplane did crash into the complex. Other ads focus on potential economic impacts of an Indian Point closure. Entergy claims closing the plant, which supplies as much as 30 percent of New York City's electricity, would cause price spikes of up to 40 percent and prompt rolling blackouts like those caused by California's energy crunch. Closing the plant also would mean the loss of $34 million in local taxes and the facility's 1,500 jobs, one ad says. Another describes Indian Point's dome-shaped reactor buildings as among the strongest in the world. Barfield said concern about a possible terrorist attack on Indian Point has been vocal because of its proximity to New York City and its location in a densely populated area. "I do think there is a greater sensitivity to the threat of terrorism in the New York area because ... many of these people knew people who died in the World Trade Center and have seen firsthand the devastation that took place," she said. Matthiessen rejects Entergy's arguments about the plant's ability to withstand a terrorist attack and its claims regarding economic impact. He said New England has a surplus of power that could serve the area, one reason a comparison to California doesn't make sense. He said Entergy has a better commitment to safety than former owner Consolidated Edison but that its location in a densely populated area makes the plant a dangerous target for terrorists. "The question is, is anything the company does enough in case of a terrorist attack?" he said. "We categorically say, 'No way.'" Matthiessen also said the complex has a history of problems, most concerning its Indian Point 2 reactor. He noted that the reactor is the only one in the nation with a "red" designation from the NRC, the agency's most serious rating for safety concerns. Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, confirmed that Indian Point 2 is the only reactor with the red rating. But he said the color-based rating system has only been in place a short time -- since April 2000 -- and that some other facilities also have red ratings pending. An important factor in the rating is a February 2000 incident involving a tube failure in Indian Point 2's steam generator. The tube burst, sending a small amount of radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Then-owner Con Edison replaced the generators in late 2000, but the color-based ratings stay in place for at least a year to ensure that facilities have adequately addressed the causes of any problems, Sheehan said. In this case, the earliest Indian Point 2 could have its rating changed would be after an NRC inspection in June or July, he said. The NRC has only once yanked an operator's license for unsafe operations, according to Sheehan. The agency temporarily shut down Pennsylvania's Peach Bottom plant in the '80s after control operators were discovered sleeping on the job, he said. In the case of Indian Point, the plant is being safely operated, Sheehan said. He said the NRC has never permanently pulled an operating license and that political pressure would not force its hand. "We would base that on objective measures of how the plant is operated and we believe the plant (Indian Point) is being safely operated and will continued to be," Sheehan said. Matthiessen points to a small radioactive leak in Indian Point 2's reactor that Entergy disclosed last week as evidence of continuing problems. He said the radioactive rupture two years ago also started out as a small leak. Sheehan said the current leak is small and contained and poses no danger to the public. He said plants can have leaks of up to 432 gallons a day before they must shut down, and that the current leak is only about half-a-cup a day. Nevertheless, Entergy has agreed to shut down operations even for a leak in the range of "several gallons" a day, Sheehan said. "For us the key is that it's well contained and controlled," Sheehan said. "I think what gets lost in some of this debate is the context." Copyright © 1995-2002, The Advocate, Capital City Press, All ***************************************************************** 21 DHEC not focused on uranium-tainted wells The Daily Journal / Messenger By DIANNA M. GEORGINA Seneca reporterFebruary 25, 2002 SENECA - Although uranium was found in well water in Oconee and Pickens counties, the Department of Health and Environmental Control is concentrating its effort on wells in the Simpsonville and Fountain Inn areas, DHEC spokesperson Thom Berry said. Uranium is found in higher concentrations and in more wells in the Simpsonville area than any other part of the Upstate. "The geology of the area is primarily responsible for those concentrations," Berry said. "The geology came together in just the right way." Late last August, DHEC reported that four wells in Oconee County and one well in Pickens County had levels above the allowable 30 micrograms per liter. Only wells from public water systems were tested, and DHEC began testing water brought in by private individuals after the announcement was made. "People who are concerned about uranium in their well water can still take samples to their district DHEC office," he said. Uranium occurs naturally in veins in granite, the rock that underlies the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia to Alabama. Health effects from ingesting uranium in drinking water are caused by chemical damage to the kidneys, not by radioactivity. ©The Daily Journal / Messenger 2002 ***************************************************************** 22 Interactive Risk and Dose Calculator Web site Web site gauges exposure to cancer-causing iodine By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE - A prototype Web-based system allows area residents to calculate their potential exposure to radioactive iodine from Cold War weapons testing in Nevada and Oak Ridge's nuclear work in the 1940s and '50s. The interactive system also evaluates an individual's lifetime risk of developing thyroid cancer, which has been linked to iodine-131 from A-bomb fallout and other sources. The online service is offered free by SENES Oak Ridge Inc., a risk-analysis company founded by Dr. Owen Hoffman - one of the nation's leading experts in dose reconstruction and I-131 exposures. "What's unique is a person can see the relationship between their individual lifestyle and location with respect to the potential exposure and risk from multiple sources of (radioactive iodine)," Hoffman said. The scientist said the dose and risk calculations were developed in connection with work he did for state-sponsored health studies of Oak Ridge pollutants, as well as projects for the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health. He said the information system wasn't likely to be a commercial venture so he decided to make it available as a public service. "Let's get the information out," he said. A study of historic Oak Ridge pollutants found that iodine-131 releases from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1940s and early '50s may have posed the greatest health threat. The so-called RaLa project at ORNL discharged significant amounts of radioactive iodine between 1944 and 1956, with the peak year being 1954. That report, which was published in late 1999, estimated those I-131 releases could have caused between 25 and 150 "excess" cases of thyroid cancer in the region around Oak Ridge. The biggest contributor would have been consumption of milk from cows or goats that ate contaminated grass. Inhaled or ingested iodine tends to concentrate in the thyroid gland. Hoffman's interactive system allows people to calculate the combined doses they may have received from the Oak Ridge discharges and fallout from early atomic-bomb tests in Nevada, which affected people across the country to varying degrees. Not all thyroid cancers, of course, are caused by radiation, but it is known that radiation can damage cells in the gland so that they do not function properly or multiply abnormally. Also, cancer may develop years or even decades after exposures. Women are more at risk of developing thyroid cancer than men, although that fact is not fully understood. Besides gender, other factors include one's age at the time of exposure, location and the amount and source of milk consumed during the period of concern. Particularly at risk were those individuals who lived near ORNL in the early 1950s and got their milk from farm animals. At Hoffman's Web site, participants are asked to fill in some basic information such as their age, gender and where they lived between 1943 and 1957. Other questions deal with milk consumption. Here's a hypothetical case: A man born in 1951 who lived most of his childhood in Maryville and daily drank about three glasses of milk from a local commercial dairy. He would have received an estimated radiation dose to the thyroid of about 4 rads (or centigrays), although the estimate range could be as low as 1 rad or up to 19. The "central estimate" for his risk of developing thyroid cancer from this exposure would be 3.2 chances in 10,000. The upper-bound for that risk would be 21.3 chances in 10,000. And, if this man already has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, there's a 17 percent probability that the radiation dose was the cause. That probability, however, could be as low as 3.7 percent or as high as 55.3 percent. The Interactive Risk and Dose Calculator can be accessed by going to the Oak Ridge company's Web site - www.senes.com - and then looking under "projects." Or, go directly to the system: http://216.82.51.38/irad/ Hoffman emphasized that the risk-calculation system is a prototype, a work still in progress. Although it combines one's potential exposure from two significant sources of radioactive iodine, the database does not include all potential sources, he said. People who lived in this area in the 1940s and '50s also likely received radiation doses from atomic fallout from weapons testing in the former Soviet Union and other activities taking place on the Oak Ridge reservation. "Recognize that the full story is yet to be told," Hoffman said. Copyright 2002 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 23 Russian court strikes down decision to allow nuclear waste Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:05:22 -0600 (CST) Russian court strikes down decision to allow nuclear waste imports from Hungary Wednesday, February 27, 2002 By Associated Press MOSCOW -- The Russian Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to environmentalists, striking down a government decision that allowed the import of nuclear waste from the Paks nuclear power plant in Hungary for storage in Russia. Under a 1992 law, Russia imports spent fuel rods from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary for reprocessing, but it is required to return the waste to the countries of origin for permanent storage. Greenpeace, the For Nuclear Safety environmental movement, and citizens of the Chelyabinsk region in the Urals Mountains filed suit against the government last year when they learned of a 1998 decision to allow nuclear waste from the Paks plant to be sent to Chelyabinsk for storage, said Yevgeny Usov, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "The Atomic Energy Ministry is selling Russia's territory for nuclear waste storage," Usov said. Environmentalists have been up in arms about a law signed last summer that allows the import of spent nuclear fuel from other countries for reprocessing and storage. According to the plan, spent fuel will be sent by armored train to a facility near Chelyabinsk for reprocessing. The recycling process extracts usable nuclear material from the spent rods while reducing their potential to be used in weapons, the Atomic Energy Ministry has said. The plan's advocates say Russia could earn US$20 billion over the next decade, importing some 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. They say part of the money could be used to clean up existing nuclear pollution. Yet environmentalists warn that with Russia's crumbling infrastructure and weak government, importing radioactive materials would be dangerous. Copyright 2002, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 24 Nuclear reactor decision heightens risk, say Greens online.ie : News The Irish Examiner 27 Feb 2002 By Mary Dundon, Political Reporter THE threat posed by the Sellafield plant to Ireland increased yesterday by the revelation two new nuclear reactors are to be developed in Britain. Green Party leader Trevor Sargent made the claim last night after it emerged British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and British Energy had signed agreements to develop two new reactors. These are being built to generate electricity and replace the ageing nuclear power stations in Britain. "The new reactors will mean more business for the Sellafield plant," Deputy Sargent said. A British Government report concluded recently if the country was to go down the nuclear route to supply the growing energy needs, at least 12 new reactors would have to be built. The Irish Green Party believes more nuclear energy would not be needed if the British government promoted energy conservation and renewable energy. "Political patronage of the nuclear industry in Britain is very apparent by the huge amount money given to nuclear energy research in comparison to the money given to alternative energies," Mr Sargent said. When the EU heads of State meet at the Barcelona summit next month, the Taoiseach will have to campaign strongly against the bid to expand the EU nuclear programme, the Green Party leader said. Meanwhile, BNFL chief executive Norman Askew said this is the first concrete commitment from two companies to built new reactors since the British Government's report. British Energy's chairman Robin Jeffrey, said the government's energy review had helped signal a positive future for the industry. ***************************************************************** 25 British Energy, BNFL quell fuel reprocessing contract dispute AFX (UK); Feb 27, 2002 LONDON (AFX) - British Energy PLC and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) have moved to cool a fuel reprocessing contract dispute involving 300 mln stg a year, the Financial Times reported citing the companies. The decision to try to resolve their differences amicably coincides with an announcement on Tuesday that the two companies were joining forces to develop plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations. Robin Jeffrey, chief executive of publicly quoted British Energy, who had been threatening to take the issue to the Office of Fair Trading, said an OFT approach "was off the agenda at the moment". Jeffrey and Norman Askew, BNFL chief executive, said they were involved in discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute. British Energy said storing rather than reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel would save about 200 mln stg. Askew was cited in the report as saying: "We are looking at various ways of adding to value for British Energy without damaging our own bottom line." Both chief executives stressed that low UK electricity prices currently made it impossible to justify investment in any type of new power station, according to the report. acb/ak For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com and www.afxpress.com ***************************************************************** 26 Mill to take radioactive waste Denver Post.com Soil to be shipped from N.J. Superfund site By [tstein@denverpost.com] Denver Post Environment Writer --> Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - A struggling Fremont County uranium mill accused by neighbors of radiation poisoning has been designated to receive more than 450,000 tons of radioactive soil from a New Jersey Superfund site. Cotter Corp. executives have yet to provide details of the plan to the state. But Colorado health officials said the company's license allows them to handle soil contaminated with thorium tailings from the cleanup of 20 commercial properties near Maywood, N.J. Cotter Corp. is also hoping to take up to 47,000 tons of radioactive tungsten tailings from a Long Island Superfund site. Company officials deny that the mill is trying to become a player in the highly competitive radioactive-waste market. Nationally, there are only five facilities capable of taking the waste from Maywood, about 15 miles west of New York City. "This is a financial benefit, but it's not going to become our core business," said Rich Zeigler, Cotter's executive vice president, who added that the mill has space for 1.5 million to 2 million tons of tailings in its 60-acre impoundment. "It's just something to supplement our revenues while uranium prices are down." Cotter is a subcontractor for the firm of Stone &Webster, which on Feb. 12 won a contract from the Army Corps of Engineers to relocate the contaminated soil. Zeigler said the Maywood soils were five to 10 times less radioactive than the processed uranium ore already on the site. He said the waste, which would be delivered by rail car, would be used as cover material inside approved uranium disposal pits built in 1979. The company's plans have generated little comment in nearby Can~on City, largely because no one knows about it, critics said. Mayor Harry B. "Ben" Johnson said he's waiting to learn more at Cotter's March 5 open house. "Do I want Can~on City to become a dump site?" asked Johnson. "No. But they are licensed to do this, and there's no requirement for them to get a permit from Can~on City. So unless someone convinces me it's a danger to us, there's little I can say." Two years ago, local residents loudly opposed the mill's plan to accept similar waste from the Shattuck Chemical radium site in Denver. Several predicted opposition this time will be just as fierce. "It seems like Cotter has gone on a tour of the East Coast looking for waste," said Dan Slater, a Can~on City attorney who lives near the mill. "One fundamental problem is this is a high-growth area," said Slater, a Democratic candidate for the newly drawn 2nd Senate District. "Gov. Owens opposed the plan for Shattuck waste last time. We're hoping for a similar reaction." Some said the plan shows Colorado needs to tighten its oversight of regulated facilities. "What this identifies is a huge loophole in the state's permitting system," said Ross Vincent, a national policy adviser for the Sierra Club who lives in Pueblo. "If it's not safe in New Jersey, then it's not safe here. All they're doing is spreading the risk to a community that's politically unable to resist." Others said in light of the mill's history, company officials should have