***************************************************************** 04/30/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.110 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Exelon To Submit Application To Reserve Site For Future Use 2 US: Westinghouse Submits Design Certification Plans for AP1000 3 Poll: Finns divided on construction of fifth nuclear reactor 4 Millions invested in Swedish nuclear reactor despite possible shutdo 5 French Nuclear Cleanup Techniques Shared with China 6 Poll: Finns divided on construction of fifth nuclear reactor NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 World's first nuclear power station shuts down in Russia 8 US: Study Says Closing Indian Point Plant Would Raise Energy Costs 9 Funding delays for new Ukrainian nuclear plants, Chornobyl 10 US: NRC Establishes Agency Oversight Panel For Davis-Besse Reactor 11 US: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting at North Anna to Discuss 12 Chernobyl 'could happen again' 13 Slovene minister opposes Krsko nuclear power plant accord with 14 Funding delays for new Ukrainian nuclear plants, Chernobyl 15 Czech nuclear plant reconnected to national grid NUCLEAR SAFETY 16 US: Microwave radiation absorption: behavioral effects 17 US: Nuclear Power Opponents Cite Link to Infant Death Rates 18 India: DRDO laboratory fire raises questions 19 Links: A million questions on nuclear safety: Did you know? 20 US: Coverage for more illnesses from Paducah plant sought 21 US: Selling Nuclear Plant Safety NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 22 US: Nuclear Waste in Our Backyard 23 Azeris make fresh allegations on Karabakh nuclear dump 24 US: Clinton tells Las Vegas crowd that Yucca Mountain not justified 25 US: TVA says delays in storing waste may cost it $120 million 26 US: S.C. plutonium standoff nears a head 27 US: Yucca Mountain Site Gets Redesign, Data Restoration 28 US: Clinton delivers Yucca pep talk 29 US: Nevada is justified in feeling dumped on 30 Greenpeace vows to halt nuclear cargo shipments 31 US: Yucca Mountain nuclear storage is bad for Nevada and the nation 32 US: Transport of radioactive soil begins soon 33 US: Letter: A sad, broken mountain awaits its fate 34 US: Clinton applauds Yucca fight 35 US: N-Storage, Quakes Discussed 36 US: Battle of Yucca Mountain 37 US: EPA to begin temporary cleanup at Superfund site in Concord 38 US: Diablo Above ground N-waste storage controversy 39 German nuclear waste reportedly dumped in Sweden NUCLEAR WEAPONS 40 US: New nuclear warhead to be decided in Rhode Island 41 US: [toeslist] URGENT: Stop New Nuclear Warhead Funding 42 Russia Offers U.S. Alternatives on Reduction of Warheads 43 US: Engineer Sentenced in Nuclear Trigger Case 44 Iraq ready to let weapons inspectors back in 45 US: It's the ultimate in retro-chic - nuclear weapons 46 US: Ridge Says Terrorism is 'Permanent' 47 U.S., Russia Report Progress in Nuclear Arms Talks 48 US: Study Urges Focus On Terrorism With High Fatalities, Cost 49 North Korea Invites U.S. Official 50 US: Ridge warns of Al Qaeda threat US DEPT. OF ENERGY 51 Employees were made sick by nuke facilities 52 DOE Stops Lab Director Appointment 53 Program pays $43M to sick OR workers 54 Opinion - The Seaborg collaboration: about father, by son 55 Statement of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham On Senate Passage OTHER NUCLEAR 56 International Energy Agency urges U.S. to boost oil, gas output 57 Clearing the Air of Nuclear Myths 58 Editorial: Senate bill should be left intact ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Exelon To Submit Application To Reserve Site For Future Use PR Newswire - USA; Apr 30, 2002 Exelon Generation today announced it has begun preparing an application seeking Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of a potential site at Clinton Power Station in DeWitt County, Illinois, for possible addition of a new nuclear power plant. The application is expected to be filed by June of 2003. Approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not authorize construction. Exelon has not yet decided to construct a nuclear power plant. The application will seek an Early Site Permit, part of a new federal government approval process for evaluating the suitability of a site for possible future nuclear power plants. If Exelon receives approval, it would mean only that the site meets suitability guidelines for new nuclear generation. Exelon will seek approval of a permit that would be valid for 20 years. Receiving approval from the NRC would mean that Exelon could "bank" the site if it is decided sometime in the future to pursue a Combined Operating License for the operation and construction of a nuclear power plant. This would be a separate process, involving additional public input. The application review and approval process is expected to take 18 to 30 months. The process examines the suitability of the site for one of several possible reactor designs. Exelon has made no decision on the type of reactor design it may chose to use if it proceeds. The process examines the site in several areas, including: site safety analysis, environmental assessment and emergency preparedness. The Clinton site was selected by Exelon for a number of reasons. It was originally designed for two units. It is located close to major transmission facilities already in existence, and so is strategically located in a region that needs reliable power and has the infrastructure needed to deliver it. Earlier this year, Exelon was one of two companies chosen as candidates to receive government funding to help develop a process to screen potential sites for their suitability for new nuclear generation. Exelon Nuclear operates the largest nuclear fleet in the nation, with 17 reactors at 10 stations, and has achieved a solid record of safety and efficiency. Clinton Power Station is owned and operated by AmerGen, a 50/50 partnership between Exelon and British Energy. The permit application is solely an Exelon initiative. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, headquartered in Chicago, is one of the largest competitive electric generation companies in the United States, as measured by owned and controlled megawatts. As of the end of 2001, Exelon Generation owned or was invested in approximately 40,000 megawatts of generating resources, through three business units: Exelon Nuclear, which owns or has investments in 19 nuclear units in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Exelon Power, which owns or has investments in coal, natural gas, oil, landfill gas and hydro generation assets, consisting of 124 intermediate and peaking units, and Exelon Power Team, Exelon's wholesale marketing and energy-based financial trading operation, doing business in all of the contiguous 48 states and in Canada and Mexico. In 2001, Exelon Generation, headquartered in Kennett Square, Pa., had assets of $8.2 billion, revenues of $7.0 billion, and approximately 7,200 employees. http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X63787082 Exelon Generation Company, LLC Contact: Mary Rucci of Exelon Generation, +1-610-765-6925, or Craig Nesbit of Exelon Nuclear, +1-630-657-4208 Website: http://www.exeloncorp.com/ ***************************************************************** 2 Westinghouse Submits Design Certification Plans for AP1000 Reactor Nuclear Energy Institute April 25, 2002—Westinghouse Electric Co. submitted an application for certification of its AP1000 nuclear reactor design with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The AP1000 design, if approved, will join three other advanced reactor designs approved by the NRC over the past five years. The designs are essentially “on the shelf,” ready for order, during the 15-year certification term. The AP1000 is a large-scale version of a 600-megawatt design certified by the NRC in 1999. The design features enhanced safety systems based on the natural principles of gravity, natural circulation, convection, evaporation and condensation. Like the AP600, the AP1000 design applies proven light water coolant technology and fewer systems and components. Compared with today’s U.S. nuclear power plants, for example, the AP600 will need 50 percent less building volume, 50 percent fewer valves, 80 percent fewer pipes, 35 percent fewer large pumps and 70 percent less control cable. Because of this simplicity, the AP600 and the AP1000 can respond to the needs of the competitive electricity marketplace by being built much faster and at less cost than existing U.S. nuclear plants. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the United States will need a staggering amount of new electricity—nearly 400,000 megawatts—over the next two decades. Copyright © 2002 Nuclear Energy Institute. ***************************************************************** 3 Poll: Finns divided on construction of fifth nuclear reactor Tue Apr 30, 9:00 AM ET HELSINKI, Finland - A month before lawmakers vote on whether to build what would be Finland's fifth nuclear reactor, a survey published Tuesday indicated that Finns are split on the issue. Forty-four percent of 1,500 respondents said they would approve of the measure, while the same amount said they would oppose it. The remainder were undecided. The survey was conducted in March by Taloustutkimus market research. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. In January, the five-party government approved an application for the construction of a new reactor, but the decision requires Parliament's approval. A vote is set for next month. In 1993, lawmakers rejected a similar measure by a vote of 107-90. In a poll last week, 94 legislators in the 200-member Parliament said they would approve the construction of a new reactor, while 88 were against and 18 were undecided. Finland has two atomic power stations, each with two reactors, which produce about a third of the country's electricity. One is at Olkiluoto, 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest of the capital, the other at Loviisa, 90 kilometers (55 miles) east of Helsinki. The site of a fifth reactor has not been decided, but it likely would be constructed at one of the two existing sites. Since the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. targets, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority has renewed security requirements for nuclear plants demanding protection against strikes by commercial and military aircraft. (mhh-krg) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 Millions invested in Swedish nuclear reactor despite possible shutdown decision Mon Apr 29,12:48 PM ET STOCKHOLM, Sweden - A nuclear reactor in southwestern Sweden will undergo maintenance work for about 100 million kronor (dlrs 9.7 million) this summer although parliament could decide to close the reactor next year, an official said Monday. Nuclear opponents questioned the timing of the investment, given that the Swedish parliament decided last December that the economic conditions for closing the reactor would be fulfilled in 2003. Leif Oest, manager for the Barsebaeck power plant, said the investment was part of a long-term safety program developed in the 1990s. "This is related to safety and nothing else," Oest said, adding that power generating capacity would remain unchanged. Oest said the maintenance work was scheduled for July and would include replacement of pipes and valves around the reactor