been more forthcoming with its plans. In November, a federal judge awarded $43.3 million to 25 people who claimed contamination from the Cotter site exposed them to radiation poisoning. One month earlier, a federal jury awarded $16 million to 30 other plaintiffs believed to have been exposed to radiation at the mill, an award Cotter is appealing. "Par for the course," said resident Donna Murphy of the latest news. State officials say Cotter is complying with a cleanup plan. New uranium-processing technology is cleaner than traditional methods, Ziegler said. State health officials said while Cotter's permit allows the change of use without a public hearing, they're likely to hold one as part of the mill's ongoing license review. "Our regulations provide for opportunity for a hearing," said Jake Jacobi, manager of the state's radiation services division. "We fully expect someone to request it, and we're planning on it." All contents Copyright 2002 The Denver Post ***************************************************************** 27 AU: Threat to push nuclear dumps on SA news.com.au - 27 February 2002 By Environment Reporter CATHERINE HOCKLEY The Advertiser THE Federal Government has threatened to over-ride state legislation and force two nuclear dumps on South Australia. Federal Science Minister Peter McGauran said yesterday the Commonwealth would over-rule a state government's opposition if necessary to locate the second planned dump – a national store that would take long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste. "I don't want to inflame the situation but we will use the superior Commonwealth legislation at the appropriate time," said Mr McGauran, who inherited the portfolio from SA Senator Nick Minchin. A site in outback SA has been chosen for the Federal Government's low-level waste dump, but the location is yet to be announced. The state ALP and green groups believe the Federal Government also plans to locate it in SA. The Government's threat has angered Labor, which is set to take power in SA next week. ALP environment spokesman John Hill warned there would be an "absolutely titanic" battle by a state Labor government against both dumps. He accused the Federal Government of being "foolish" and disregarding the views of South Australians. "What's cowardly is the Federal Government not telling the people of South Australia before the federal election what they were planning to do with intermediate level waste," he said. Labor has pledged to extend legislation outlawing an intermediate-level waste store in SA to the planned low-level dump. The Federal Government has chosen a preferred site for the low-level repository on land near Woomera. An environmental impact statement is due to be presented to federal Environment Minister David Kemp next month and then released publicly for comment. But a decision on the siting of the intermediate-level store has been put off until late this year. Mr Hill said a decision by the Federal Government to site the intermediate-level dump in SA would trigger a state referendum on the issue. Mr McGauran said while the Government "will take note" of the views of South Australians "it would not be a final determinant in our decision". Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear spokesman David Noonan called on South Australians to lobby against both dumps. "This is a key test for environmental democracy and human rights." © News Limited ***************************************************************** 28 Hungarian Nuclear Waste Barred [http://www.moscowtimes.ru Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2002. Page 7 The Associated Press The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to environmentalists, striking down a government decision that allowed the import of nuclear waste from the Paks nuclear power plant in Hungary for storage in Russia. Under a 1992 law, Russia imports spent fuel rods from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Hungary for reprocessing, but is required to return the waste to the countries for permanent storage. Greenpeace, the For Nuclear Safety environmental movement and citizens of the Chelyabinsk region in the Urals Mountains filed suit against the government last year when they learned of a 1998 decision to allow nuclear waste from the Paks plant to be sent to Chelyabinsk for storage, said Yevgeny Usov, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "The Nuclear Energy Ministry is selling Russia's territory for nuclear waste storage," Usov said. Environmentalists have been up in arms about a law signed last summer that allows the import of spent nuclear fuel from other countries for reprocessing and storage. According to the plan, spent fuel will be sent by train to a facility near Chelyabinsk for reprocessing. The recycling process extracts useable material from the spent rods while reducing their potential to be used in weapons, the Atomic Energy Ministry has said. The plan's advocates say Russia could earn $20 billion over the next decade, importing some 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. They say part of the money could be used to clean up existing nuclear pollution. Yet environmentalists warn that with Russia's crumbling infrastructure and weak government, importing radioactive materials would be dangerous. [http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 29 Corridor still alive in plans By Mike Goens Special projects editor February 24, 2002 No one expects to be driving on a controlled-access road linking the Shoals to Mobile within the next five years, but the dream is not about to die. Shoals Chamber of Commerce members are lending their support to a coalition formed to see the Highway 43 Corridor project proceed. "Right now, we're barely on the map in terms of transportation," said David Muhlendorf, a former Shoals chamber chairman who has been working on the project on behalf of the area. "We have an opportunity, if we see these projects through, to change that and put ourselves in the arena." Muhlendorf sees the Highway 43 Corridor as a complement to the proposed Memphis-to-Atlanta superhighway that will pass through the Shoals as part of an east-west link across the northern part of the state. The Highway 43 Corridor would provide Alabama with its only interstate-type highway that would stretch the length of the western part of the state. The proposed highway, which has been discussed for more than 20 years, would intersect the Memphis-to-Atlanta highway, Corridor X and I-59. "It would open up this area to transportation and make this area explode economically," Muhlendorf said. Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman announced plans in April for the north-south corridor. He said the project will improve the state's quality of life and open western Alabama to economic growth." Money has already been set aside to begin a corridor study. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., helped secure $5 million for the study, which is being done in two phases - from Mobile to Tuscaloosa and from Tuscaloosa to the Shoals. The corridor will generally run along the alignment of U.S. 43/Alabama 171 from Tuscaloosa to Spruce Pine. The project is included the state's five-year highway program. The study will involve pre-engineering work and pinpointing environmentally and historically sensitive areas that should be avoided during the construction. Coalition members say they hope construction will begin on some portion of the highway sometime next year. Others say it could take two years to finish the corridor study. The coalition, which is made up of public and government officials from Fayette, Marion and Tuscaloosa counties, has put together a lobbying team that will try to make sure federal money continues flowing to the project. "The coalition has been meeting for about 18 months and is trying to keep the highway in front of the Alabama delegation in Washington," Muhlendorf said. "We've got to make sure the people in Washington and Montgomery don't forget about it." Shoals chamber board members recently passed a resolution endorsing the Highway 43 Corridor project. Chamber President Steve Holt said he hopes to see all of west Alabama unite as north Alabama cities have done for the Memphis-to-Atlanta highway project. "Both are long-range projects for restricted-access highways," Holt said. "Who would ever have thought we would be looking at two interstate-quality highways in our area. Our goal is to never let up on either of the projects. This would fulfill a dream." Chamber board members have also officially endorsed the restarting of Unit 1 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens. Restarting the facility would create up to 1,500 new jobs. "Restarting Unit 1 would be vitally important to our area in terms of the good jobs it would create," Holt said. "We think a lot of those jobs would come from the Shoals. We're fortunate to have the skilled trade workers that we have here, and we'd like to see them get a chance at those quality jobs." Holt said the restart would make "TVA's extraordinary ability to deliver power even greater." TVA officials are expected to decide whether to restart the unit by late summer or early fall. Mike Goens can be reached at 740-5740 or mike.goens@timesdaily.com [mike.goens@timesdaily.com] . Copyright © 2002 TimesDaily | Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 30 State Senate panel opposes Yucca plan Wednesday, February 27, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal NEWS WRAP SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Senate Health and Environment Committee has endorsed a resolution opposing federal plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada. The panel voted 3-1 Monday to urge Congress to reject the Energy Department's recommendation for storing waste at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "This would send a message that this is not acceptable," said Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, the sponsor of the resolution. Opposition to the Nevada storage largely stems from opposition to the Goshute Indians' plan to let their Skull Valley reservation in western Utah to be used as a temporary storage site for nuclear waste. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 31 IMMINENT THREAT FROM JAPANESE PLUTONIUM TRANSPORT – PERFECT TERRORIST TARGET 27 February 2002 London - The countdown to one of the most controversial nuclear transports in history has begun today, Greenpeace warned, with the approval by the Bush Administration for the return of plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel from Japan to the UK in the next few months. British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) originally shipped the plutonium to Japan in 1999, but it was rejected after it was revealed that vital quality control data had been deliberately falsified during the fuel’s manufacture (1). The owners of the fuel, Kansai Electric, and the Japanese government demanded that the UK government and BNFL agree to the return of the fuel to the UK as soon as possible. It has taken nearly two years to negotiate the details of the return, including financial arrangements. Under the terms of the United States/Japan Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, all plutonium transports between Europe and Japan (and vice versa) require US Administration approval. In August 2001, the Japanese government submitted a transport plan to the Bush Administration. As of February 27th, approval of the plan by the US Department of State enters into force. Greenpeace believes the Bush administration was heavily lobbied by the Japanese and British governments and industry in recent weeks to approve the shipment. If the shipment goes ahead, Japanese Nuclear utilities and BNFL are likely to sign new contracts for fuel production that would result in up to 40 shipments over the next decade from Europe to Japan. An armed escort will be required for the shipment as the plutonium in the MOX fuel is weapons-usable material. This particular shipment will contain sufficient plutonium to make more than 50 nuclear weapons and therefore poses environmental, security and proliferation risks during its global transport through the world’s oceans. The vessels used to carry plutonium MOX are armed with three 30mm cannons, as well as anti-terrorist police from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (UKAEAC)(2). “Playing global ping pong with weapons-usable plutonium made no sense before September 11th and now it is sheer madness. The Blair, Bush and Koizumi governments must now take responsibility for creating a floating terrorist target. The MOX fuel should never have been shipped to Japan in the first place. Now it is there, that is where it should remain. There are no zero risk options when it comes to plutonium but secure storage in Japan is the least bad option,” said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. The Japanese government recently confirmed that three principal routes between Japan and Europe remain options for this shipment (3). All countries en-route in Latin and Central America, in the Caribbean, East Asia, the South Pacific and Australasia are now threatened by the shipment. Citing safety and security concerns, the en-route countries have previously demanded that nuclear shipments must not enter their coastal waters, including their 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). “This shipment of plutonium is certainly a humiliation for British Nuclear Fuels and the British government, but it could be catastrophic for the many countries and millions of people along the route from Japan. These at-risk states have called for prior consultation and the resolution of urgent safety, security and liability issues for these shipments but so far the shipping states have utterly failed to satisfy these demands. BNFL for years deliberately deceived its most loyal and important customers in Japan, so any assurance from them that the transport will be made safely and securely should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Greenpeace is vociferously opposed to this shipment,” said Damon Moglen of Greenpeace International. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International, in the UK: 01557 814 288 Damon Moglen, Greenpeace International, in Washington D.C.: +1 202 319 2409 Kazue Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan, in Tokyo: +81 3 5338 9809 Mhairi Dunlop, Greenpeace International Nuclear Press Officer, in Amsterdam: +31 20 523 6608 Photographs and video of the original shipment to Japan are available from Greenpeace Communications John Novis, Picture Editor: +31 (0)653 819121 Lucy Clayton, Assistant Video producer: +31 (0)20 5249 509 Notes to editors: 1. The BNFL MOX falsification scandal started with disclosures in the UK Independent newspaper in September 1999. For the next three months, BNFL denied that the falsification of quality control data concerned the MOX fuel recently delivered to the Takahama-4 nuclear reactor in Fukui Prefecture in Japan. However, a legal challenge by two Japanese NGO’s, Green Action and Mihama-no Kai and supported by Greenpeace, forced BNFL to finally admit that the fuel contained falsified data. In the months that followed, it was revealed that BNFL had falsified MOX fuel for all of its customers (Swiss and German utilities) over a period of at least five years. Greenpeace analysis has argued that the deliberate falsification was due to fundamental problems with MOX fuel technology, producing fuel of low quality that increases further the risk of nuclear accident if used in a reactor. The UK government’s investigation into BNFL’s MOX scandal failed to identify the motives for the falsification. 2. The transport plan is currently confidential, but Greenpeace believes that two British-flagged vessels, the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal will be used for the shipment. Both ships, owned by Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL), returned last week to their home port of Barrow-in-Furness after completing sea trials believed to have taken place in the Irish Sea and off the west coast of Scotland. 3. The three principle routes under consideration are: via the Panama Canal and Caribbean Sea; via the South Pacific, Tasman Sea and Cape of Good Hope (South Africa); and via South America and Cape Horn. ***************************************************************** 32 Status of the USEC Russian HEU Purchase Contract Statement by USEC Inc. Tuesday February 26, 5:32 pm Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: USEC Inc. Statement by USEC Inc. Terms Reached for Future Implementation of the Megatons to Megawatts Program BETHESDA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 26, 2002--USEC Inc. is the executive agent of the U.S. government under the Russian HEU Agreement to purchase the enrichment component of low-enriched uranium (LEU) recovered from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads for use as fuel in commercial nuclear power plants. In November 2001, the U.S. government authorized USEC to conclude negotiations on contract terms with the Russian executive agent, TENEX, for calendar year 2002 and beyond. Terms have been agreed to in Moscow by the U.S. and Russian executive agents responsible for implementing the HEU Agreement. A signed contract amendment has been referred to the U.S. and Russian governments for approval. As soon as the two executive agents receive approval from their respective governments, USEC will provide further information. Shipments to USEC by TENEX of LEU derived from Russian nuclear warheads will commence in March, as scheduled. USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=usu&d=t] - news), a global energy company, is the world's leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. TENEX is a Russian foreign trade company for nuclear services and is the Russian executive agent for the Megatons to Megawatts program. Contact: USEC Inc., Bethesda Charles Yulish, 301/564-3391 or Elizabeth Stuckle, 301/564-3399 ***************************************************************** 33 Letter: Nevada targeted from the start Las Vegas SUN Today: February 27, 2002 at 8:49:10 PST As a concerned resident of Las Vegas since 1964, I can no longer remain quiet about the nuclear waste dump. I have very strong convictions about leaving such a legacy not only for my child, but also for the many generations to come. I do, however, realize that our government has spent millions of our tax dollars to study this repository. In my opinion, this never has been a study site. It has been a construction site since the 1980s. Our government has never seriously considered a different state to store this high-level waste other than Nevada. We did not generate this waste and should not have it jammed down our throats. I do have a solution to this problem. If these containers are so safe to transport this material in, why don't they just store the waste in these containers and keep it in their own states, where it was generated? The members of Congress in their infinite wisdom voted on a bill back in 1982 called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to deal with high-level nuclear waste. The state senators and congressmen should have done something about this back then. My hat is off to Sens. Harry Reid, John Ensign, Gov. Kenny Guinn and, yes, even Mayor Oscar Goodman ... good luck gentleman in your fight. ROBERT WICKMAN All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Utah ready to officially join fight against nuke dump Las Vegas SUN Today: February 27, 2002 at 11:08:46 PST By Erin Neff The eyes of the world just left Utah, but Nevada officials are hoping Congress takes notice of an anti-Yucca Mountain resolution moving through that state's Legislature. A resolution -- which could pass the state Senate today -- urges the U.S. Congress to reject the Bush administration's recommendation to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Utah Senate Majority Whip Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, sponsored the resolution predominantly because of the likelihood that nuclear waste will be temporarily stored on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation as a result of the Yucca Mountain Project. "The West seems to be targeted the most," Davis said. "We've got a lot of desert land, federal land and reservations, which they think is the best place to store nuclear waste. "We know, having been through the above-ground and underground tests of the 1950s, that this is not the place for it," Davis said. Senate Joint Resolution 14 cleared a Senate committee on Monday and could be voted on by the full Senate as early as today. The Utah Legislature adjourns next Wednesday at midnight, but Davis said he is confident the resolution will be approved before the session ends. Private Fuel Storage LLC is seeking to license and construct a high-level nuclear waste storage facility on 125 acres of reservation land in the Great Salt Lake Desert, between Salt Lake City and Wendover, which lies on the Nevada border. The Goshute nation is divided over the planned storage, with accusations that tribal leaders have improperly spent payments from a consortium of power companies seeking the storage facility. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled Monday that the tribe must divulge information on how they've spent money and what future payments are expected from Private Fuel Storage LLC. The report is due March 22. Davis said that even if Yucca Mountain is approved it would not have the capacity to store all of the nation's waste, increasing the likelihood a temporary operation like Private Fuel Storage could be licensed as a permanent facility. "Once Yucca Mountain opens and it is not large enough, this waste will just be sitting out in the open in containers," Davis said. Nevada officials don't what argument is used to oppose Yucca Mountain, as long as other states voice their concerns. "That's awesome," Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, said when the resolution was described to him. "That definitely helps our fight." The Utah resolution also opposes a national repository in Nevada because, it says, "the opening of the Yucca Mountain Project would result in more highway, railroad, or both, miles of high-level nuclear waste transportation through Utah than any other state in the nation." The resolution also says transportation of the waste poses a risk of terrorist attack and catastrophic accidents and will decrease property values along the routes. Since the resolution is a joint Senate and House bill -- and not a concurrent one -- it does not require action from Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt. Leavitt's spokeswoman Natalie Gouchnour said that while Leavitt has not formally stated a position about Yucca Mountain, he has joined Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn in the Western Governors Association resolution against the transportation of high-level nuclear waste. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 Federal proposal says two more nuclear plants need to use MOX heraldsun.com: The Associated Press Feb 26, 2002 : 7:58 am ET AIKEN, S.C. -- A federal report says two more nuclear plants will need to power their reactors with fuel made from plutonium to satisfy a revised plan for the disposal of the radioactive material. In a report to Congress on Feb. 15, the National Nuclear Security Administration says six reactors will need to burn the mixed-oxide, or MOX, reactor fuel. Earlier plans called for four plants. The fuel, which contains surplus plutonium once used in nuclear weapons, would be manufactured in a new plant proposed for the Savannah River Site near Aiken. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy is the only utility to commit to using MOX fuel in its nuclear-power plants. The utility will use MOX fuel in four reactors at the Catawba Nuclear Power Station near York and the McGuire Nuclear Power Station near Huntersville, N.C. Duke Power also has three reactors at Oconee Station on Lake Keowee, but a company spokesman said they are waiting to hear more about the Department of Energy's plan to make the fuel before considering converting additional reactors to MOX fuel. A critic of the $3.8 billion program blasted the 62-page document, saying it raises new questions about whether the program is worth the cost. "This report dodges all the hard questions," said Tom Clements, the executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington. "It does not further the plutonium disposition program at all; rather, it confuses it. "This underscores the need for a thorough environmental impact statement, and for a halt of plutonium shipments to Savannah River until it's done." The converted fuel also is too risky to use in nuclear power plants, Clements said. A spokesman from the Energy Department didn't return phone calls from The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle. Supporters have said the MOX program would bring 500 long-term jobs to the nuclear-weapons site and help the nation reduce its number of nuclear weapons. Utilities choosing to use MOX will benefit on their balance sheets, said Mal McKibben, the executive director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, an Aiken-based pro-nuclear group. "The U.S. Department of Energy is footing the bill for this," McKibben said "Financially, it's a pretty good deal for any utility that wants to use the fuel." Copyright 2002 Associated Press. ***************************************************************** 36 Russian court strikes down decision to allow nuclear waste imports from Hungary - 2/27/2002 - ENN.com Wednesday, February 27, 2002 By Associated Press MOSCOW — The Russian Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to environmentalists, striking down a government decision that allowed the import of nuclear waste from the Paks nuclear power plant in Hungary for storage in Russia. Under a 1992 law, Russia imports spent fuel rods from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary for reprocessing, but it is required to return the waste to the countries of origin for permanent storage. Greenpeace, the For Nuclear Safety environmental movement, and citizens of the Chelyabinsk region in the Urals Mountains filed suit against the government last year when they learned of a 1998 decision to allow nuclear waste from the Paks plant to be sent to Chelyabinsk for storage, said Yevgeny Usov, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "The Atomic Energy Ministry is selling Russia's territory for nuclear waste storage," Usov said. Environmentalists have been up in arms about a law signed last summer that allows the import of spent nuclear fuel from other countries for reprocessing and storage. According to the plan, spent fuel will be sent by armored train to a facility near Chelyabinsk for reprocessing. The recycling process extracts usable nuclear material from the spent rods while reducing their potential to be used in weapons, the Atomic Energy Ministry has said. The plan's advocates say Russia could earn US$20 billion over the next decade, importing some 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. They say part of the money could be used to clean up existing nuclear pollution. Yet environmentalists warn that with Russia's crumbling infrastructure and weak government, importing radioactive materials would be dangerous. Copyright 2002, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 37 Perma-Fix processes first shipment of federal government hazardous waste OAK RIDGE, TENN. (Feb. 26) -- Perma-Fix Environmental Services Inc. has processed the first 1,100 drums of hazardous waste as part of five multiyear contracts with the federal government. The waste is generated from the Department of Energy and other government agencies, according to Perma-Fix. The company´s subsidiary, East Tennessee Materials and Energy Corp., treated the 1,100 drums of waste generated at the department´s K-25 weapons plant in Oak Ridge. "This first shipment is a significant milestone in providing a solution for the nuclear waste program," said Louis F. Centrofanti, president and CEO of Perma-Fix. The types of material that the company is treating as part of the contracts include solid and liquid forms of nuclear waste, uranium and thorium chips and aqueous waste, the company said. The contracts with the federal government, valued at $120 million, were awarded in 1998. The waste from the Oak Ridge plant is encapsulated and made ready for long-term disposal, according to Perma-Fix. Entire contents copyright 2002 by Crain Communications Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Utah tribe told to disclose payments for storing nuclear waste Las Vegas SUN February 26, 2002 SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A federal regulatory board has told Goshute tribal leader that they must disclose details of payments they received from the consortium of power companies proposing to store nuclear waste on the tribe's Skull Valley reservation. The financial details are being sought by dissident members of the tribe, who are opposed to the storage. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board also said Goshute leaders must reveal how they have spent payments made so far and what future payments are expected for the proposed nuclear-waste storage pad about 45 miles from Salt Lake City. The financial details are due March 22. "This is a big victory for us," said Paul Echohawk, an Idaho attorney for the dissident members. The order issued Friday comes after years of speculation - much of it from Skull Valley members who oppose the waste facility - about the money and how it has been used. Describing the facility as an environmental injustice to band members and an offense against sacred land, the Goshute opponents also alleged that the facility's economic benefits so far have gone to friends and allies of tribal leader Leon Bear. Bear signed a lease in 1997 allowing the consortium, Private Fuel Storage LLC, to use 125 acres to store up to 4,000 concrete casks of spent nuclear fuel. Bear said Monday he had not spoken with tribal attorneys about the panel's order. "My question is, 'Does the (regulatory panel) have the jurisdiction over that?' " he said, adding that he would work with the agency rather than reject or resist the order. The licensing board also asked PFS to provide an account of the payments. Spokeswoman Sue Martin said attorneys are considering options. She said PFS has tried to stay out of quarrels among the 127 Skull Valley members. "This is something the tribe needs to resolve," she said. "It's not our position to get in the middle of it." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Senate panel endorses opposition to Nevada nuclear storage Las Vegas SUN February 26, 2002 SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Utah Senate Health and Environment Committee has endorsed a resolution opposing federal plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada. The panel voted 3-1 Monday to urge Congress to reject the U.S. Energy Department's recommendation for storing waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles from Las Vegas. "This would send a message that this is not acceptable," said Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, the sponsor of the resolution. Opposition to the Nevada storage largely stems from opposition to the Goshute Indians' plan to let their Skull Valley reservation in western Utah to be used as a temporary storage site for nuclear waste. -- All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Shall we tell Queen about nuclear war? Times Online February 27, 2002 By Helen Studd THE Government had no formal procedure in place to tell the Queen of any declaration of nuclear war during the early 1960s, according to papers released yesterday. The War Book at the time of Harold Wilson’s Labour Cabinet failed to include instructions as to when Buckingham Palace should be told of any major decisions taken during a potential “transition to war” or nominate anyone responsible for informing her. The omission is revealed in highly-sensitive public record office documents held back a further seven years after their permitted release under the 30-year rule. The War Book gives details of the emergency steps to be taken before any declaration of war. By 1965 it was no longer considered in terms of a conventional attack, as any attack on the British Isles “could only be nuclear”. Confidential Cabinet papers from a senior Cabinet Office official on March 9, 1965, admit that: “There appears to be no War Book arrangements for informing The Queen, wherever she may be, of the major decisions taken during any transition to war.” The papers, sent to Derek J Mitchell, the Prime Minister’s private secretary, continues: “It should not be necessary to inform Her Majesty of the mass of detailed measures and we suggest that the decisions which ought to be communicated to Her might be those in the Annex. “ It was eventually decided that the Queen should be told of the details by the Cabinet Office. A typed official list of the command stages at which she should be told is still regarded as too sensitive to release. The precautions were reviewed and amended after problems presented by the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The Sunday Times Copyright 2002 [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,549,00.html] Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 41 Doomsday Clock to Be Change Las Vegas SUN Today: February 27, 2002 at 2:55:02 PST CHICAGO- The hands of the symbolic Doomsday Clock that gauges the threat of nuclear danger are moving for the first time in nearly four years as a result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the turmoil that followed. The board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which oversees the clock's movements, scheduled a news conference Wednesday to reset the clock. The clock's time, reflecting the state of international security, had remained unchanged since 1998. At that time, the hands of the clock were moved forward to nine minutes to midnight after India and Pakistan conducted tests of nuclear weapons. Bulletin spokesman Steve Koppes would not say Tuesday if the clock was to be set closer to midnight, which symbolizes a greater threat of a nuclear disaster. The board started meeting in November to consider the issue, Koppes said. But it did not reach a decision until recently "because of the uncertain nature of what is going on in the world," he said. Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin, has said the clock was not reset after previous terrorist acts "because those events did not alter the global security landscape." But that has changed, he said. "If al-Qaida got its hands on nuclear weapons it would have little compunction on using them. It is no longer an issue to worry about in the abstract," Schwartz said. Also, since the attacks, the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring countries has become that much more volatile. The clock at the University of Chicago was started at 11:53 p.m. in 1947, two years after the bulletin began as a newsletter among scientists of the Manhattan Project - the top-secret U.S effort during World War II to develop an atomic bomb. Since then the clock has moved to within two minutes of midnight and as far away as 17 minutes. On the Net: Doomsday Clock: http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html [http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Russia, U.S. Extend Key Uranium Deal Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2002. Page 5 By [korchagina@imedia.ru] Staff Writer Ending months of tense negotiations over price, Russia and the United States have agreed to extend 1993's landmark "Megatons to Megawatts" deal under which America buys highly enriched uranium from dismantled Soviet warheads. Sources close to the negotiations said Tuesday that America's official commercial agent in the deal, USEC Inc., and Tenex, a commercial arm of Russia's Nuclear Energy Ministry, signed an agreement last week that establishes price terms for the remainder of the project, due to end in 2013. Russia earned some $500 million a year under the previous contract, which expired Dec. 31., but it is likely to earn less under the terms of the new contract, officials from both sides said Tuesday. The new terms call for Russia to receive from its uranium the equivalent of about $70 per separative work unit (SWU) of fuel -- some two-thirds of current world spot prices and 22 percent less than it received from 1993 to 2001, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. However, the agreement allows for some price flexibility, depending on the behavior of the much-regulated yet competitive nuclear materials market. The U.S. side had demanded a 15 percent price reduction since early last year, which former Tenex chief Revmir Frayshtut resisted, prompting the expiration of the old contract without having a new one in place. But that resistance apparently left Tenex with Frayshtut, who was replaced in January by Vladimir Smirnov, like President Vladimir Putin, a St. Petersburg native. Before the next shipment, usually about 3 metric tons of blended-down, bomb-grade uranium, can set sail, the governments of both countries must formerly approve the deal struck between Tenex and USEC, but representatives from both sides said they expected that to happen soon. The next shipment is scheduled for next month. Over the past seven years, the equivalent of nearly 5,600 nuclear warheads, or some 141.4 tons of high-enriched uranium, have been converted and used as fuel for nuclear power stations. By 2013 the figure is expected to reach 500 tons. Fuel created from old Soviet nuclear weapons accounts for roughly half of U.S. nuclear power generation, the equivalent of 10 percent of all electricity consumed in the United States. Both countries have repeatedly said that they view the program as too important for disagreements not to be resolved. [http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 43 Queen left out of nuclear war preparations Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Owen Bowcott Wednesday February 27, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Harold Wilson's government forgot to include the Queen in the list of those who should be informed about preparations for nuclear war, according to secret documents released yesterday. The oversight was spotted by civil servants in the Cabinet Office who were updating the official government war book which set out the sequence of military mobilisations and mass evacuations. In internal letters, deposited at the public record office, officials discussed who should assume responsibility for telling the Queen the bad news about how close the UK was to being hit by - or launching its own - nuclear strikes. A memorandum dated March 9, 1965, was sent to Derek Mitchell, one of the prime minister's private secretaries, about the need to keep the monarch up to speed with events. "We had a word on the telephone about our discovery that there appear to be no war book arrangements for informing the Queen, wherever she may be, of major decisions taken during transition to war," wrote W I McIndoe, a Cabinet Office official. "Do you think that No 10 [Downing Street] should be responsible for informing the Queen when these major decision are taken," Mr McIndoe inquired, "or would you be content that the Cabinet Office assume the responsibility?" Commander J R Stephens, also in the Cabinet Office, clearly took a dim view of the state of military preparations at the heart of Wilson's Labour government. "I have been investigating on whom this responsibility would lie," he noted. "No 10 have no war book of their own and are not aware of any obligation to inform the palace. I assume the palace would wish to be kept informed during the precautionary stage of decisions ... for a transition to war." In a subsequent letter he supplied the sequence of military and civil preparations. The first phase of contingency planning in the UK is "Macmorris", a code word transmitted to government departments requiring them to "urgently review their transition to war plans". Subsequent stages of readiness include: "precautionary stage, mobilisation, setting up of regional government, assignment of forces to Nato, repatriation to UK of dependents overseas, and dispersal of population within UK". · Details of how the government's microbiological research establishment at Porton Down spread bacteria through the London Underground system in the 1960s are contained in two files released to the public record office in Kew yesterday. The trials, which were revealed in the Guardian last year, show how a powder compact filled with bacteria was dropped on to the Northern line and samples taken to see how contamination spread over the network. [UP] ***************************************************************** 44 'Axis' harbours nuclear plan: CSIS February 26, 2002 'Axis' harbours nuclear plan: CSIS New intelligence report says Iraq and Iran want the weapons 'at earliest opportunity' Stewart Bell National Post Canada's intelligence service said yesterday there is evidence Iraq, Iran and North Korea were aggressively trying to develop nuclear weapons, bolstering George W. Bush's controversial claim that those nations form an "axis of evil." Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, "appears determined to acquire a nuclear weapons capability at the earliest opportunity," as does Iran, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says in a new report. Suspicions also abound that communist North Korea is secretly continuing its nuclear weapons program, said the intelligence report, prepared by analysts at the Research, Analysis and Production Branch of CSIS. The report said while Canada is not a likely target of these rogue nations, peacekeepers serving in the Middle East and South Asia, as well as Canada's allies, are within their striking range and could be vulnerable to attacks. During his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, the U.S. President said Iraq, Iran and North Korea form "an axis of evil" because of their unrelenting pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The comment was widely condemned, even by some U.S. politicians and Western allies, as a sign Mr. Bush was overreaching in his war on terrorism. John Manley, Deputy Prime Minister, described the comment as "bellicose" but said he did not disagree with those countries being criticized. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said Canada is open to including Iraq in the war on terrorism if there is evidence against it. "If it is shown that they are amassing weapons of mass destruction with the vision of using them against someone in the immediate future, that's a clear and present danger that we and all the world have to address and we'd be willing to address," he has said. The CSIS report shows the Canadian government has been advised by its own intelligence agents that Mr. Bush was likely correct when he suggested the three countries were working to acquire nuclear weapons. Although Iraq's nuclear arms infrastructure was mostly destroyed around the time of the Gulf War, the report says the International Atomic Energy Agency and the CIA believe Baghdad has continued its weapons program -- a claim supported by Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected in 1994. "Iraq, with its demonstrated history of a large-scale program, appears determined to acquire a nuclear weapons capability at the earliest opportunity," the report said. "So do Iran and Libya, albeit being considerably less advanced." Iran has attempted to acquire the capacity to enrich uranium by purchasing components piecemeal from suppliers in Western Europe, the report said, quoting U.S. military and intelligence sources. The enriched uranium could be used to produce nuclear weapons, it said. North Korea has been experimenting with nuclear weapons for more than a decade. While the country has agreed to halt the production of weapons-grade nuclear material, "suspicions remain about continuing North Korean nuclear weapons activity," CSIS said. "Until quite recently, only five states -- the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China -- had acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons. The events of May, 1998, added two more countries -- India and Pakistan -- to that list," said the report. "In addition, Israel has long been credited with a clandestine arsenal, and a number of other countries -- including Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and possibly Algeria -- are currently widely suspected of harbouring nuclear weapons ambitions and/or to be actively pursuing such programs." The weapons programs in the three countries identified by Mr. Bush are of particular concern because of alleged links to Islamic terrorists. Iran equips and sponsors several anti-American, anti-Israeli terrorist groups, while Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and there are suggestions it may have been complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. Impoverished North Korea has exported its weapons technology to such countries as Iran and Pakistan. There are mounting fears about the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists. Although difficult to produce, nuclear weapons are over a million times more powerful than the same quantity of conventional explosives. Documents found in al-Qaeda safehouses in Afghanistan after the Taliban's retreat last November show that Osama bin Laden and his supporters had obtained designs for nuclear weapons and were willing to use them. Al-Qaeda was apparently aided by Pakistani nuclear scientists. The CSIS report said that while the proliferation of nuclear weapons had been contained at the end of the Cold War, developments were threatening to reverse that trend. The arms race between India and Pakistan, for example, risks stirring other nations to accelerate their own weapons programs, "making the world -- and in particular South Asia -- a more dangerous place." [sbell@nationalpost.com] Copyright © 2002 National Post Online | Privacy Policy | Corrections National Post Online is a Hollinger / CanWest ***************************************************************** 45 Annan to Press Baghdad On Weapons Inspectors (washingtonpost.com) By Colum Lynch Special to The Washington Post Tuesday, February 26, 2002; Page A15 UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 25 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan will meet Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri next week to press Baghdad to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country for the first time in more than three years, according to a U.N. spokesman. The U.N. chief is seeking to head off a military confrontation between Iraq and the United States, which has demanded that Baghdad permit unfettered access to U.N. weapons inspectors to let them hunt for the country's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But U.N. officials say that Iraq has provided no indication that it is prepared to let the inspectors back. U.N. officials said Annan would try to limit the March 7 discussions to a handful of key issues, including Iraq's obligation to permit the inspectors' return and to account for hundreds of Kuwaiti nationals who disappeared during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. "The secretary general expects to have a focused discussion on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions, including the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq," said U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein asked Annan through an Arab League intermediary last month to resume discussions on Iraq's fate. The March 7 talks will last one day, but may resume following the Feb. 27-28 summit of Arab foreign ministers in Beirut. U.S. officials have made it clear to Annan that he can offer no concessions to Iraq in exchange for a commitment to let the inspectors return to Iraq. "The talks should be brief," said a U.S. official. "Iraq needs to comply with all U.N. resolutions. There is no compromise." Annan cautioned the United States to show restraint. Following a meeting in London with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Annan told reporters that "any attack on Iraq at this stage would be unwise." Iraq is bound by a 1991 U.N. agreement ending the Persian Gulf War to permit unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. The inspectors destroyed massive quantities of Iraqi weapons before they were withdrawn from the country in 1998. Iraq has refused to permit the inspectors to return, saying they will spy on Iraq for the United States. There is "no need for the return of the spy teams," Iraq's Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told the INA news agency recently. Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, said he is confident that Iraq can be persuaded to allow the resumption of U.N. inspections. "We have been always saying that this dialogue is one of the main means to achieve some improvement in the overall situation around Iraq," he said. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 46 Report Faults Security of Russian Arsenal (washingtonpost.com) Insider Nuclear Thefts A Risk, U.S. Says Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 27, 2002; Page A15 Although Russia has been slowly improving its physical security systems at nuclear facilities, today's major threat comes from insiders stealing weapons-grade or weapons-usable nuclear materials, according to a recent U.S. intelligence report. While a handful of nuclear-material thefts have been detected and foiled, primarily from Russian production facilities and laboratories, "undetected smuggling has occurred," according to the report produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the senior analytic body made up of representatives of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. The old Russian security structure, which focused primarily on threats from outside the country, "may not be sufficient to meet today's challenge of a knowledgeable insider collaborating with a criminal or terrorist group," the NIC found. Concern over insider security breaches arose after September 1998, when a Russian navy conscript shot a sentry guarding a nuclear submarine and killed five other sailors inside the sub. The armed conscript had walked unimpeded through an open shed near the submarine that contained nuclear weapons, according to Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, who has worked with Russia on nuclear security issues. The incident ended when the conscript shot himself. The Russians realized one person going berserk could be handled, "but if two or more insiders collude [to steal something] all safeguards are non-effective," Blair said. Senior Russian military officials subsequently asked the United States for assistance in meeting the threat. "Major assistance began after the Russian officials realized they had an insider problem," Blair said. Since that time, Russians have instituted psychological, lie detector, and drug and alcohol testing for all nuclear warhead personnel, the NIC report said. The polygraph equipment and drug and alcohol tests were provided by the United States under the Pentagon's threat reduction program. Last October, Gen. Col. Igor Valynkin, chief of the organization responsible for protecting nuclear weapons, said heightened security in early 2001 "had twice thwarted terrorist efforts to reconnoiter nuclear weapons storage sites," the report said. Blair noted that another weak point in the Russian security program that is being reformed is in Moscow's transportation system for nuclear warheads, primarily because new and old nuclear weapons are constantly being shipped from one site to another. "Enlisted guards, who had low morale, little training and alcohol problems are being replaced by officers," Blair said. While concern over insiders has grown, the report said that the threat most feared by the United States in the past, an unauthorized launch or accidental use of a nuclear weapon, "is highly unlikely" as long as the highly centralized system built by the Soviet Union years ago remains in place. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 47 Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces Medicine &Global Survival Ira Helfand, MD; Lachlan Forrow, MD; Michael McCally, MD, PhD; Robert K. Musil, MPH, PhD Abstract The number of direct, short term casualties and collateral damage to US medical services were calculated for two thermonuclear attack scenarios: 1) 2,000 Russian warheads believed to be on high alert status today; and 2) a future Russian force of 500 warheads targeted in response to the deployment of a US National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The first scenario would cause 52 million prompt fatalities, 9 million injuries, and massive destruction of US health facilities. The second scenario produces more than 100 million casualties. Even with an effective US NMD systemdefined as capable of successfully intercepting more than 100 warheadsnearly 70 million fatalities would occur. M 2002;7:68-76. Since the early 1960s, the medical community has assumed responsibility for educating the population about the medical consequences of nuclear war.1-9 With the end of the Cold War, public concern about the threat of nuclear war and the dangers of nuclear weapons has waned. In fact, threats and dangers remain. Although there have been significant reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, there are still some 32,000 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals.10 Most disturbingly, approximately 2,000 Russian and 2,500 United States warheads are mounted on missiles on high alert status.11 After receiving their instructions to fire, US missiles can be launched within 15 minutes, and missile flight times between the Russian and the US land masses are estimated to be 25 minutes.12 Continued maintenance of these missiles on such hair-trigger alert increases not only the dangers of accidental or unauthorized launch, but also the risks of rapid, intentional initiation of full-scale nuclear war. In a well-publicized event on January 25, 1995, Russian military radar systems mistook the launch of a weather rocket from Norway for a possible missile attack. President Yeltsin was given five to ten minutes to decide if he should launch a retaliatory attack against the US.13 Two years later, Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov asserted, “Russia may soon approach a threshold beyond which its missiles and nuclear systems become uncontrollable.”14 Public debate in the US regarding nuclear policy is occurring in the absence of any published post-Cold War estimate of the expected casualties in the event of the large scale use of these weaponswhether by design or by accident. The Call for De-Alerting A 1998 study estimated that a limited accidental attack on the US, involving 64 warheads on a single Russian Delta IV submarine, could cause 6,838,000 prompt fatalities. The study called for the de alerting of US and Russian nuclear weapons.15 A number of different steps can be taken to de-alert these missiles, lengthening the time it takes to launch them. For example, the warheads or guidance systems can be physically removed from the missiles.12 In various forms, de-alerting has been urged by the [http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf] ;16 the [http://www.dfat.gov.au/cc/cchome.html] ;17 General George Lee Butler, commander of the US Strategic Command from 1991 to 1994, and 62 senior military colleagues from 17 nations;18 and other experts such as Sam Nunn, former chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee and Admiral Stansfield Turner, former Director of Central Intelligence.13,19,20 Numerous state medical associations have called for de-alerting, and in a September 7, 1999 letter to the President of the United States, the American Medical Association, citing the recommendations of General Butler, called on the President to “take the lead in developing such policies to minimize the danger of a nuclear catastrophe.” Despite these calls, neither the US nor Russian government has acted to de-alert these weapons. George W. Bush has called for major reductions in the US and Russian arsenals. Reportedly, after his first briefing as President on US nuclear forces Bush was stunned. “I had no idea we had so many weapons,” he said. “What do we need them for?” But even the most ambitious reductions proposed by his administration still leave some 2,000 warheads in each arsenal, and these reductions would not actually occur for up to 10 years even if agreement were reached immediately. Nuclear Attacks With and Without NMD In this paper, therefore, the authors first calculate the medical consequences of an attack on the United States by the force of 2,000 Russian nuclear warheads currently believed to be on high alert status, and likely to remain so even with a new arms control agreement. Second, a near-term future scenario is examined involving the anticipated deterioration of Russian strategic nuclear forces over the next decade to a level below 1,000 warheads.21 In this second scenario, the Russians have targeted a postulated 500 weapons to attack major US population centers in response to the mitigating effects of a US National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The extent to which an NMD system of varying degrees of effectiveness could protect against the consequences of the attack is considered for two reasons. First, the US government is currently considering whether to deploy a [limited] multi-layered National Missile Defense system (NMD) because of the possibility that a “rogue” state might acquire the ability to launch a limited nuclear attack on the US at some point in the next 5-15 years. Such an attack, it is suggested, would involve fewer than 20 relatively small nuclear warheads.22 Proponents of NMD concede that even if the currently proposed system were to work it would not be able to protect against a large scale nuclear attack, but they hold out the possibility that future advances in technology might enable it to do so.23 Public support for NMD appears to be based in part on inflated expectations of what a missile defense system could do. A 1998 poll showed that 54% of Americans thought the US already had the ability to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.24 There is no evidence that the US public understands the level of civilian protection that an NMD system would or would not provide. Second, a US decision to proceed with a missile defense system appears to jeopardize the de alerting of US and Russian nuclear forces and further deep reductions in the arsenals of the two countries. Speaking to the Duma on the day it approved ratification of the START II treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the entire arms control regime could unravel were the US to build a missile defense system that violated the [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/1972/720526-abm.html] “I want to stress that, in this case, we will have the chance and we will withdraw not only from the START II Treaty, but from the whole system of treaties on the limitation and control of strategic and conventional weapons.”25 While the Bush Administration has tried to convince the Russian government to proceed with deep reductions even if the US proceeds with an NMD, it is not clear that they will be successful. After meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in August, Defense Minister Ivanov reaffirmed Russian opposition, stating that “The existing, multi-layered system of strategic security that exists in the world today fully meets Russian needs.” In the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center, Russian policy remains unclear. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Shanghai, President Putin indicated some willingness to accept further development of an NMD in return for cuts in both US and Russian nuclear arsenals. It is not clear if such a deal can be completed, and if it is, the remaining warheads would probably remain on high alert status. Ironically, US officials have encouraged continued high alert status by trying to persuade the Russians that they would not be threatened by an NMD system as long as they retained “large diversified arsenals of strategic offensive weapons,” maintained on high alert that permits “launch on warning.” Thus the current US position effectively encourages Russia to maintain thousands of warheads on hair-trigger alert.26 Methods The authors employed a multi-component computer program and set of databases developed by the [http://www.nrdc.org/] , the output from which includes the immediate mortality from blast, burn, and ionizing radiation for a given targeting scenario. US Targets for Russian Nuclear Weapons The first scenario considers an attack on the continental United States involving 2,000 550-kiloton Russian warheads delivered to their targets by SS-18 and SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).27 Each warhead is assumed to have a 25% chance of failing to explode on target because of technical problems, but the complex issues of warhead “fratricide” (the failure of a nuclear warhead to detonate due to the effects of nearby explosions) is not addressed, nor are the targeting logistics relating to “footprint size” (the maximum area within which targets could be reached by warheads independently targeted and released during the ballistic phase of the flight of a single ICBM). Actual Russian nuclear war plans are, of course, highly secret. More is known about the US war plan, the [http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/index.asp] . The US SIOP is constructed annually, and current guidance identifies four categories of major attack options (MAOs) which the US must be continuously prepared to execute against Russia. The MAOs range from attacks restricted to Russian military targets with cities excluded, to broader attacks on leadership, economic, and urban industrial targets.28 While the targets Russian nuclear war planners might choose cannot be known with certainty, this first scenario assumes a Russian attack similar in target categories to a comprehensive US MAO, with 1,249 discrete targets, some receiving multiple warheads. Summary information on the targeting is given in Table 1. The Counterforce Scenario In this first scenario, most of the Russian warheads (66%) are targeted at ICBM missile silos (550 targets) and launch control centers (55 targets) deployed at three bases: + F.E.Warren (150 Minuteman III and 50 MX missiles distributed over approximately 22,000 square kilometers (km2) at the intersection of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska); + Minot (150 Minuteman III missiles distributed over approximately 16,000 km2 in North Dakota); + Malmstrom (200 Minuteman III missiles distributed over approximately 30,000 km2 in Montana).29 Because both ICBM launch control centers and silos are designed to resist blast and other effects of a nuclear explosion, this calculation assumed two Russian warheads were detonated on each Minuteman III target and four warheads on each MX. More warheads were assigned to each MX target because these missiles carry up to ten highly accurate warheads each, whereas Minuteman III missiles carry fewer, less accurate warheads each. The height of burst at which a nuclear explosion occurs determines the nature and degree of its effects. In the first scenario, ground bursts were assigned to targets hardened to resist blast effects, and for less vulnerable targets a height of burst1,840 meterswas chosen that maximizes the radius of high crushing pressure [10 pounds per square inch (psi)]. At this height no local fallout is predicted to occur, in contrast to the ground bursts where significant fallout is calculated. Sixty of the electrical plants chosen as targets in this scenario contain nuclear reactors, but for this calculation the secondary impact of radioactive contamination from these destroyed plants, which would be substantial, was not assessed. The NMD Scenario The second scenario considers an attack on the continental United States by a Russian force of 500 550-kiloton warheads. The US is assumed to have deployed a missile defense system that can intercept incoming warheads. In response, the Russians have targeted their missiles on US population centers in order to maintain the ability to inflict unacceptable casualties. As with the first scenario, 25% of the 500 warheads are assumed to malfunction and a height of burst of 1,840 meters for all warheads is selected, resulting in no significant local fallout. Figure 1: Targets are shown for the 2,000-warhead scenario (filled circles) and for the 500 warhead scenario (open triangles). Map courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council. (Click on map for enlargement.) The 500 specific population targets for Russian nuclear weapons were selected as follows: a one square-kilometer population grid for the continental United States was computed using 1999 census data;30 for each one-square kilometer cell in that grid, the population within a 9.6 kilometer circle centered on the cell (i.e., the expected zone of mass fires, as discussed below) was summed; the cells were then rank-ordered according to the summed populations; and, finally, the 500 cells with the largest population sums were selected as targets under the constraint that the 9.6 kilometer circles around the selected cells did not overlap. The authors then examined the effects of an NMD capable of intercepting 10%, 20%, or 30% of these warheadsan operational capability that greatly exceeds current expectations for this technology. Figure 1 displays the locations of the targets for both the 2,000 warhead and the 500 warhead scenarios. Casualty Calculations Immediate fatalities are determined primarily by the area of anticipated fire storms generated by the nuclear explosions. Mass fires are assumed to ignite across the area exposed to 10 or more calories per square centimeter (cal/cm2), coalescing into giant firestorms with hurricane-force winds and average air temperatures above the boiling point of water. Within this area, the combined effects of superheated wind and toxic smoke would result in a death rate approaching 100%.31 Assuming 20 kilometers visibility, a 550-kt surface burst would create a thermal flux of 10 cal/cm2 to a distance of 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles). An air burst at 1,840 meters would create a thermal flux of 10 cal/cm2 to a distance of 9.6 kilometers (5.9 miles).32 To calculate casualties resulting from this attack at distances beyond the firestorm, a model was employed based on the experiences at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where injuries and deaths occurred even at relatively far distances from the ground zeroes (primarily as the result of indirect blast injury to persons inside wooden houses at the time of the attack). At Hiroshima, a 24.9% injury rate and a 2.1% fatality rate occurred for people living in the band of terrain exposed to overpressures of between 0.8 to 2.3 psi, and at Nagasaki a 9.5% injury rate and 1.1% fatality rate occurred in areas exposed to 1.0 to 2.7 psi.33 For a 550-kt explosion at 1,840 meters, overpressures of this magnitude occur in a band extending from 7.9 out to 15.4 kilometers from ground zero.32 Subtracting out the population living in the zone of 100% lethality due to firestorms, the same census data were used to calculate injuries and deaths based on the averaged probabilities for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Probabilities for overlapping zones were summed using the formula: (Combined probability of P1...PN) = 1-((1-P1)x(1-P2)x ... x(1-PN)). Fallout patterns were calculated with the K-Division Defense Nuclear Fallout Code, 3rd Edition, (KDFOC3) developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.34 The most probable wind velocities and directions for the continental United States in 2.5-degree latitude by 2.5-degree longitude cells for 15 elevations (from the surface to approximately 30 kilometers in altitude) for each month of the year were used for the fallout calculations.35 Fallout depends on the fraction of the explosive yield from fission reactions, and calculations were performed for fission fractions of 50% (the most commonly cited value) and 80%.36 Under the assumption that radioactive products from the explosions decay exponentially with a time constant of 1.2 hours,32 the dose rates two days after the explosion will be less than 1% of the initial dose rates, therefore health effects were computed for fallout dose rates integrated over the first 48 hours after the explosion. The sheltering factor, a factor by which the instantaneous dose rate is divided to account for the protection against fallout offered by various structure types, was varied between 1 (no sheltering), 4 (an average single-story, residential structure), 7 (an average multistory structure) and 40 (basement environments).37 Fallout casualties were calculated using probability functions for severe radiation sickness and mortality, choosing a conservative value of 4.5 Sieverts (Si) for the 50%-lethal dose.38 In this paper the authors have not attempted to calculate the additional long term and indirect casualties that would be expected. These include deaths from exposure; from epidemic disease with the breakdown of public sanitation and the widespread incidence of radiation induced immunosuppression; from starvation with the disruption of transportation and food distribution networks; from cancers induced by radiation exposure; and from the effects of widespread damage to the ecosystem. Previous studies have suggested that such deaths might exceed the direct casualties discussed in this study, but because they are less subject to precise calculation, they have not been considered further.1,8,39 Figure 2: Fallout patterns resulting from the 2,000 warhead scenario attacks against the 605 US missile silo and launch control center targets. The most probable wind patterns for the month of August were used for this calculation. The 48-hour integrated dose to unsheltered individuals is plotted. Figure courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council. (Click on map for enlargement.) Hospital Data Damage to the US hospital system was estimated using 1998-1999 data obtained from the American Hospital Association.40 From this database a total of 5,939 facilities in the continental United States (for which geographic coordinates were provided) were used in the calculation. Information fields included hospital name, city, state, latitude and longitude, beds, intensive care unit beds, burn unit beds, operating rooms, full-time-equivalent personnel, and full-time equivalent physicians and dentists. Results From the combined effects of blast, burns, and radiation, the attack by 2,000 warheads would cause 52 ± 2 million deaths and 9 ± 1 million injuries, even though it was primarily directed at military targets in sparsely populated areas. The goal of the first attack, to recall, was to destroy US military, political, and economic targets. In the 2,000-warhead scenario, there were 660 air bursts, many of which had overlapping zones of mass fires and blast damage because the distances separating some of the targets were less than the diameter of the zones. Because of this overlap, randomly removing 25% of the attacking warheads (due to malfunctions) does not correspondingly reduce the number of casualties by 25%. The standard deviations given above for the total numbers of killed and injured were largely determined by the effect of randomly removing 25% of attacking warheads averaged over multiple computer runs, and were less significantly determined by the input parameter variation for the fallout calculations, discussed below. Figure 2 displays the fallout patterns resulting from the nuclear explosions at the 605 US missile silo and launch control center targets (representing two thirds of the targets for the 2,000 warheads) for the most probable wind patterns for the month of August. Fallout calculations were computed for warhead fission fractions of 50% and 80%, for four values of the sheltering factor, and for each month of the year in order to understand the different variables. The standard deviations given in Table 2 are derived from monthly variations in wind speed and direction. Under the maximal assumption of high fission fraction (80%) and no sheltering, the resulting four million fallout casualties represent less than 10% of the total casualties from the 2,000-warhead scenario. The area of fallout zones in which a 50%-lethal dose occurs does not vary substantially by month, and decreases the greater the effective sheltering of the population. Figure 3: A map of the northeastern United States displaying the population targets for the 500 warhead scenario and the zones of mass fires and blast damage. Mass fire zones are shown in black. Outer zones of blast destruction are shown in dark gray. Figure courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council. In the second scenario, the US targets for 500 Russian nuclear weapons are chosen to maximize loss of life. If all 500 warheads detonated over their targets, a total of 132 million deaths and 8 million injuries are calculated to occur. Under the assumption that 25% of the warheads malfunction, the attack would produce a total of 97 ± 3 million deaths in mass fire zones, where the standard deviation was determined from the random removal of 125 of the attacking warheads. Figure 3 displays a map of the northeastern United States, showing population targets from the 500 warhead scenario with mass fire and blast zones. Somewhat unexpectedly, the mitigating effect of an NMD system does not reduce the number of fatalities by very much, as shown in Table 3. Even if almost one third of the warheads are intercepted, there are still potentially 100 million deaths and, on average, 68 million deaths in mass fire zones. Table 4 provides summary data on the impact of the two attacks on the US medical infrastructure. High percentages of beds, operating rooms, and personnel are destroyed in both scenarios by being inside the zones of the firestorms. Figure 4 shows the hospitals in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area along with zones of firestorms and outer destruction calculated in the 500 warhead scenario. Six explosions would destroy 37 hospitals, leaving 6 hospitals in a 50-km buffer zone around the area of firestorms with 531 beds to treat the 177,000 injured. A high incidence of severe burns is associated with nuclear explosions, but there would not be any burn beds available to assist the immediate survivors. Discussion Although some progress has been made in reducing the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, these calculations show that an attack with the remaining nuclear arsenals would still cause death and injury on an unimaginable scale, destroying as well 25-40% of the nation's medical infrastructure. Survivors would have little chance of receiving medical care. The 2,000 Russian warheads on high alert status pose an immediate and overwhelming threat to the population of the United States. A missile defense capable of successfully intercepting more than 100 attacking warheadsif such a system could be developeddoes not protect the American people from these weapons. Only by abolishing nuclear weapons altogether can the danger be eliminated. In the interim, the danger can be reduced substantially and almost immediately by taking Russian and US missiles off high alert status. Construction of an NMD will make it more difficult for this important step to be taken and to significantly reduce the number of nuclear weapons. As has been shown, a force even one fourth the size of the Russian arsenal now on alert can produce upwards of 100 million fatalities, satisfying any conceivable need for a nuclear deterrent. Figure 4: Map of the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area with nuclear explosive effects displayed from the 500 warhead scenario. Squares denote hospitals, black areas are mass fire zones and dark gray areas are zones of blast damage. Figure courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council. (Click on map for enlargement.) References 1. Ervin FR, Glazier JB, Arnow S, et al. Human and ecological effects in Massachusetts of an assumed thermonuclear attack on the United States. N Engl J Med 1962;226:1127-37. 