tanks. In 1980, following a referendum, parliament decided to close the Scandinavian country's 12 reactors by 2010. But Sweden has since moved away from a specific deadline and has closed only one of the two reactors at Barsebaeck. "We cannot understand why they continue to invest when there's a decision to dismantle nuclear power. Barsebaeck should have closed a long time ago," Greenpeace spokeswoman Ulrika Tenlid said. About half of Sweden's energy supply comes from nuclear power plants and supporters of nuclear energy worry closing the reactors will bring sharply increased electricity costs. Oest said he didn't believe parliament would actually vote to close the Barsebaeck reactor next year. "If I had a definite decision (to close the reactor), then we might have discussed some of the things we're doing this year. But we don't have that decision," Oest said. (kr-krg) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 5 French Nuclear Cleanup Techniques Shared with China Environment News Service: CHERBOURG, France, April 29, 2002 (ENS) - Advanced French technology for decontaminating nuclear facilities is being transferred to China under a technical assistance agreement signed last week. STMI, a subsidiary of the French company Cogema, signed the nuclear cleanup technology transfer agreement with the China Institute for Radiation Protection in Beijing on April 22. China will use the processes in Chinese nuclear power reactors and fuel cycle plants. [technician] Decontamination cell in the R2 high-level separations facility, Cogema-La Hague reprocessing plant (Photos courtesy [http://www.cogema.com] ) Under the agreement, STMI will transfer to the China Institute for Radiation Protection technologies such as gels, foams, electro-decontamination, and chemical decontamination that are currently used by the French nuclear industry. STMI, with 30 years of experience in the nuclear decontamination field, specializes in decomtamination by the very high speed blasting of dry ice pellets. STMI will transfer to the Institute the technology to manufacture in China the products and equipment for decontaminating its nuclear facilities. The French company will provide technical assistance and training for experts from the Institute both in China and at its Triade facility in France. Cogema said both partners consider the agreement to be a first step toward both a larger implementation of advanced STMI technologies in China and an expansion of the two companies' cooperation to the entire nuclear cleanup area. [cogema] Cogema technician decontaminates radioactive materials by remote control In connection with this agreement, the STMI subsidiary Polinorsud, working in cooperation with the Hua Xing Company, carried out a contract for nuclear cleanup at the Ling'ao nuclear power plant in Shenzhen in southern China's Guangdong province. Ling'ao is the second largest commercial nuclear power plant to be built in Guangdong, following the one on Daya Bay. The first generator at Ling'ao is expected to begin power generation in July 2002 and the second in March 2003. Cogema specializes in the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, conversion and enrichment to spent fuel reprocessing and recycling. The Cogema Group, which includes STMI and Polinorsud, is a subsidiary of the Areva holding company formed September 3, 2001 under the French Atomic Energy Commission. Polinorsud and Hua Xing expect additional contracts will be signed this year related to supplying logistics for China's first nuclear power plant, the Guangdong Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station near Shenzhen. Located on the coast of Daya Bay, the power plant became operational in 1994. It was manufactured by the French company Framatome, another Areva subsidiary. Currently four nuclear power projects are being built in China. The second and third phases of the Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant in east China's Zhejiang Province are under construction, and the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, a Sino-Russian joint venture, is taking shape at Lianyungang on China's east coast. ***************************************************************** 6 Poll: Finns divided on construction of fifth nuclear reactor Tue Apr 30, 9:00 AM ET HELSINKI, Finland - A month before lawmakers vote on whether to build what would be Finland's fifth nuclear reactor, a survey published Tuesday indicated that Finns are split on the issue. Forty-four percent of 1,500 respondents said they would approve of the measure, while the same amount said they would oppose it. The remainder were undecided. The survey was conducted in March by Taloustutkimus market research. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. In January, the five-party government approved an application for the construction of a new reactor, but the decision requires Parliament's approval. A vote is set for next month. In 1993, lawmakers rejected a similar measure by a vote of 107-90. In a poll last week, 94 legislators in the 200-member Parliament said they would approve the construction of a new reactor, while 88 were against and 18 were undecided. Finland has two atomic power stations, each with two reactors, which produce about a third of the country's electricity. One is at Olkiluoto, 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest of the capital, the other at Loviisa, 90 kilometers (55 miles) east of Helsinki. The site of a fifth reactor has not been decided, but it likely would be constructed at one of the two existing sites. Since the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. targets, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority has renewed security requirements for nuclear plants demanding protection against strikes by commercial and military aircraft. (mhh-krg) (AP) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 World's first nuclear power station shuts down in Russia BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 30, 2002 Moscow, 30 April, ITAR-TASS correspondent Vladimir Rogachev: The reactor of the world's first nuclear power station, in Obninsk, was shut down today, ITAR-TASS was told by Atomic Power Ministry press spokesman Yuriy Bespalko... The reactor entered service on 27 June 1954 and paved the way for atomic power to be put to peaceful use. Designated AM-1 [AM is Russian acronym for peaceful atom], it has been in operation for 48 years. Its output is 5 megawatts, and according to the ministry it has been shut down "because its continued operation no longer serves any scientific or technological purpose". The shutdown proceeded smoothly without any breaches of radiation safety, and was attended by serving and retired nuclear power scientists. Data obtained during this operation will be used when carrying out similar procedures at other reactors. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian 0925 gmt 30 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 8 Study Says Closing Indian Point Plant Would Raise Energy Costs April 30, 2002 By WINNIE HU WHITE PLAINS, April 29 — An economic study of the Indian Point nuclear power plant released today concludes that shutting down the plant would increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts and cost consumers an estimated $3.4 billion over the next four years to replace that lost electricity through other sources. The study was commissioned by the plant's owner, the Entergy Corporation, and completed jointly over the past three months by two independent research groups, National Economic Research Associates and General Electric Power Systems Energy Consulting. Two economists who helped prepare the study, accompanied by Entergy officials, presented their findings this afternoon to a committee of the Westchester County Board of Legislators. It is the first time that Entergy has released a study about Indian Point's economic impact since opposition to the plant began spreading after Sept. 11. Spurred largely by safety concerns, many state and local politicians, environmental groups and concerned residents have called in recent months for the closing of Indian Point, which is about 40 miles north of Midtown Manhattan. "It's fine to have discussions about closing down Indian Point," said Laurence P. Gottlieb, a spokesman for Entergy, who attended today's committee meeting. "But when you get to the point where you've shown it's safe and secure, then you need to go beyond that to the economics of it. You need real data to show there is not the infrastructure to bring that power in at the same cost that you're producing it here at Indian Point." The study said that shutting down Indian Point's two working reactors — which can produce up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity at any one time, or enough power for about two million homes — would immediately lower the electricity reserves in New York State to 8.4 percent from 14.5 percent. In New York, utilities typically try to maintain a reserve of 18 percent. In addition, the study said, replacing the nuclear reactors with natural gas or alternate sources would result in higher costs to provide the same amount of electricity. The study estimated an additional $3.4 billion in consumer expenditures by 2005 for the electricity alone, while Entergy officials said that building enough transmission lines to carry that electricity from other areas could cost hundreds of millions more. But Michael B. Kaplowitz, the chairman of the legislative committee, said he questioned some of the study's basic assumptions. For instance, he said, the study did not take into account all the natural gas plants in development, or that there was simply less demand for electricity because of the recession and the destruction of the trade center. "I think it was a good faith effort to get to the economic question; I don't find as much good faith with Entergy," Mr. Kaplowitz said. "They did not address the jobs — which is a major concern — what they'd do with the site, and the tax ramifications." Mr. Gottlieb said that Entergy had decided to focus on the energy impact of closing Indian Point because Mr. Kaplowitz and others had raised questions about it. He said that Entergy officials had already addressed those other issues, estimating that as many as 2,000 jobs would be lost, as well as $34 million in state, county and local taxes. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 9 Funding delays for new Ukrainian nuclear plants, Chornobyl closure concern European lawmakers KPnews.com -- News about Ukraine 30 Apr 2002 The Associated Press KYIV, April 30 - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe appealed to Western governments Monday to uphold their commitment to help Ukraine close the Chornobyl nuclear power station and to build other reactors to compensate for lost energy capacity, lawmakers said. Borys Oliynyk, a member of Ukraine's delegation to PACE, said that G-7 governments and the European Commission have not fully implemented a 1995 agreement to provide credits for decommissioning the Chornobyl station, building two new reactors and assisting some 5,000 workers who lost their jobs when Chornobyl was shut down for good in December 2000, according to news reports. Although the plant does not operate and a sarcophagus encases the damaged reactor at Chornobyl, the bulk of disassembly work remains. Meanwhile, the two reactors planned to compensate for Chornobyl's production remain unfinished. Ukraine has spent dlrs 50 million to build reactors at Rivne and Khmelnytsky in the western region of the country, approximately 350 kilometers (215 miles) from the capital Kyiv, but awaits funds from the west to complete the work, said an Interfax report. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development delayed a dlrs 215 million loan for the two reactors last year, pending additional guarantees from international institutions. Ukraine's government disputes the delay and the estimated project costs. Western experts have put completion costs at close to dlrs 1.5 billion, while Ukrainian and Russian specialists have said only dlrs 500 million to dlrs 600 million is needed. However, Ukraine has not received funds as of yet. Chornobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986, when a reactor exploded spewing radiation across a vast swath of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and western Europe. Last week, experts warned that substantial gaps exist in the Chornobyl sarcophagus, raising concerns about radiation leaks. © 2000 SputnikMedia.net. ***************************************************************** 10 NRC Establishes Agency Oversight Panel For Davis-Besse Reactor Head Degradation Issue NRC: Press Release Region III - 2002 - 23 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-023 April 30, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has established a special oversight panel to coordinate the agency's activities in assessing the performance problems associated with the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, monitoring corrective actions, and evaluating the readiness of the plant to resume operations. The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, is located near Oak Harbor, Ohio. It has been shut down since mid-February for refueling and maintenance. While repairing cracks in control rod tubes which penetrate the reactor vessel head, plant personnel discovered significant corrosion damage to the vessel head. NRC's documents on the Davis-Besse inspection are posted on the NRC's web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head- degradation.html The oversight panel will include NRC management personnel and staff from the Region III office in Lisle, Illinois, the NRC Headquarters office in Rockville, Maryland, and the NRC Resident Inspector Office at the Davis-Besse site. John Grobe, Director of the Region III Division of Reactor Safety, will chair the panel. The panel will coordinate the NRC's regulatory activities in response to the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head corrosion. The plant will not restart until the NRC is satisfied that all current safety concerns have been resolved. The panel will hold public meetings periodically with FirstEnergy representatives to review the status of activities associated with the corrosion damage. These meetings will normally be held in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse plant. The oversight activities will be conducted under the agency's Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, which establishes the procedures to be followed for the oversight of utility performance for plants that are shut down as a result of significant performance problems or events. ***************************************************************** 11 NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting at North Anna to Discuss Inspection of Plant's License Renewal Program NRC: Press Release Region II - 2002 - 27 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov No. II-02-027 April 30, 2002 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov [opa2@nrc.gov] Officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Dominion Energy management at 9:00 a.m. Friday, May 3 at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station Information Center, 1022 Haley Drive, Mineral, Virginia, to present the results of the NRC's second inspection of the North Anna license renewal program. The NRC conducted a similar meeting at the company's corporate offices near Richmond on February 8 to discuss results of the agency's initial inspection of the program at both the North Anna plant and the Surry plant in southeastern Virginia. Dominion Energy filed a joint application to renew the operating licenses of the two units at North Anna and the two units at Surry last May. NRC officials said a report on the second inspection will be issued approximately 45 days after the meeting and will be available to the public. The meeting is between the NRC and Dominion but is open to observation by interested members of the public. NRC officials will be available prior to its conclusion to answer any questions observers may have. ***************************************************************** 12 Chernobyl 'could happen again' BBC News | SCI/TECH | Monday, 29 April, 2002 Those near Chernobyl left their homes and gardens in haste in 1986: Some think they can now return By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent A UK film-maker says not nearly enough has been done for the victims of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) says one of the countries affected, Belarus, has received no international humanitarian aid. It says although cancers in the affected area are increasing, people are returning there. And it believes the contamination may stretch much further than officials have acknowledged. TVE made the film, The Long Road to Recovery, in its Earth Report series, shown on BBC World. A report by several United Nations agencies last February suggested it might be safe for people to return to many regions affected by radiation from the explosion. Click here to watch BBC World and its report on Chernobyl. Yet the annual thyroid cancer rate among young Belarussians is put at around 1,800. The rate in the UK in under-14s is about seven cases annually. Tilling poisoned soil Other cancers, the film says, are on the increase. The UN says they are not the biggest problem, but that psychological factors are causing more distress than the medical effects of radiation. [Chernobyl clean-up team Earth Report] The radiation limited emergency teams to 40 seconds exposure It says a dependency culture has grown up, that the original evacuation was on too large a scale, and that the evacuees could return to many contaminated towns and villages. One sceptical interviewee is Anatoly Kasyanenko, professor of sociology at Gomel University. He tells TVE: "Sixty per cent of agricultural lands in Belarus are irradiated - and they carry on agricultural production on these lands. "We know that there are mandatory state controls, but I am very sceptical about these government controls." Haphazard risk The official exclusion zone around the nuclear plant extends for a radius of 30 kilometres (18 miles), in an area historically prized for its rich soil. [Soldier at checkpoint Earth Report] Checkpoints ring the exclusion zone The radioactive particles from Chernobyl were carried on the winds, but deposited by the vagaries of the rainfall pattern just after the accident. TVE says: "Today the pattern of contamination is random - a farmyard may be safe, but at the other end of the barn there could be a 'hot spot' where lethal radiation could make your nose bleed, or worse. "A 'hot spot' can be as small as the palm of your hand, or as large as 30 sq km." The radioactivity is seeping into the groundwater, and into plants and the animals which eat them. Ignoring the hazards The film says childhood thyroid cancer, lymphatic cancers, heart conditions and poor eyesight have "dramatically increased - and there is a noticeable decrease in the IQ of children". [Mother and child Earth Report] Belarus children "face growing risks" The collapse of the Soviet system of controlled food standards, TVE says, meant Belarus and the other countries affected, Russia and Ukraine, were left unprotected against eating contaminated food. In Belarus some old people have already returned to live in their villages in the contaminated zone. Medical workers sent to check their health will stay only a couple of hours. And TVE says, despite the widespread belief that the disaster affected only the Gomel region, there are suggestions the contamination could stretch almost to the Polish border. International pariah Brest has seen "a marked increase in childhood cancers, particularly thyroid cancer, and cancers in women". Yet Belarus, it says, has received not a penny of international humanitarian aid, except from children's charities, because it is seen as "the last bastion of a Soviet-style authoritarian state". TVE concludes: "Chernobyl is a colossal cross-border catastrophe that is still waiting to be addressed. "And in this new climate of terrorism and possibly nuclear terrorism, the time [to act] is now. Another Chernobyl is no longer a remote possibility." ***************************************************************** 13 Slovene minister opposes Krsko nuclear power plant accord with Croatia BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 30, 2002 Ljubljana, 29 April: Slovene Agriculture Minister and leader of the Slovene People's Party (SLS) Franci But on Monday [29 April] proposed that Slovenia withdraw from an agreement on the Krsko nuclear power plant the country signed with Croatia, saying the agreement did not provide for nuclear waste management on an equal basis. "We're going to suggest to coalition partners not to ratify the agreement on the power plant because it is highly unlikely that Croatia will take over its share of nuclear waste, which is a crucial issue," But said at a press conference on Monday. But believes that it would be best for Slovenia to buy off Croatia's 50 per cent share in the power plant, particularly because there were some reservations on the Croatian side as well with regard to the ratification of the agreement... Source: HINA news agency, Zagreb, in English 1606 gmt 29 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 14 Funding delays for new Ukrainian nuclear plants, Chernobyl closure concern European lawmakers AP Mon Apr 29, 2:57 PM ET KIEV, Ukraine - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe appealed to Western governments Monday to uphold their commitment to help Ukraine close the Chernobyl nuclear power station and to build other reactors to compensate for lost energy capacity, lawmakers said. Boris Oleinik, a member of Ukraine's delegation to PACE, said that G-7 governments and the European Commission have not fully implemented a 1995 agreement to provide credits for decommissioning the Chernobyl station, building two new reactors and assisting some 5,000 workers who lost their jobs when Chernobyl was shut down for good in December 2000, according to news reports. z Although the plant does not operate and a sarcophagus encases the damaged reactor at Chernobyl, the bulk of disassembly work remains. Meanwhile, the two reactors planned to compensate for Chernobyl's production remain unfinished. Ukraine has spent dlrs 50 million to build reactors at Rivne and Khmelnitsky in the western region of the country, approximately 350 kilometers (215 miles) from the capital Kiev, but awaits funds from the west to complete the work, said an Interfax report. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development delayed a dlrs 215 million loan for the two reactors last year, pending additional guarantees from international institutions. Ukraine's government disputes the delay and the estimated project costs. Western experts have put completion costs at close to dlrs 1.5 billion, while Ukrainian and Russian specialists have said only dlrs 500 million to dlrs 600 million is needed. However, Ukraine has not received funds as of yet. Chernobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986, when a reactor exploded spewing radiation across a vast swath of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and western Europe. Last week, experts warned that substantial gaps exist in the Chernobyl sarcophagus, raising concerns about radiation leaks. (ms/tv/jh) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Czech nuclear plant reconnected to national grid BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 30, 2002 The first reactor of the Temelin nuclear plant [in southern Bohemia], which went into shutdown two days ago, has been reconnected to the national grid. It is currently operating at 37 per cent of its capacity. Temelin's spokesman Milan Nebesar said today that the reactor's output would be gradually increased until it reached 100 per cent of its capacity. He said that the plant's staff would carry out a number of dynamic tests during this process. Temelin's first reactor temporarily stopped operating on Sunday [28 April] after steam leaked from a pipe connected to the plant's turbine, which triggered a shutdown of the generator. Source: Czech Radio1 - Radiozurnal, Prague, in Czech 1000 gmt 30 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 16 Microwave radiation absorption: behavioral effects Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:57:22 -0500 (CDT) Microwave radiation absorption: behavioral effects. D'Andrea JA. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL 32508-5700. The literature contains much evidence that absorption of microwave energy will lead to behavioral changes in man and laboratory animals. The changes include simple perturbations or outright stoppage of ongoing behavior. On one extreme, intense microwave absorption can result in seizures followed by death. On the other extreme, man and animals can hear microwave pulses at very low rates of absorption. Under certain conditions of exposure, animals will avoid microwaves, while under other conditions, they will actively work to obtain warmth produced by microwaves. Some research has shown behavioral effects during chronic exposure to low-level microwaves. The specific absorption rates that produce behavioral effects seem to depend on microwave frequency, but controversy exists over thresholds and mechanism of action. In all cases, however, the behavioral disruptions cease when chronic microwave exposure is terminated. Thermal changes in man and animals during microwave exposure appear to account for all reported behavioral effects. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial MeSH Terms: Animal Behavior, Animal/radiation effects* Environmental Exposure* Hearing/radiation effects Human Microwaves* Reinforcement (Psychology) Time Factors PMID: 2061046 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=91285851&Dopt=r ***************************************************************** 17 Nuclear Power Opponents Cite Link to Infant Death Rates April 30, 2002 By ANDREW C. REVKIN Antinuclear campaigners plan to announce today that a new study shows that infant death rates downwind of eight American nuclear power plants dropped significantly after they were shut down. Some plan to use the findings to support calls for closing the nuclear reactors at Indian Point, the plant closest to New York City, in Westchester County. But federal officials, some radiation experts and representatives of the nuclear power industry said that there was no evidence to link illness and proximity to nuclear plants and that minute, occasional releases from such plants were much lower than natural radiation levels. The new statistical study, which is being published in the next issue of The Archives of Environmental Health, was conducted by a group of scientists who for many years have purported to show a link between mortality and illness and low levels of radiation from power plants, bomb tests and other sources. But their past work has never been replicated by federal health researchers, and the statistical analysis they used in some earlier studies has been challenged by the National Cancer Institute. The study said the infant death rate in communities for two years preceding the plant shutdowns averaged 8.44 deaths per 1,000 births and, when all the mortality data for two years after the plant shutdowns were combined, the infant mortality rate dropped to 7.01 per 1,000 births. The difference was statistically significant, the authors said, and the drop was greater than the general drop in infant death rates around the country in recent years. The scientists, from the Radiation and Public Health Project, a nonprofit group, defended their new findings and cited the need for much more research. Joseph J. Mangano, a public health statistician and the national coordinator for the group, said a statistical link does not prove a cause and effect, but points to the need for more work. "A lot of things could affect infant deaths," he said. "The list is literally endless. This doesn't mean we've proved anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but what I will say is we really need to do more follow-up." Among other things, the study examined statistics from counties and cities downwind of eight nuclear plants that shut down either for a prolonged period or permanently — in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. Dr. John Boice Jr., who directed a 1991 National Cancer Institute study of disease patterns around nuclear plants and other institutions using radiation, said no link emerged. "There are so many other important things to worry about in terms of radiation — like what are we doing to do with the waste and the terrorism issue," he said last night. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy ***************************************************************** 18 DRDO laboratory fire raises questions The Times of India; Apr 30, 2002 BY MAKARAND GADGIL PUNE: The fire, which killed six persons, including three casual labourers, at the Defence Research Development Organisation's (DRDO) High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) here on Thursday, has raised questions about the security implications of employing casual labourers at sensitive defence units working on nuclear and missile projects. Questions are also being raised about the compensation to victims. A senior official at the Ammunition Factory, Kirkee (AFK) acknowledged that defence units had been employing labourers from outside on contract basis. Increase in work load and shortage of staff was the main reason. "The recruitment freeze has made matters difficult. Staff shortage has forced us to hire labour on contract," he said. The official was quick to add that these labourers were trained to handle explosives before they begin work. While defence employees say the families of two technical officers who died in the accident will receive compensation from the government, that may not be the case with the three casual labourers and a contract worker who died in the accident. The labourers were working for a sub-contractor with a chemical firm which was assigned work at the facility. Mahendra Sathe, a 20-year old casual labourer whose father Damu died while brother Krishna suffered injuries, said the labour contractor they worked for has not shown up since the accident. "Right now my only concern is that my brother recovers completely and only then will we decide what we can do to get compensation," he said. Mahendra escaped injury as he did not go to work on Thursday. While his father was working at the HEMRL as a casual labourer for the last four years, he and his elder brother were working there for the past few months through a labour contractor. "Recently our labour contractor was changed but our services were retained by the new contractor and all us were hired for doing jobs like cleaning, moving chemicals and other things from one place to the other," he said. At the residence of Abhay More, a B.Sc graduate who also died in the accident, his elder brother said he as working at HEMRL for the past two years as a technician and had taken up services with a new labour contractor on April 17. ***************************************************************** 19 Links: A million questions on nuclear safety: Did you know? The Guardian - United Kingdom; Apr 30, 2002 BY JEROME MONAHAN LINDSEY FRASER Pity the postman delivering letters to the prime minister last Friday. Thanks to a record-breaking protest campaign, Tony Blair's postbag was crammed with over a million cards expressing anger about the possible dangers posed by the nuclear facilities based at Sellafield in Cumbria. The boss of the company that runs Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), was also targeted for hundreds of thousands of cards. So was Prince Charles. On the prime minister's cards, under the image of an eye, was the message: "Tony, look me in the eye and tell me I'm safe." It expressed the anxiety in the Republic of Ireland (Eire) that all is not well at Sellafield and that its nuclear industries are responsible for polluting the Irish Sea with potentially lethal radioactive waste. It also highlights fears that Sellafield is vulnerable to the kind of terrorist attack that hit New York on September 11, and which could poison huge areas of northern England and Ireland. The campaign was organised by Ali Hewson, who, as wife of U2 singer Bono, was able to drum up plenty of celebrity supporters. These included singer Samantha Mumba and footballer Roy Keane. The organisers are confident that cards were sent by nearly all the Republic's 1.3m households. It's the first mass-mailing protest on such a scale. The postcard delivery was timed to mark the 16th anniversary of the nuclear power station accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. This disaster, on April 26 1986, affected the lives of millions and is thought to have led to large numbers of people developing cancer. It is claimed that many pregnant mothers exposed to the radioactive cloud from the explosion and fire gave birth to stillborn children or babies with birth defects. That most of them lived many miles from Chernobyl, across the border in Belarus, proved how widespread radioactive pollution can be. This is a particularly sensitive issue for those living just across the Irish Sea from Sellafield. As well as using nuclear energy to generate electricity, BNFL is also responsible for nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield. This involves recovering the uranium and plutonium from "used" nuclear "rods" from other nuclear power stations. But the process, which includes cooling the rods in deep pools of water and placing their contents in hot, concentrated nitric acid, creates significant amounts of nuclear waste. The complaint is that by pumping this waste into the Irish Sea over many years, Sellafield is responsible for creating an unpredictable radiation hazard affecting the whole region. Hazardously high levels of one of the radioactive chemicals Sellafield has been