2. Sidel VW, Geiger HJ, Lown B. The physicians role in the postattack period. N Engl J Med 1962;266:1137-45. 3. American Medical Association. Policies 520.999 and 520.997. Chicago: AMA. 1981. 4. Lown B, Chivian E, Muller J, Abrams H. The nuclear arms race and the physician. N Engl J Med 1981;304:726-9. 5. Cassel C, Jameton A. Medical responsibility and thermonuclear war. Ann Intern Med 1982;97:426-32. 6. Abrams HL. Medical resources after nuclear war: availability vs. need. JAMA 1984;252:653-8. 7. Relman AS. The physicians role in preventing nuclear war. N Engl J Med 1986;315:889-91. 8. World Health Organization. Effects of nuclear war on health and health services. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO. 1987. 9. Forrow L, Sidel VW. Medicine and nuclear war: from Hiroshima to mutual assured destruction to abolition 2000. JAMA 1998;280:456-461. 10. Norris RS, Arkin WM. NRDC nuclear notebook: global nuclear stockpiles 1945-2000. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2000;56:79. 11. Feiveson HA, Blair BG. How to lengthen the nuclear fuse. IEEE Spectrum. 2000;37(#3). 12. Blair BG, Feiveson HA, von Hippel FN. Taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Sci Am 1997;277:74-81. 13. Hall B. Overkill is not dead. New York Times Magazine. March 15, 1998. 14. Feiveson HA (ed). The nuclear turning point. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press. 1999. 15. Forrow L, Blair BG, Helfand I, et al. Accidental nuclear war-a post Cold War assessment. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1326-31. 16. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on International Security and Arms Control. The future of US nuclear weapons policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1997. 17. [http://www.dfat.gov.au/ dfat/cc/cchome.html] . Media release. Canberra and Sydney, Australia: Canberra Commission. August 14, 1996. 18. Statement on nuclear weapons by international generals and admirals. Washington, DC: Stimson Center. December 5, 1996. 19. Nunn S, Blair BG. From nuclear deterrence to mutual safety. Washington Post. June 22, 1997:C1. 20. Turner S. Caging the nuclear genie: an American challenge for global security. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. 1997. 21. Williams D. Russia to cut its nuclear stockpile; Putin decides to shift funds to rebuild conventional forces. Washington Post. August 13, 2000:A16. 22. Ballistic Missile Defense Office. NMD function summary (unclassified), Sheet 3. US Washington, DC. Department of Defense. 1999. 23. Spring B, Anderson JH. [http://www.heritage.org/issues/chap15.html] . Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. 2000. 24. Center for Security Policy. Missile defense poll. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy. August 1998. 25. Associated Press. Russia lawmakers OK START II. April 14, 2000. 26. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. [http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2000/mj00/ treaty_doc.html] Washington, DC: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 27. Cochran TB, Arkin WM, Norris RS Sands JI. Nuclear weapons databook, volume IV: Soviet nuclear weapons, New York: Harper and Row. 1989. 28. Arkin WM, Kristensen H. The post cold war SIOP and nuclear warfare planning: a glossary, abbreviations, and acronyms. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council. January 1999. 29. START I Memorandum of Understanding. 30. Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI data and maps. Tracts - Pop1999. Redlands, CA: ESRI. 1999: Vol. 2. 31. Postol TA. Possible fatalities from superfires following nuclear attacks in or near urban areas. In: Solomon F, Marston RQ (eds). The medical implications of nuclear war. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1986. 32. US Defense Nuclear Agency. Defense Nuclear Agency effects manual number 1: capabilities of nuclear weapons. Headquarters, Defense Nuclear Agency, July 1, 1972 (declassified and released February 13, 1989). 33. Glasstone S, Dolan PJ. The effects of nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: US Departments of Defense and Energy. 1977. 34. Ljung P, Nyren K. Nuclear fallout simulation using KDFOC3, Foersvarets Forskningsanstalt, UMEA (Sweden). May 1994. 35. National Climactic Data Center. Global gridded upper air statistics, 1980-1995, version 1.1. Asheville, North Carolina: NCDC. March 1996. 36. Cochran TB, Arkin WM, Hoenig MM. Nuclear weapons databook volume I: US nuclear forces and capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 1984. 37. Harvey TF, Shapiro CS, Wittler RF. Local fallout risk after a major nuclear attack on the USA (UCRL-102444). Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. January 1990. 38. Fujita S, Kato H, Schull WJ. The LD50 associated with exposure to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: a review and reassessment (RERF TR 17-87). Hiroshima: Radiation Effects Research Foundation. 1987. 39. Abrams HL, Von Kaenel WE. Medical problems of survivors of nuclear war: infection and the spread of communicable diseases. N Engl J Med 1981;305:1226-32. 40. Health Forum LLC/American Hospital Association. AHA annual survey database (FY 1998). Chicago, IL: AHA. 1998. Acknowledgments This work was supported by generous contributions from: the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the John Merck Fund, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. IH is an emergency physician at the Department of Emergency Medicine, Cooley Dickinson Hospital, Northampton, Mass USA; LF is Associate Professor of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass USA; MMcC is Professor, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland OR USA; RKM is Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC USA. Address correspondence to [ihelfand@igc.org] , MD Cooley Dickinson Hospital, 30 Locust Street, Northampton, MA 01061-5001 USA. Copyright © 2001 by Physicians for Social Responsibility [http://www.ippnw.org] ***************************************************************** 48 Maralinga: The Clean-Up of a Nuclear Test Site Medicine &Global Survival [alanpark@ozemail.com.au] Abstract Plutonium and uranium fallout from 15 nuclear tests conducted by the British government between 1961 and 1963 contaminated Aboriginal lands. Although the British government declared the Maralinga site safe following a 1967 cleanup, surveys in the 1980s proved otherwise, prompting a new cleanup project. Conflicts of interest, cost-cutting measures, shallow burials of radioactive waste, and other management “compromises” have left hundreds of square kilometers of Aboriginal lands contaminated and unfit for rehabitation. M 2002;7:77-81. Claims that the clean-up of Maralinga is not to world's best practice are not well founded.” So said Dr. John Loy, CEO of the Australian nuclear regulatory organization, the [http://www.arpansa.gov.au/] .1 This is a bold claim worth comparing with the outcome of the project. The Cause of the Contamination Maralinga is a tract of Aboriginal land in the state of South Australia that was commandeered by the Australian government to be used by Britain for the development of atomic bombs. The Australian government had its own aspirations to possess nuclear weapons and perhaps hoped that this would be an avenue for their acquisition.2, 3 Seven atomic bombs were exploded at [http://www.naa.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets/FS129.html] perhaps 25% to 30% of the plutonium in those devices would have been fissioned. The remainder would have been spread around the ground zeroes, or carried into the air to be deposited later as fallout. Many development trials were also conducted at three sites within MaralingaTaranaki, TM, and Wewak. Those at the two latter sites resulted in plutonium spread over relatively small areas but a series of trials at Taranaki, code named Vixen B, were much more damaging. There were 15 Vixen B trials, all conducted in the period from 1961 to 1963. In twelve of the tests, both plutonium and uranium were in the radioactive mix; the other three contained only uranium. In each trial, a nuclear device was placed on a large steel structure known as a featherbed, erected on a concrete firing pad. The device was detonated in a manner that prevented a nuclear explosion. The heat of the explosion melted the plutonium and uranium and shot radioactive debris up to 1,000 meters into the air, where it was caught by the wind and spread far and wide. The featherbeds were severely damaged and contaminated and were buried along with the firing pads. Following these tests, hundreds of tons of contaminated steel, concrete, and other items were reported to have been buried in 21 shallow pits at Taranaki, and hundreds of square kilometers of land were contaminated with plutonium and uranium. In 1967, the British conducted Operation Brumbya “final” cleanup of the site. The Australian government accepted that, except for some small fenced “islands,” the site was clean and absolved Britain of any further responsibility. Surveys in the 1980s by the Australian Radiation Laboratory showed that the site was far from clean and safe and their findings led eventually to the latest cleanup project.4 The Planned Cleanup The Taranaki nuclear test site. Photo courtesy of Alan Parkinson. From its inception, the nuclear industry has had problems with worker and public safety and with environmental degradation. Too often these problems have been caused by ineffective management, cost-cutting measures, or ineffective regulation. The Maralinga project reflects all three of these factors. The public servants responsible for the last years of the project had no background in radiation or project management, as is illustrated by several statements they made on the public record, asking, for example, what was meant by alpha radiation, or how to convert a milliSievert (a unit of radiation dose) to a picoCurie (a unit of radioactivity), or claiming that soda ash is neutralized by limestone.5-7 Project records also reveal suggestions by ARPANSA (e.g., encasing the debris in concrete) to which the contractor objected on the grounds that they would be difficult to implement. The recommendations were then dropped5-7 despite the principle that the regulator should stipulate requirements, not make suggestions. Responsibility for the cleanup was vested in the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries &Energy (later Industry, Science &Resources). ARPANSA was contracted to the Department, so was not independentanother failing. The plan was generally along the lines of a scheme that had been developed some years earlier8 and from the beginning was intended to be a partial cleanup, which was a compromise. The more contaminated soil was to be scraped up and buried and some pits were to be exhumed and the contents buried more securely. The pits at Taranaki were to be treated by a process of in situ vitrification (ISV). ISV uses electricity to turn the soil and pit contents into a hard, glass-like rock, which contains and immobilizes the plutonium for thousands of years. The process has to be tailored for each site, and the Australian government signed a contract with Geosafe, Inc. in the US to match the technology to the Maralinga geology. Setting Cleanup Standards The criteria to be met after the contaminated soil was removed were set at a meeting of half of the Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee (MARTAC), which was established to advise the Minister on the project. Each member of the Committee was contracted to the Department. At Taranaki, the criteria were to remove soil until the surface reading was less than 3kBq (Am-241) per m2. Variations in the ratio of plutonium to americium led to slightly different criteria for the other sites. There were also criteria for the removal of contaminated fragments and particles of plutonium, thereafter referred to by ARPANSA as MARTAC criteria. MARTAC also prepared some draft criteria for the ISV product, but these were not incorporated into the contract with Geosafe. Removal and Burial of Contaminated Soil The removal and burial of soil was a simple civil engineering exercise with an overlay of health physics to protect the workers. Contaminated soil was collected by large scrapers and placed in trenches up to 16 meters deep. The top of the contaminated soil was no higher than three meters below the ground surface and was then covered by at least five meters of clean soil. Dust was a major problem and its suppression at Taranaki was not satisfactory, with the result that thousands of tons of contaminated soil simply blew away. With a change of approach, dust suppression during soil removal at the other two sites was excellent. Nineteen of the 21 pits at Taranaki were reported to have been covered by concrete caps. As the soil was removed, however, a huge amount of plutonium-contaminated debris was uncovered outside the pits. Much of the debris was covered by only a few centimeters of soil. One cap was about one fifth of the required size and another was several meters away from the pit. The impact of this discovery was that the ISV project would have to be expanded so that all the debris could be treated, at increased cost. Change of Management Structure The project management structure was changed in mid 1997. The company that had been awarded the contract to manage the earlier parts of the project was purchased by another company (GHD) that had not made the final six considered for the project management contract. Before the end of 1997, GHD persuaded the Department that it should manage the whole of the project, not just the part that it had purchased. Three meetings were held in secret between GHD and the Department to discuss this takeover. The participants at these meetings were two people from the Department whose only knowledge of ISV was one half-hour visit to see some of the equipment, and two people from GHD who did not have even that meager knowledge. The Commonwealth’s Representative overseeing the whole project was excluded. The most expensive and most complex part of the whole project was decided by four people who were totally ignorant of what was involved. There are no notes of these meetings on record. The outcome was that GHD was appointed both Project Manager and Project Authority even though the company was not qualified for either position. At the same time, the Commonwealth’s Representative was removed from the project. So the Department had no one in either its own ranks or on the project manager’s team with any knowledge of ISV. This was a recipe for disaster. Treatment of Contaminated Debris All of the Taranaki pits were to have been treated by ISV and a contract for this work was placed with Geosafe. Initially the 21 pits would have required 26 “melts” but, with the discovery of the large amount of debris outside the pits, the whole project would require 40 melts. The ISV equipment was built and tested and was transported to site at the beginning of 1998. Treatment of pits started in May of that year. At that point, the absence of ISV expertise within both the Department and GHD became even more apparent. Into this vacuum stepped the Minister’s advisory committee MARTAC, which met only three or four times a year. This committee had expectations and requirements that were not contractual and were constantly changing. Moreover, the government at this time was seeking ways to reduce the cost of the project and adopted a hybrid scheme in which eight pits would be exhumed and the contents sorted. Some debris would be vitrified in a specially prepared “pod” and the remainder simply buried. The strange thing was that sorting was done by size, not level of radioactivity, so highly radioactive particles would be buried while slightly contaminated debris would be vitrified. Another peculiar aspect of the ISV part of the project was that ten melts had been completed before agreement was reached on any acceptance criteria, and even then the criteria were rather impractical since some could not be confirmed. It was quite clear in early 1998 that problems were looming for the project. This was relayed to the then Minister, Senator Parer, but no action was taken.9 As treatment of Pit 17 (the eleventh melt of the series) was nearing completion, there was an explosion within the melt that severely damaged the equipment and spewed molten glass some 50 meters from the pit. The Department used this incident