dumping - Technicium-99 - have been found in lobsters caught in the sea nearby. The same chemical has also been found in dangerous concentrations in seaweed on the coast of Norway. It is now also recognised that a "statistically significant" (in other words, unusually high) number of cases of childhood leukaemia (a kind of cancer) have occurred in Cumbria, near Sellafield, since the nuclear facilities were built in 1953. No direct connection between Sellafield and this pattern of illness has been proved, but anti-nuclear protesters are convinced there is a link. Last week's protest comes at a significant time for the British nuclear industry. It is hoping to persuade the government to spend pounds 9bn on new nuclear power stations. Campaigners feel that it would be better to invest in entirely clean forms of energy, such as that produced by wind or wave power. Jerome Monahan See more about the Sellafield protest on First Edition, today and tomorrow at 11.25am on Channel 4. For a topical lesson pack, visit www.learn.co.uk/topical Keeping an eye on Sellafield: over a million postcards with the picture and words above have been sent to Tony Blair British Nuclear Fuels www.bnfl.co.uk Shut Sellafield www.shutsellafield.com/ Postcards from the edge www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4399504,00.html Stars go postal www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398459,00.html "Sellafield has already made the Irish Sea the most radioactive in the world and if an accident happens or there is a terrorist attack, depending on which way the wind blows, Dublin, Dundalk, Drogheda, Belfast and vast parts of Ireland would be uninhabitable." Ali Hewson "This is a celebrity-led campaign which is attracting widespread media coverage without much, if any, serious challenge to the facts. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that BNFL's operations have any impact upon the health or safety of anyone living in Ireland." Statement by BNFL ***************************************************************** 20 Coverage for more illnesses from Paducah plant sought The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, April 30, 2002 By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Although he knows his chances are slim, former Paducah uranium enrichment plant employee Don Throgmorton is trying to gather support to expand federal legislation to help sick nuclear workers. He is circulating a petition seeking equal compensation for all people who got sick working at the Paducah plant. The petition claims that a 2001 law, compensating workers with specific plant-related illnesses, is discriminatory to others with incurable diseases that are not on the list. "I've talked to a lot of people who have cancer, but it's not the right type of cancer because it isn't on the compensation list," Throgmorton said. "We want (lawmakers) to help people who are sick, period, from working at the plant." He said letters from 1st District U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Louisville, described the current law as very difficult to develop. Whitfield did not offer encouragement for expanding the program. McConnell said he would debate changes if the opportunity presented itself. "We may have to send this to Attorney General (John) Ashcroft," Throgmorton said. The law was passed after months of congressional wrangling over many issues, such as which federal agency would oversee the program. It now rests with the Department of Labor. Throgmorton first mentioned the petition in early March after an Ohio-based activist group gave the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Plant Act a D- grade, partly for being too narrow and providing too little compensation. The law provides a lump sum of $150,000 plus medical benefits to workers with specific cancers related to radiation exposure, and for beryllium- and silica-related diseases. Throgmorton said Monday that he has revised the petition to be more specific and solicit current and former employees' names and plant badge numbers. He said the drive is separate from efforts of the Ohio group, headed by a former employee of the closed Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "We've got to turn this into something where it can do the most good," he said, noting that people with diseases related to chemical and heavy metal exposure are excluded from compensation. Throgmorton, who worked at the plant for 18 years, is disabled and has filed a Department of Labor claim, but conflicting results of several beryllium-disease tests cloud his chances of collecting. He said he has early-stage emphysema and a spot on one lung, which are signs of the disease. He can be reached at 554-6638. ***************************************************************** 21 Selling Nuclear Plant Safety Motherjones.com -- Web Exclusives The latest developments on issues covered by Mother Jones, and brief coverage of underreported news. April 29, 2002 Turn the cover of the February issue of The New Republic and you'll be met with the stern gaze of two men and one woman, automatic weapons at the ready. They wear imposing black flack jackets and a chain-link fence looms in the background. This, the ad states, is the real face of nuclear power plant security, "highly-trained ... well-compenated professionals." The ads, which began appearing in January, are the result of a public relations campaign by the nuclear industry's trade and lobbying group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Officials from the group said the campaign was launched after a slew of news articles -- including [http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/JF02/nuclear_denial.html] -- and a Congressman's critical report raised concerns about safety at the nation's nuclear plants. The ads boast that 70 percent of the guards at US nuclear facilities have prior military, law enforcement, or industrial security experience and stress that guards are subject to background checks, psychological screenings and substance abuse testing. "We wanted to get out the message to the people inside the beltway especially that it is unfair and grossly inaccurate to do a comparison between airport security personnel and that of a nuclear power plant's," says Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the NEI. "When you're talking about the security forces at the plants and their abilities, we would certainly stack them up against any other security force in the industrial infrastructure of this country," Singer insists. One the most notable critics of nuclear plant security, Rep. Edward J. Markey, says the ad campaign has done little to assuage his concerns -- concerns he made public in a March report detailing security lapses as reactors and other nuclear facilities. "I think NEI should spend more time and money actually improving security than trying to convince Americans that there's nothing to worry about," Markey says. The NEI campaign focuses exclusively on the credentials and credibility of the guards protecting nuclear plants. But in the weeks after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the primary question posed by several news articles was how prepared the nation's nuclear plants are for strikes such as the ones which hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Within hours after the terror attacks, nuclear power industry leaders were declaring that their plants could withstand the explosive impact of a fully-loaded commercial airliner. Those claims soon evaporated, as industry and government officials admitted that many plants were never designed to cope with such massive forces. "Many have asked about the consequences if a large airliner, fully loaded with jet fuel, had crashed into a nuclear power plant," says Dr. Richard A. Meserve, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "We had to say candidly that we were not sure." Markey's report was particularly critical of the ways in which the nuclear power industry screens potential guards, stating that "terrorists may now be employed at nuclear reactors in the US just as terrorists enrolled at flight schools in the US." While the ads tout that security personnel are subjected to FBI background checks, Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials admit that "the [background] search is limited to the United States." Moreover, regulatory officials admit that screening of foreign nationals is conducted on a "best effort" basis, and that they still do not know how many foreign nationals are working as security officers at nuclear plants. -- Christopher Fan ***************************************************************** 22 Nuclear Waste in Our Backyard The Harvard Crimson Online :: Opinion April 30, 2002 By MICHAEL J. W. HINES Whenever the subject of nuclear waste comes up in American politics, Nevada is quick to proclaim, “not in my backyard.” Recently, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn used a federal law to veto President Bush’s order to build a permanent waste storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Last week, the House Energy Committee agreed to override that veto. When the full House votes neNuclear Waste in Our Backyard The Harvard Crimson Online :: Opinion April 30, 2002 By MICHAEL J. W. HINES Whenever the subject of nuclear waste comes up in American politics, Nevada is quick to proclaim, “not in my backyard.” Recently, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn used a federal law to veto President Bush’s order to build a permanent waste storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Last week, the House Energy Committee agreed to override that veto. When the full House votes next week, it too should override the veto. Many Nevadans reject responsibility for the nation’s nuclear waste because they utilize a high percentage of renewable energy sources, mainly hydroelectric power from the Hoover Dam. However, the entire nation benefits from the use of nuclear power. Yucca Mountain is a logical choice for waste storage as it is in one of the nation’s most sparsely populated and geologically stable regions. Nevadans’ primary concern is safety. But the waste is sealed in steel and concrete armor designed to withstand serious trauma for more than 1,000 years—when conceivably a future generation would replace the armor or breakdown the waste. Radiation does not escape from these tombs. Optimally, much more of the energy consumed in the U.S. would come from renewable resources. However, much of the necessary technology, such as efficient fuel cells, is still under development. The costs of a rapid conversion to solar or hydrogen production would likely cause an energy price shock that would seriously dampen the economy. But the present American system of electricity production is archaic. While 10 percent comes from renewable resources—mostly hydroelectric—and 20 percent is nuclear, 70 percent is from burning fossil fuels America’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels is alarming. Pollution from these fuels is a known cause of acid rain, a contributor to serious health problems and perhaps a cause of global warming. Moreover, America’s foreign oil demands severely restrict the range of U.S. foreign policy options in the Middle East. Nuclear technology is the right energy production method for the shift away from fossil fuels while renewable energy technology remains unfeasible. Of course, expanded nuclear production should not be a license to waste energy; conservation efforts should be used to maintain energy demand at present levels. Nuclear power plants do not pollute our environment. While they produce radioactive wastes, these wastes are contained and manageable. The nuclear power industry takes full responsibility for all its wastes and includes waste management costs in the price of its product. In contrast, fossil fuel plants—while cleaner than in the past—simply dump their waste products into the atmosphere. Some people are scared of nuclear power, the resulting nuclear waste, and the possibility of both meltdowns and terrorist attacks on a plant. These concerns are legitimate but less terrifying and less likely than inevitable environmental pollution and health problems from fossil fuels. Meltdowns are far less likely due to reforms after the Three Mile Island incident—a partial meltdown in 1979. When properly managed, nuclear waste can be contained and stored safely for millennia. Some countries, such as France, have already made nuclear power the cornerstone of their electricity production. There is, and always has been, a potential for terrorist attacks against the nuclear industry. While hefty reactor shielding mitigates the danger of an attack, a breech could release deadly levels of radioactivity to plant employees and those nearby. But the problem is the existence of terrorism, not of nuclear power. Equal or greater dangers are posed by attacks on large dams, poisoning open-air watersheds or attacking our society’s vulnerable dependence on computer, electricity, and phone networks. To be free from terrorism, we would have to sacrifice modernity itself. If anything, building a waste containment facility deep in Yucca Mountain would remove tons of nuclear waste from several temporary surface storage facilities around the country. These facilities are an easier target than the small amounts of waste hidden on trains or trucks crossing to Nevada. Also, the radioactivity of nuclear waste is so reduced before transport that radiation released from the much-feared truck or rail accident would not endanger anyone who simply walked away from the accident. The U.S. must reassess its methods of energy production for the 21st century. People in any region of the country should be willing to accept nuclear waste in their own backyard so that America can be secure in its energy needs and protect the environment Michael J.W. Hines ’04 is a social studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House. Copyright © 2002, The Harvard Crimson Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Azeris make fresh allegations on Karabakh nuclear dump BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 30, 2002 Baku, 29 April, Trend correspondent F. Mammadova: The Azerbaijani parliamentary delegation in the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] secretariat submitted at its spring session a recommendatory resolution on the use of the Azerbaijani Republic's occupied territories for the dumping of nuclear waste, delegation member MP Qulamhuseyn Alibayli has told Trend while commenting on the results of the PACE spring session between 22-26 April. According to him, the said document deals with the dumping of nuclear waste from the Armenian nuclear power station Metsamor on Nagornyy Karabakh territory and other occupied districts of Azerbaijan. Mr Alibayli underlined that Azerbaijan cited specific data in the document. The document will be distributed among MPs of the PACE member-countries within 20 days. [Passage omitted: background details] According to Alibayli, a temporary commission on political prisoners in Azerbaijan was set up during the session. The decision to establish the commission was agreed with the PACE human rights committee. The MP said that the commission would study the problems of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, compile a list of political prisoners, and consider the lists submitted by the human rights groups of the republic. Asked about the obligatory nature of the commission's decisions, Alibayli said that they would only be applied in the PACE and were not binding for the Azerbaijani Republic. [Passage omitted: background details] Source: Trend news agency, Baku, in Russian 1615 gmt 29 Apr 02 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 24 Clinton tells Las Vegas crowd that Yucca Mountain not justified Las Vegas SUN April 29, 2002 LAS VEGAS (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton told a packed crowd at UNLV's Thomas and Mack Center on Monday that he hasn't seen scientific evidence that Yucca Mountain is safe to store the nation's nuclear waste. "I think it's a mistake," he said, referring to the recommendation by President Bush to make the proposed site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas a national nuclear waste repository. The two-term Democratic president said during a question-and-answer session following his 35-minute guest lecture that he disagrees with the position the Bush administration has taken on Yucca Mountain because "the science doesn't justify this." He added that he never promised Nevada that he would not approve Yucca Mountain as the repository for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive wastes, but Clinton stressed that the decision would have been based on sound science. Both chambers of Congress soon will vote on whether to override Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of Bush's recommendation. Nevada officials have acknowledged they will lose big in the House, and are focusing on trying to muster a majority in the Senate. Majorities in the House and Senate must override the governor's veto for the Yucca site to become final and for the Energy Department to begin preparing a repository license application. Clinton advised Nevada residents to continue to educate members of the Senate, especially those representing small states. "Ask them if they would want this in their state," he said. "Don't give up, just keep making the case." Bush and Congress are under the gun to come up with a solution about what to do with the spent nuclear waste being stored at facilities around the nation, many of which are near largely populated areas, Clinton said. "They're under enormous amounts of pressure to just do this and get it over with, so they're going to dump it on you," he said. "I don't think that's right." Clinton added that allowing the highly radioactive waste to be buried would prevent the government from being forced to fund studies on how it could be neutralized instead. Demand for tickets to Clinton's talk, presented as part of the Barbara Greenspun Lecture Series, was so high that the event was moved from the 3,100-seat Cox Pavilion to the arena. All 6,500 free tickets were distributed, university officials said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 TVA says delays in storing waste may cost it $120 million Las Vegas SUN ----------------------------------------------------------------- April 29, 2002 KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee Valley Authority officials estimate federal delays in accepting and storing radioactive waste from nuclear power plants might cost it more than $120 million for extra storage. The Knoxville-based federal utility is ordering steel- and concrete-reinforced casks, costing about $1 million each, for temporary storage, perhaps until 2014. That's when the U.S. government may have a Nevada desert site ready for TVA's shipments. The dry casks are cheaper than building more cooling pools, TVA said. TVA chairman Glenn McCullough Jr. said the wholesale power agency "very reluctantly" sued the U.S. government a year ago to recover the $120 million or more in costs. "We have to protect the ratepayers' money," McCullough told the Washington bureau of The Knoxville News-Sentinel. The agency has paid $580 million over nearly 20 years into a federal fund to finance a permanent repository to handle the country's nuclear fuel waste. The fees are based on the amount of power generated at each U.S. nuclear plant. The government initially planned to begin taking TVA's waste this year, but opposition to the Nevada site and other locations caused delays. The Department of Energy and President Bush have chosen an isolated desert site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada to house the radioactive waste for perhaps 10,000 years. The U.S. House will vote soon on whether to override Nevada's objection to receiving the nuclear waste, and the Senate may vote this summer. An East Tennessee environmental group, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, prefers that TVA keep the waste at its plants until it's clear that Yucca Mountain is the best repository. "The worst thing is to move it around, get it out there and then realize you have to move it again," alliance spokesman Stephen Smith said. TVA's first cooling pool to fill with spent nuclear fuel would be at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga in 2004. At TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in north Alabama, pools are expected to fill by 2006 and by 2013. John Scalice, TVA's chief nuclear officer and an executive vice president, said Yucca Mountain is a good choice. "It's way out in the desert," Scalice said. "It's arid. There's nobody living around there. It certainly is an appropriate area to store spent nuclear fuel." TVA provides electricity to some 8.3 million people served by 158 distributors in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. On the Net: Tennessee Valley Authority: [http://www.tva.gov] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 S.C. plutonium standoff nears a head Shipments an election weapon, analysts say newsobserver.com : front [newsobserver.com, Raleigh, NC] Site Updated: 11:00 PM | TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 Brier Creek- Raleigh’s best new home location Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:52AM EDT By IRWIN SPEIZER, Staff Writer South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges insists he isn't playing games. If the federal government moves ahead with plans to start shipping weapons-grade plutonium to South Carolina by May 15 -- but has not signed a long-term agreement to process and remove it -- Hodges plans a blockade with state troopers to turn the trucks back. He says he might even lie down in the road himself. "I am going to use whatever means are necessary to keep plutonium from coming here without an enforceable agreement," Hodges said. "I hope it doesn't come to that. But the federal government needs to know that South Carolina is serious." The threat is the latest development in an escalating disagreement between the state and the U.S. Department of Energy over plans to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium by shipping it to South Carolina for processing into power-plant fuel. South Carolina wants the plutonium processing jobs and the billions of dollars in federal contracts that go with it, but only if the Energy Department agrees to set a date by which all the plutonium will be out of the state. Hodges also wants stiff penalties if the Energy Department fails to live up to such a bargain. On April 22, Hodges staged a drill on a highway near the plutonium's destination, the 310-square-mile Savannah River Site, a