as an excuse to cancel the ISV contract after having spent 40% of the project budget on the scheme. This decision was taken long before the investigation of the incident was complete. The Department claimed that it could not be sure that the cause of the accident was not due to the process,10 but both the report of the investigation and the audit of that report agreed that the cause was something in the pit, not the process.11 Although the government claims that the project was conducted in full consultation with the South Australian Government and the Maralinga Tjarutja, this decision and other key decisions were made without any consultation.12 Once vitrification had been abandoned, all debris from the pits that had not been treated was placed in a shallow trench, covered with the solidified vitrified material and then covered with only two meters of soil to grade, with a further three meters of soil above grade. There is no reliable record of what has been buried. Nine firing pads reported by Carter13 to be contaminated with up to 1 kg of plutonium are not mentioned in the report of burials.14 The Department has claimed that burial is a safe disposal method consistent with “the Code.”15 This was the first time that the Code had been mentioned in relation to the project. When three of the five authors said that it was not applicable (the other two were Commonwealth public servants and would not comment), the Department claimed that it did not have to follow the Code but had chosen to do so.16 It made this statement despite the fact that not a single requirement of that Code was satisfied. The government claimed that cost played no part in the decision to opt for burial of the debris. Senator Minchin said: “Can I refute the scurrilous suggestion which I see floating around in the media that suggests that this decision was made on cost grounds.”16 This is at odds with the statement: “The recent consideration of alternative treatments for ISV for these outer pits has arisen as a result of the revised estimate for ISV being considerably above the project budget.”17 The Department also claimed that ISV was abandoned because the amount of plutonium in the pits was less than expected. In fact it was very close to what was assessed at the MARTAC meeting of November 1995,18 seven months before the contract for ISV was signed.19,20 This and many other misleading or incorrect statements by the Minister and his Department were exposed.21 Since the explosion at Maralinga, the world license for the technology has been purchased by the very large engineering firm Amec, which has been awarded contracts by the US Department of Energy to treat pits containing plutonium debris. There is also keen interest in the technology in several European countries and in Australia. Cost of the Cleanup The budget for the cleanup was $Aust 104.4 million (1994 dollars), of which about half was an ex gratia payment by Britain. The British contribution was a mere pittance compared with what it cost to spread the contamination in the first place. If an oil tanker runs aground and its contents are spilled, the owners face huge fines and are required to pay for the cleanup. In the case of the oil tanker, the contamination is accidental. In the case of Maralinga, the contamination was deliberate. Moreover, had the plutonium debris been returned to Britain, the authorities would not have allowed disposal to be undertaken in the same way as was done at Maralinga; the contaminated material would have been placed in a concrete-lined vault. The Outcome Dr. Loy was incorrect in saying that the Maralinga cleanup project represented the “world’s best practice.” The project was a compromise from the beginning and was never intended to be a total cleanup. There are still hundreds of square kilometers of land contaminated with plutonium. The government says that all but 120 km2 are now safe, but this is misleading. What they mean is that 120 km2 of land are still contaminated above 3 kBq Am-241/m2. At that level, an Aboriginal living a semi-traditional lifestyle would receive an effective dose of 5 mSv/a (five times that allowed for a member of the public). Within the 120 km2, the effective dose would be up to 13 times greater. The plutonium-contaminated debris is buried in a bare hole in the ground in limestone and dolomite which exhibits many cracks and fissures, with only two meters of cover to grade. Even burial at a greater depth would be an improvement. At least one member of MARTAC and the regulator at ARPANSA have admitted that encasement in concrete would be an improvement. And every member of MARTAC has agreed that vitrification is a far superior solution.22 What has been done at Maralinga in the burial of long-lived, plutonium-contaminated debris can be compared with the government’s plans for the disposal of other radioactive waste. After several years searching for a site with suitable geology, the government recently selected one for the disposal of short-lived, low-level waste and the storage of short-lived, medium-level waste. The low-level waste is to be packaged in drums and placed in a disposal facility with a solid base and then covered by several impervious layers. If such precautions are necessary for short-lived wastes, the disposal of long-lived wastes in a bare hole in the ground in totally unsuitable geology at Maralinga cannot possibly be “world’s best practice.” In July 2001, the Department issued a discussion paper23 addressing the safe storage of radioactive waste. In two places in that paper, the Department states that long-lived low- and intermediate-level waste is not suitable for near-surface disposal, and yet that is exactly what they have done at Maralinga. Concluding Comment The Aboriginals wish to return to the land, provided it is safe to do so. They have been advised that some of the land is not suitable for permanent occupation and 450 km2 is encircled by boundary markers to remind them that this is so. The boundary markers might have a life of 50 years, but half of the plutonium will still be there in 24,000 years. Whoever accepts responsibility for the site should recognize that they will have to rely for several thousand years on assurances from a government that has not kept to agreements made only ten years ago. References 1. Loy J. [http://www.arpansa.gov.au/arp_news.htm#mar] (media release). Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). April 17, 2000. 2. Reynolds W. Australia’s bid for the atomic bomb. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 2001. 3. Cawte A. Atomic Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. 1992. 4. Lokan KH (ed). Residual radioactive contamination at Maralinga and Emu, 1985. Australian Radiation Laboratory, ARL/TR070. April 1985. 5. Hearings before the (Australian) Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. May 2, 2000. 6. Hearings before the (Australian) Senate Economics Legislation Committee. May 3, 2000. 7. Parkinson A. Submission to the Senate inquiry into the contract for a new reactor at Lucas Heights. September 2000. 8. Department of Primary Industries &Energy. Rehabilitation of former nuclear test sites in Australia. Report by the Technical Assessment Group. Canberra. 1990. 9. Letter to Senator Parer, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (personal communication). May 31, 1998. 10. Minchin N. [http://www.isr.gov.au/media] (media release). April 17, 2000. 11. Geosafe Australia. Investigation into the explosion during treatment of pit 17 at Maralinga. GSC-030101. Adelaide. June 2001. 12. Minutes of the Consultative Group Meeting. June 23, 1999. 13. Carter RF. Residual plutonium contamination at the former Maralinga range in South Australia, a preliminary note. AWRE, Aldermaston. June 1985. 14. Maralinga project pit exhumations, plutonium inventory in the burial trenches. Project Report by CH2M Hill. August 1, 1999. 15. Code of practice for the near-surface disposal of radioactive waste in Australia. Radiation Health Series No 35. Australian Government Publishing Service. 1992. 16. Minchin N. [http://www.isr.gov.au/media] (media release). May 1, 2000. 17. Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee. Cost comparison for treatment of outer pits (paper prepared for the 12th meeting of MARTAC). October 1998. 18. Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee. Minutes of MARTAC meeting. November 1995. 19. Parkinson A. Maralinga: clean-up or cover-up? Australasian Science 2000;21:16. 20. Parkinson A. Maralinga rehabilitation project. Presentation at national conference, Medical Association for Prevention of War. Canberra. August 6, 2000. 21. Parkinson A. Maralinga rehabilitation project, dissection of statements made by the Minister or his department. September 2001. (Unpublished; available from author). 22. Notes of the Consultative Group Meeting, 8 May 1999. 23. Department of Industry, Science &Resources. [http://www.isr.gov. au/radwaste.html] The National Store Project: Methods for Choosing the Right Site. A Public Discussion Paper, July 2001. AP is a mechanical and nuclear engineer who, in 1989, developed some 30 options for rehabilitation of the Maralinga atomic bomb test site. In August 1994, he was appointed the Government’s Representative to oversee the whole of the cleanup project and was also a member of the government’s advisory committee (MARTAC). In December 1997, he was removed from both appointments for questioning the management of the project. Address correspondence to [alanpark@ozemail.com.au] , PO Box 415, Hawker, ACT 2614, Australia. Additional Resources [http://www.ippnw.org] and the [http://www.ieer.org] have published three books on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing and the contamination of nuclear test sites. They are [http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWBooks.html#RadHeaven] (1991); [http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWBooks.html#Plutonium] (1992); and [http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWBooks.html#Nuclear] . For more information, contact IPPNW or visit . [http://www.ippnw.org] ***************************************************************** 49 DOE science nominee faces few questions United Press International: By Scott R. Burnell UPI Science News Published 2/26/2002 12:05 PM WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The Senate Energy Committee gave a warm welcome Tuesday to Raymond Orbach, the Bush administration's nominee to head the Department of Energy's Office of Science. Orbach, a physics professor and chancellor of the University of California at Riverside, would become the primary science adviser to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The office funds and oversees one of the government's broadest portfolios of basic research projects; the Human Genome Program started there. "The scientific community today is charged with responsibilities as serious as any in our nation's history," Orbach told the committee. "It is imperative that both our educational and research programs be at the highest level." Orbach's nomination is practically noncontroversial, said Sen. Diane Feinstein; she and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the committee chairman, were the only members present for the hearing. Bingaman supports the nomination, and said Sen. Frank Murkowksi, R-Alaska, the committee's ranking member, was submitting similar comments in writing. DOE's vast research efforts, which form the basis for important programs such as environmental cleanup, compete for limited funds, Feinstein said, and asked Orbach how he would set priorities for particular projects. "Recognizing the limitations in the budget the department faces, I'll work with the scientific community and Congress to establish priorities and them champion them within the department," Orbach said. With so many areas of study offering great promise, Orbach said, he'll try to achieve the most equitable balance of funding possible. Feinstein asked how Orbach might deal with the struggle between proper security and academic curiosity at the nation's nuclear weapons labs. The labs must continue exchanging scientific information amongst themselves and outside researchers to keep the programs going, Orbach said, but detailed management of the process must continue to preserve security. DOE faces several challenges in the area of nuclear power, including the controversial proposal to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain and cleanup efforts at Washington state's Hanford nuclear reservation. Orbach told United Press International that, if approved, he expects the office will continue providing assistance in these and other areas of DOE activity. Committee staff told UPI they expect the nomination to reach the Senate floor this week. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 50 Livermore Lab seeks input on director search Tri-Valley Herald Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 3:06:52 AM MST Public comment session Monday By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - -->LIVERMORE -- The first public comment session in the search for a new Lawrence Livermore Laboratory director will be held from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 4, in a classroom at the east side of the lab. The session will take place in Classroom 7 of the Department of Applied Science building at the lab's east entrance, off of Greenville Road between Patterson Pass Road and East Avenue. Those who wish to speak during the public comment period can register in advance by calling the UC Regents Office of the Secretary at (510) 987-9220 or by registering in person outside of the meeting room at least one hour before the meeting begins. "Speakers will have up to three minutes each to comment on points and qualities they think the committee should consider in evaluating candidates for the laboratory director's position," UC officials said in an announcement this week. Jeff Garberson, a UC spokesman, said Monday that dates have not yet been set for other public meetings. University of California officials are planning to conduct a series of meetings at the laboratory to gather input in the selection of a new director to replace C. Bruce Tarter, who announced Dec. 7 that he will step down when a replacement is hired. Livermore Lab is operated by UC for the U.S. Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. Two UC search committees have been formed to assist the selection process: an advisory committee to interview candidates and a steering committee to narrow the list of candidates. Advisory committee members will attend the public session and then hold a closed session to "hear from a range of invited speakers such as business and community leaders, laboratory managers, employees and employee groups and government officials," UC officials said. There are 14 members on the advisory committee, including UC President Richard C. Atkinson; John P. McTague, vice president of laboratory management for UC; Harold Graboske, outgoing associate director for Chemistry and Materials Science at Livermore Lab; and Cynthia Nitta, group leader for the lab's Defense and Nuclear Technologies program. Atkinson will recommend a candidate for lab director, and that recommendation will be considered by UC Regents and managers of the Energy Department and National Nuclear Security Administration. Written comments can be sent to the advisory committee at the following address: University of California, Office of the President, Attn: LLNL Director Search, 1111 Franklin St., Room 12408, Oakland, CA 94607. A map of the meeting site is available on the Web at http://etec.ucdavis.edu/location.html [HTTP://etec.ucdavis.edu/location.html] . ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 51 Nuclear security agency delivers progress report Tri-Valley Herald Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 3:07:15 AM MST By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - -->Although an Energy Department nuclear security agency established two years ago has evolved, its continuing transformation will likely be "a long and arduous process," a federal official said Tuesday during congressional testimony. Administrators for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-independent agency formed to strengthen security and accountability at a group of nuclear weapons labs and production sites, released a reorganization plan Monday that proposes to streamline some operations. That plan was originally expected to be released October 2001. John A. Gordon, who leads the security agency, and Gary Jones, associate director of natural resources and environment for the General Accounting Office, presented testimony to a congressional oversight panel Tuesday on the progress and pitfalls of the agency. The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. Gordon, in written testimony to the Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization, said NNSA is launching a campaign to eliminate some layers of federal management, "reduce the overall number of federal employees and correct skills mismatches." He said workers who are not performing "core functions" will be retrained or sent to work at other sites, "and we will use incentives to encourage higher-than-average attrition, career development, training, and retention of highly skilled employees." A reduction in workers is expected at the Energy Department's regional office in Oakland, as some workers may be reassigned to work on-site at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a department spokesman said Monday. The reorganization calls for a shift of some administrative functions now performed at regional offices to lab and production site offices. Jones said in her written testimony that a GAO preliminary analysis of the NNSA reorganization strategy has found "some positive features as well as some important weaknesses." Unless there are proper chains of command and accountability within the NNSA, "this reorganization could be simply another in a long line of missed opportunities," she stated. Jones said that there appears to be a pattern in NNSA plans to manage weapons-science work at its headquarters. "This is problematic," she stated, noting that "inadequate oversight" by headquarters managers contributed to major cost and schedule problems with the National Ignition Facility laser project at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. --->There are positive steps in the new NNSA plan, Jones said. The plan in some ways reduces administrative overlap by separate offices and sheds some bureaucracy. But "most fundamentally, NNSA's proposal represents only an overall plan of action, and ironing out the details and implementing the proposed new structure is likely to be a long and arduous process." Gordon said in testimony that the NNSA reorganization plan is essentially a plan for assigning roles and responsibilities, both at headquarters and among its eight nuclear sites across the country. The planned realignment is expected to be fully implemented before the end of the calendar year, he said. A goal of the reorganization is to establish more direct lines of authority that will make lab and production plant contractors "directly accountable for achieving the results required to achieve our mission," he stated. ©1999-2001 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG ***************************************************************** 52 Flats deadline on verge of going critical Rocky Mountain News: Local Shipping plutonium must begin soon, officials warn By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer Rocky Flats manager Barabara Mazurowski said Monday she is concerned the defunct nuclear weapons plant won't close in 2006 unless plutonium shipments start soon. Mazurowski said she has heard that Department of Energy officials are drafting the paperwork to begin shipments of the radioactive material to a facility in South Carolina. But, Mazurowski said, "Until I see a . . . truck roll up here and we start loading it, and I know that truck is going to South Carolina, I am still very cautiously concerned here." Mazurowski's comments came after elected leaders from seven cities and counties charged that the cleanup has "moved backwards" because of changes in the shipping plans. In a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the local officials urged him to begin the shipments in March. The company coordinating the cleanup has said the plutonium must start moving in the spring to meet the goal of closing the plant by Dec. 15, 2006. Abraham and President Bush have assured Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., that the plant will close by the target date. But the Energy Department has been embroiled in a dispute with South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, who doesn't want the plutonium brought to his state unless the Energy Department has a plan to move it to a final resting place elsewhere. Abraham announced in January that the plutonium will be turned into fuel for nuclear reactors, a strategy that would create numerous jobs in South Carolina. But since then, the Energy Department has not issued the 30-day notice necessary to begin the shipments, worrying local leaders. Also alarming local leaders is the disposition of about a ton of plutonium that is not pure enough to be made into nuclear fuel. Mazurowski said a long-awaited report on plutonium disposition went to Congress on Feb. 15. The report is a precursor to the 30-day notice. The plutonium is stored in one of the strongest buildings at Rocky Flats. The building can't be decontaminated and demolished until the plutonium is out. The cleanup is slightly ahead of schedule and slightly under budget, Mazurowski said. "But every day we don't ship, we're eating into that reserve," she said. "The longer we go without being able to initiate and sustain regular shipments of our plutonium, the harder it's going to be to meet the 2006 closure date." Contact Berny Morson at (303) 892-5072 or morsonb@RockyMountainNews.com. February 26, 2002 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 53 Rocky Flats manager waits for shipments Rocky Mountain News: Local By The Associated Press The manager of Rocky Flats remains concerned that the defunct nuclear weapons plant won't close by 2006 unless it starts shipping out plutonium soon. The Energy Department plans to send the radioactive material to South Carolina, where the plutonium would be converted into fuel for nuclear reactors. But Rocky Flats manager Barbara Mazurowski said "Until I see a ... truck roll up here and we start loading it, and I know that truck is going to South Carolina, I am still very cautiously concerned here." South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges has balked at receiving the shipments unless the Energy Department has a clear plan to move it to a final resting place elsewhere. He planned to meet with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today. The company coordinating the Rocky Flats cleanup has said the plutonium must start moving this spring for the plant to close as planned Dec. 15, 2006. With spring approaching, the Energy Department still has not issued the 30-day notice necessary to begin the shipments. Local leaders also are concerned about the disposition of about a ton of plutonium that is not pure enough to be made into nuclear fuel. A report that is a precursor to the 30-day notice went to Congress on Feb. 15, Mazurowski said. Abraham and President Bush have assured Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., the plant will close on time. The plutonium is stored in one of the strongest buildings at Rocky Flats. The building can't be decontaminated and demolished until the plutonium is out. The cleanup so far is slightly ahead of schedule and slightly under budget, although that could change if shipments are delayed, Mazurowski said. "The longer we go without being able to initiate and sustain regular shipments of our plutonium, the harder it's going to be to meet the 2006 closure date," she said. February 26, 2002 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 54 S.C. Govenor Hodges wants plutonium plans Charlotte Observer | 02/26/2002 | Posted on Tue, Feb. 26, 2002 JENNIFER HOLLAND Associated Press COLUMBIA - Gov. Jim Hodges hopes U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has some answers for him today when they meet about the federal government's plan to ship plutonium to South Carolina. "I'm going to affirm our position that before plutonium is shipped we must have a definite exit strategy for the plutonium," Hodges said. "I don't expect them to be resolved tomorrow, but I do expect progress to be made." Hodges, who is in Washington, D.C., this week for the Southern Governors' Association meeting, has been working for months to ensure the plutonium would not be left in South Carolina permanently. The governor has threatened to block the borders and refuse the shipments until he gets a clear timetable from the federal government on when the shipments will arrive and when they will leave. The U.S. Department of Energy says it will ship the high-level waste from a former nuclear weapons plant in Rocky Flats, Colo., to South Carolina, where the plutonium will be converted into fuel for nuclear reactors. The federal government has said it will finance a $3.8 billion plutonium reprocessing plant at the Savannah River Site near Aiken. Abraham has said any plutonium that could not be converted would not be sent to South Carolina to appease Hodges, who fears the radioactive waste would be abandoned in his state. "We have made some progress in the past couple of months," Hodges said. "But we need this in writing, we need some timetables so that if two or three years down the road if you don't fulfill your promises we have a way to give your plutonium back." Hodges was among governors from 18 states and U.S. territories who met with President Bush for about an hour on Monday. Hodges said he didn't talk plutonium with Bush. Instead, the president talked about homeland security, welfare reform, highway funding and the economy, Hodges said. The southern governors also met with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Federal Emergency Management Agency director Joe Allbaugh and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson about homeland security and bioterrorism. "It was very informative and I had a chance to talk about ways in which we could work better together to try to keep South Carolina safe and our country safe," Hodges said. Ridge urged the governors to plan ways to help each other in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack. Hodges said he was pleased to be one of the first states to form a regional compact with North Carolina in December and is talking with Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes about "ways in which we can work on that border together to try and address safety concerns." ***************************************************************** 55 U.S. check of nuclear site sought Anchorage Daily News "> AMCHITKA: State requests federal help in looking for radiation leaks from tests. By Don Hunter Anchorage Daily News (Published: February 27, 2002) The state's top environmental official is making a pitch today to the U.S. Department of Energy to persuade agency officials to pay to send teams of scientists to see if Amchitka Island is leaking radioactive substances into the Bering Sea. Michele Brown, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, asked DOE last August to fund the tests, but was turned down. State officials, Aleut residents of islands near Amchitka and a panel of scientists say long-term studies and monitoring are needed to determine if radioactive materials from underground atomic tests conducted more than three decades ago have begun to leak into the ocean and its ecosystems. "The question of contamination is not if, it's when," said Brown, who is in Washington, D.C., for a meeting on children's health issues and used the opportunity to schedule a meeting with DOE assistant secretary Jessie Roberson. The island may not leak for hundreds or thousands of years, but it also could be leaking now, according to Brown and a panel of scientists studying Amchitka's nuclear legacy. "There is no emergency, in the sense that there's no measurement that indicates leakage. But on the other hand there's a kind of appalling ignorance because there has not been any serious monitoring there for many years," said John Eichelberger, a volcanologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Energy Department officials repeatedly have said they want to complete a computer-driven risk analysis based on information collected on Amchitka years ago before planning an on-site monitoring program. That analysis, originally expected to be complete this spring, now has been pushed back to September, Energy officials at the agency's Nevada Operations Office said Tuesday. They blamed budget cuts, which they said also have forced the deferral of other Amchitka work. "Basically, we got a 30-some percent projected cut from our budget," said Runore Wycoff, director of the environmental restoration division that is overseeing the Amchitka work. "It affects all our programs, not just Amchitka." Scientists on a panel of university and nuclear hazard experts that met in Fairbanks this month say the kind of analysis the department is now doing relies on data that likely is outdated and unreliable. "There was a strong consensus that data is not in hand on which to make decisions about," Eichelberger said. When the atomic tests at Amchitka were planned and executed in the 1960s and early 1970s, far less was understood about the fundamental geology in Alaska and along the Aleutian Chain, Eichelberger said. Earthquakes rattle the Aleutians regularly. So it is likely that faults and fissures have developed in the 31 years since the last of the atomic tests, a 5-megaton Spartan warhead called Cannikin, was detonated in a mile-deep pit. Radiation-contaminated groundwater could escape through such faults and fissures into the surrounding sea, potentially contaminating subsistence food sources or fish taken by commercial trawlers, Brown and the scientists say. Residents of other Aleutian islands for years have pressed for tests of subsistence staples like seals and fish, largely through the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Association. Brown and others say commercial fish species also should be sampled for contaminants. "Alaska produces over 50 percent of the nation's seafood," Brown said in a speech to the science panel this month. "My agency inspects it for wholesomeness and we are increasingly being asked about contaminants, particularly by overseas buyers." "Leakage from Amchitka would affect international fishing stocks, harming multiple communities dependent on the ocean for subsistence, sustenance and jobs." There is no sign that radiation from Amchitka has tainted either subsistence foods or commercial fisheries. But in the absence of tests and monitoring, concerns can linger. "It would be nice to get a clean bill of health for crabs and fish in the area," said Carl Hild, deputy director of the Institute for Circumpolar Health at the University of Alaska Anchorage and a facilitator at the Fairbanks meeting. Eichelberger, Hild and the other members of the panel -- it's called the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, or CRESP -- will continue developing a science plan for monitoring Amchitka. If the federal agency comes forward with funding, the plan will be ready. If it does not, the scientists will use the plan to try to persuade other agencies to finance the work. "Here we are, 30 years post-test, and it's fading from people's memories," Hild said, making it more difficult to secure funding "or even getting people to think about it." And yet the radioactivity buried under Amchitka will be dangerous for 1,000 years or more. "The history of the United States is 1 percent of the half-life of the most common isotope of plutonium," Eichelberger said. "Not only are human lifetimes short by comparison, but the most successful human institutions don't exist in these kinds of units of time. "There's the idea we have to do the best job we can and put the information about what's there in a form that can be passed on and understood by future generations and future institutions." Reporter Don Hunter can be reached at [dhunter@adn.com] or 907 257-4349. McClatchy Company Privacy Policy Copyright © 2002 [http://www.adn.com] ***************************************************************** 56 Rocky Flats wants plutonium out gazette.comcoloradosprings.com February 27, 2002 The Associated Press GOLDEN - The manager of Rocky Flats remains concerned the defunct nuclear weapons plant won't close by 2006 unless it starts shipping out plutonium soon. The Energy Department plans to send the radioactive material to South Carolina, where the plutonium would be converted into fuel for nuclear reactors. But Rocky Flats manager Barbara Mazurowski said "Until I see a ... truck roll up here and we start loading it, and I know that truck is going to South Carolina, I am still very cautiously concerned here." South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges has balked at receiving the shipments unless the Energy Department has a clear plan to move it to a final resting place elsewhere. He planned to meet with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham Tuesday. The company coordinating the Rocky Flats cleanup said the plutonium must start moving this spring for the plant to close as planned Dec. 15, 2006. With spring approaching, the Energy Department still has not issued the 30-day notice necessary to begin the shipments. Local leaders also are concerned about the disposition of about a ton of plutonium that is not pure enough to be made into nuclear fuel. A report that is a precursor to the 30-day notice went to Congress Feb. 15, Mazurowski said. Abraham and President Bush have assured Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., the plant will close on time. The plutonium is stored in one of the strongest buildings at Rocky Flats. The building can't be decontaminated and demolished until the plutonium is out. The cleanup so far is slightly ahead of schedule and slightly under budget although that could change if shipments are delayed, Mazurowski said. "The longer we go without being able to initiate and sustain regular shipments of our plutonium, the harder it's going to be to meet the 2006 closure date," she said. Copyright 2002, The Gazette, a Freedom Communications ***************************************************************** 57 Hodges discusses SRS metal shipment truce 02/27/02 Augusta Georgia: Technology: Web posted Wednesday, February 27, 2002 By [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] From Staff South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges and U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham soon might reach a truce in their fight over plutonium shipments to Savannah River Site. The two met Tuesday in Washington for what the governor termed "a good, fruitful discussion" on the federal agency's plans to treat the radioactive metal at the nuclear-weapons site. Both sides agreed to try to resolve the dispute, which began last summer, within 30 days, Mr. Hodges said. "We're making some progress, but we're not there yet," the governor said. "The next month or so will tell the tale." An Energy Department spokesman also said the meeting was constructive. "We did make progress, and we've agreed to a timetable to dot all the i's and cross all the t's so we can move forward," Joe Davis said. Mr. Hodges said he still doesn't have what he wants: a written document spelling out the federal government's timetable for treating plutonium at SRS and shipping it out of South Carolina. "I again made it very clear to the secretary that South Carolina must have a definitive plan for when the plutonium will come to the state, how it will be treated and when it will leave," Mr. Hodges said. "We do not have that yet, but there were some things that came up in discussion that I think showed a little movement." The plutonium debate reached a fever pitch in August, when Mr. Hodges threatened to lie in the road to block shipments of plutonium to SRS. At the time, reports indicated that the Energy Department might abandon a plan to build a mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel plant at SRS. The plant would convert surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear-power plants. SRS is expected to receive more than 30 tons of plutonium from sites across the country in order to make the fuel. Mr. Hodges and other South Carolina elected officials feared SRS would become a permanent storage site for the nation's plutonium if it accepted the metal and the MOX plans subsequently were canceled. The Bush administration since has restated support for the MOX plan. The president's 2003 budget proposal includes more than $300 million for efforts to dispose of surplus plutonium. Reach Brandon Haddock at (706) 823-3409 or [bhaddock@augustachronicle.com] . 1996 - 2002 The Augusta Chronicle. All rights reserved. Read our ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************