federal nuclear facility near Aiken. Troopers stopped a tractor-trailer at the border and turned it around. The Energy Department says the shipments are part of nuclear disarmament agreements with Russia that could be jeopardized if the trucks don't roll. It calls the matter an issue of national security and says South Carolina needs to understand priorities. South Carolina, on the other hand, says the rush to ship might indicate a hidden agenda. A recent article in The New York Times suggested that the plutonium was being used as a political weapon by the Bush administration to help the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican incumbent Wayne Allard of Colorado. The first scheduled shipments to South Carolina will come from the Rocky Flats weapons facility near Denver, a site Allard wants converted into a wildlife preserve by 2006. If the shipments are delayed, so is the preserve. Hodges, meanwhile, is a Democrat who faces a re-election campaign of his own, and some critics view his posturing as a ploy to promote his image as a leader who stands up to the federal government. If matters continue on their current course, the question of whether the standoff is a matter of politics or national security could be settled at the South Carolina border. "If it were really national security, the U.S. Army would be leading the way," said Blease Graham, a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. "The governor's blockade would be met with a higher authority." Graham said he expects some sort of compromise. Site has deep roots Ironically, some of the weapons-grade plutonium destined for the Savannah River Site might have been made there. The site was one of the government's primary facilities for producing nuclear weapons material, turning out 36 metric tons of plutonium between 1953 and 1988. With more than 23,000 workers, it was South Carolina's largest employer for decades. The end of the Cold War has taken its toll on the Savannah River Site work force, which dropped to 13,800 as its mission shifted from production to processing old nuclear materials. The plutonium disposal project promises a boost to the site. As many as 1,000 full-time jobs will be created at a new facility that will spend 20 years converting the plutonium into mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel for nuclear power generators. Duke Power says it wants to use the fuel in nuclear plants in the Carolinas. This year, Hodges began talking to Spencer Abraham, the U.S. secretary of energy, saying South Carolina wanted to delay shipments until it had a guarantee that the plutonium would not stay in the state indefinitely. Hodges asked the Energy Department to sign an agreement and enter it into federal court as a consent decree. Abraham declined, saying the courts were an improper place to take a matter that was the subject of international disarmament agreements. He offered instead to support legislation setting out guidelines. Both sides firm On April 12, Abraham sent Hodges a letter outlining the steps the Bush administration had taken to prove its commitment to the plutonium disposal plan, including reaffirming its intention to abide by agreements with Russia. He wrote that the administration had gone a step further to reassure South Carolina by announcing that it was setting aside money for the MOX project in the 2003 budget. At the same time, the agency said it needed to start shipping the plutonium by May 15 to live up to a pact with Russia under which Rocky Flats is supposed to be decommissioned by 2006 -- the year Allard wants to have the wildlife refuge open. With legislation being drafted by South Carolina's congressional delegation that would set up deadlines for disposal of the plutonium after it reaches South Carolina, Abraham said Hodges needs to let the Rocky Flats shipments begin. He promised in his April 12 letter that the department would ship no more than 3.2 metric tons to South Carolina between May 15 and Oct. 15 and stop the shipments if legislation had not passed by then. But Hodges says nothing should be shipped until legislation or some other agreement is in place. Three days after Abraham drafted his letter, Hodges staged his drill. "Once the trucks roll, we lose every bit of leverage," Hodges said. "What's to prevent them from deciding they want to delay the MOX project for 10 or 20 years? And if things change in Russia, what happens then?" Graham said he figures that before it comes down to a highway confrontation, one side will blink. "I think there will be some kind of agreement," Graham said. "The governor will be reassured, and then he can back down." Staff writer Irwin Speizer can be reached at (803) 329-2107 or ispeizer@newsobserver.com. [ispeizer@newsobserver.com.] © Copyright 2002, The News &Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. ***************************************************************** 27 Yucca Mountain Site Gets Redesign, Data Restoration [Newsbytes] By Patricia Daukantas, Government Computer News WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 29 Apr 2002, 2:23 PM CST Controversy over the Energy Department's plan to build a nuclear waste repository in Nevada has brought renewed attention and a redesign to the Yucca Mountain Project's Web site, at www.ymp.gov. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Feb. 14 recommended the project at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nev., and President Bush subsequently spoke to Congress about it. Cleaning up for visitors For the week ending Feb. 22, the Web site logged 24,581 user sessions, compared with 8,010 sessions for the week ending Feb. 1, said Toni Chiri, spokeswoman for Energy's Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas. The site characterization office is supposed to be a neutral party in the debate about the mountain's suitability for storing nuclear waste, Chiri said. "It's not been our task to convince anyone either way," she said. Besides posting the proposed repository's environmental impact statement and budget allocation and the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Yucca Mountain site recently has restored some of the maps and technical materials scrubbed after Sept. 11 by Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Energy officials are reviewing other scrubbed documents as quickly but as thoroughly as they can, Chiri said. A Related Links section connects visitors to nearby county governments and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, as well as project supporters such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and opponents such as the Sierra Club. Reported by Government Computer News, http://www.gcn.com [http://www.gcn.com] ***************************************************************** 28 Clinton delivers Yucca pep talk Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Former president tells Nevadans to keep fighting against repository By JANE ANN MORRISON REVIEW-JOURNAL President Clinton advised Nevadans on how to turn back the Bush administration's plans for a nuclear waste repository: Focus on senators from small states. "You ought to go to senators from every one of the small states and ask them how they'd feel if it was being done to them," Clinton told an audience of about 6,000 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on Monday night. "Don't give up. Just keeping making the case." If he were president today, he said he would fund research into an alternative to burying the spent nuclear fuel inside Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Citing his concerns about scientific doubts that remain unanswered, he said: "I just think it's a mistake. I don't think it can be justified on the merits." Nevada's senators are lobbying their peers to sustain Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the Yucca Mountain Project. They need a majority -- 51 votes -- to kill the planned repository, but in a recent Review-Journal survey, only 20 of the 89 senators who responded said they would vote to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada. The Senate will vote on the override in the summer. After hearing Clinton's prepared speech and his answers to written questions, retiree Pat Malvurg said, "I think we need to have him be our lobbyist" against the Yucca Mountain Project. She was struck by his "passionate opposition" to Yucca Mountain and his comments on the Middle East. The two-term Democratic president said "there is no substitute for American involvement" in the Middle East, and he said the crisis "may require us to send troops there to enforce the peace." He added, "I strongly support (Secretary of State Colin) Powell's trip and disagree with press reports calling it a failure." Although Clinton turned down media requests for interviews and did not hold a news conference, UNLV students were able to submit written questions in advance. Environmental Studies student Renee Brown submitted the Yucca Mountain question. Clinton's prepared speech started with a professorial tone reminiscent of his days as a law school professor in Arkansas. He spoke at length about political paradoxes and global interdependence. His theme: "While our differences are important, our common humanity matters more." Although he didn't bash his successor, his praise was restrained. "One of the best things President Bush did after (the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks) was to go to a mosque and say the enemy is not Islam, it's terrorism." Clinton had a number of suggestions on how to win the war on terrorism, including helping allies "finish the job in Afghanistan." "We have to build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists," he said. His audience was enthusiastic, leaping to their feet when he walked on stage 25 minutes late. Squeals of delight could be heard. Demand for the free tickets to hear Clinton was such that his speech was moved from Ham Hall, which holds 1,800 people, to the 3,100-seat Cox Pavilion, to the Thomas &Mack Center, where it was set up for 6,500. Not all the seats were filled. Several said they came to the Thomas &Mack Center simply because it was historical to see a president. Schoolteacher Judi Rogas said she recently saw musician Paul McCartney and drew parallels between the two, calling both men "legends" who had "an impact on our world and an impact on our culture." Clinton was in Las Vegas to speak as part of the Barbara Greenspun Lecture series, as well as spend some time Sunday on the golf course with his college friend, Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun. His fee was not disclosed, but news accounts estimate his speaking fee starts at $100,000 and went as high as $750,000 for one speech in Saudi Arabia. He is paid an estimated $10 million to $15 million a year for speaking engagements. One question drew laughs, although it wasn't meant to: What do you like to do for pleasure or relaxation? He said he likes to read, see movies and dine with friends. Right now he spends half his time "making a living" and half his time on public service. If he can earn enough in five years to guarantee the financial security of his wife and daughter, he said he'd like to spend 100 percent of his time performing public service. Before golfing Sunday, he had breakfast with the Greenspuns at the Original Pancake House inside Green Valley Ranch. Restaurant Manager Cue Chatley said the president was cordial, shaking hands and signing autographs for people waiting in line. As he was leaving, presidential impressionist Rich Little entered the restaurant. "The real one goes out and the impersonator comes in," Chatley said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 29 Nevada is justified in feeling dumped on USATODAY.com - LAS VEGAS — It's hard to find anyone in this gambling Mecca with the guts to bet that Nevada will win its looming showdown with the Bush administration. But that hasn't stopped the state's political leaders from trying. The skirmish between Nevada officials and the Department of Energy — which has been waged largely below the media's radarscope for months — is now beginning to make headlines well beyond the Las Vegas strip. At issue is a federal effort to build a single long-term dump for the nation's nuclear waste beneath a mountain ridge that is about as close to Las Vegas — the nation's fastest-growing city — as Richmond, Va., is to Washington, D.C. (about 100 miles). While just about everyone here thinks that burying tons of hazardous nuclear waste for at least 10,000 years — the amount of time it takes for the harmful effects of the waste to dissipate — beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain is a bad idea, most believe the deck is stacked against the state. And so it seems. Last week in a remarkable show of bipartisanship, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 41-6 in support of the president's decision to turn Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump. All of the committee's Republicans sided with President Bush and against Nevada's Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, who is leading his state's fight against using the 6-mile-long mountain ridge. The six "no" votes came from Democrats. The House and Senate must approve the plan before it takes effect. The unity between the committee's Republicans and Democrats seems to have been forged as much by a collective "not in my backyard" sigh of relief as by the Energy Department's assertion that the Nevada site is the best place to store spent nuclear fuel. Whatever the reason, the residents of Nevada have a right to feel that they are getting the bum's rush on this issue. The Energy Department's examination of the Yucca Mountain site and the president's selection of it have not been subjected to a high-profile national debate about the scientific arguments for and against the project, or the concerns about transporting nuclear waste by train or trucks across scores of states to the Nevada site. Supporters of the plan say these issues are red herrings. Maybe so, but they still should be thoroughly explored — and not summarily "dissed," as some in Congress seem inclined to do — before the House and Senate vote on this matter. The best way to do this is not with testimony from Nevada's political leaders and the Bush administration. Considering the stakes, Congress should ask the nation's top research universities to assemble a blue-ribbon panel of nuclear scientists and transportation engineers to perform an independent assessment of the government's plan to turn Yucca Mountain into a nuclear-waste graveyard. "We have an excellent legal case and a great chance of winning this fight in court" if it comes to that, said Greg Bortolin, Guinn's communications director. And it probably will if an effort isn't made to rescue the Yucca Mountain debate from the morass it's now stuck in. Any decision that grows out of this political bog is unlikely to pass the smell test. As it is now, many Nevadans believe their state is about to get a bipartisan shafting from Congress and a raw deal from the man their state helped hoist into the White House. If that happens, the fight over Yucca Mountain will almost certainly end up in the courts — and the search for a solution to the nation's growing nuclear-waste problem will plunge into a legal limbo. DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY. [http://www.gannett.com] --> ***************************************************************** 30 Greenpeace vows to halt nuclear cargo shipments Lloyds List; Apr 30, 2002 BY BRIAN REYES ENVIRONMENTAL activists yesterday vowed to stop 'the most controversial nuclear shipment in history' as two armed British-flagged vessels set sail from Barrow-in-Furness to Japan to pick up a cargo containing enough plutonium to build 50 nuclear bombs. The ships, owned by a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, will return later this year carrying UK-manufactured MOX fuel which was rejected by Japan in 1999 after it was discovered that the British company had falsified quality control data. 'If this shipment proceeds, the UK and Japan will be creating a floating terrorist target and a huge danger to the health and security of millions of people globally,' said Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner. 'This shipment needs to be stopped and we will do all we can to peacefully prevent it happening.' The shipment comes at a time when the transport of nuclear cargoes by sea is being heavily criticised by governments around the world, including the Panamanian legislature which is debating a Bill to ban such transports through the canal. But BNFL said the shipment complies with strict international regulations and that the transport plan for the forthcoming voyage had been approved by the UK&'s security regulator, the Department of Trade and Industry&'s Office for Civil Nuclear Security. This shipment is important for BNFL as it represents a fresh start following the scandal three years ago. 'This is an important milestone for BNFL as it begins to draw a line under the issue and we now look forward to an increasingly positive relationship with our Japanese customers,' said the nuclear company&'s chief executive Norman Askew. No route has been announced for the return trip from Japan but there are three options, including through the Panama Canal, around Cape Horn or via the Cape of Good Hope. The two ships, one of which will act as an escort to the vessel carrying the cargo, are the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail, both operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport. ***************************************************************** 31 Yucca Mountain nuclear storage is bad for Nevada and the nation Pioneer Press | 04/29/2002 | BY BOB KERREY Columnist Shipping radioactive waste across 43 states to Yucca Mountain is not just bad for Nevada; it's bad for America. The Yucca Mountain site, located just outside of Las Vegas, is a flawed solution to America's nuclear waste problem. It is flawed because it won't get nuclear waste out of America's back yards, but will increase the risks of radiation exposure to millions of Americans. It ignores new technologies that store waste to be treated without the risk transporting to a single site. And the administration has failed to incorporate the dramatic change in the world since the decision was made to store high-level waste in a single site. Three key things have changed since the government began planning to ship nuclear waste to Nevada. First, Las Vegas, the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country, is today much closer to the Yucca Mountain site than it was 20 years ago. Second, technology to store and secure nuclear waste has improved significantly — which means we don't have to face the serious risks of moving and protecting 77,000 tons of radioactive waste in 53,000 truck shipments or 10,000 rail shipments through 734 counties housing half of America's population. Third, since Sept. 11 we face a new reality of terror, and we cannot afford to create tens of thousands of new targets for terrorists. Instead of reconsidering the original decision, the government is pressing ahead like an aircraft carrier that cannot change its course. After their own scientists determined that Yucca Mountain is geologically unfit, the government insisted on using man-made "engineering" solutions to isolate this high-level nuclear waste. Instead of using similar engineering solutions to contain waste where it already is without creating new problems by transporting it on our roads, railways and waterways, the government presses ahead with an outdated 20-year-old plan. Most striking is the Department of Energy's decision not to publicize a viable, less risky, alternative developed by a subsidiary of the nation's largest nuclear utility company, Exelon Corp. In an agreement signed nearly two years ago, DOE agreed to take title to the spent fuel waste and own and operate a dry storage facility on-site. It appears this safer and cheaper alternative to Yucca Mountain is now being ignored. Transporting nuclear waste across our country is an undertaking that every American concerned about our nation's security should take very seriously. Sharing our highways with tens of thousands of radioactive shipments is a disaster waiting to happen. An accident involving a truck with radioactive waste is a statistical certainty. Just as certain is the increased exposure to terrorism. DOE and outside experts both agree accidents will happen; though no one can predict their likely impact. More troubling is the potential for radiation exposure. The government-approved casks, which have never undergone rigorous full-scale testing, leak radiation and could become portable X-ray machines that cannot be turned off. This concern is not trivial either from a health or a liability standpoint. Most serious of all is that these shipments will become irresistible targets for terrorists. After Sept. 11 and the increasing incidents of suicide bombings, our elected leaders should not approve this plan unless they can guarantee the safety of these shipments. They cannot simply trust the DOE or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who are still analyzing risks based on terrorist incidents from the 1970s and 1980s. Without proper security measures, these shipments could easily be used as a "dirty bomb." It is imperative that an up-to-date plan is in place to prevent them from becoming low-grade nuclear weapons and that the cost of this plan be measured against the potential benefits of a single site. The American people and their representatives in Congress must keep this in mind: There is no pressing reason to move ahead with the Yucca Mountain site without completing a comprehensive evaluation. Even the administration agrees that the current storage system can safely remain for many years. Congress must now decide. Will it opt for the administration's unsound policy that jeopardizes our health and safety or will it choose to act responsibly? At a time when we need to be doing everything in our power to secure our nation's safety, a policy that puts us on the road to another national tragedy is a step in the wrong direction. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kerrey, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska, is president of New School University in New York. Distributed by Knight Ridder News Service. About TwinCities.com ***************************************************************** 32 Transport of radioactive soil begins soon phillyBurbs.com | Burlington County Times News By David Levinsky BCT staff writer dlevinsky@phillyBurbs.com As early as next week, workers could begin excavating more than 12,000 cubic yards of low-level radioactive soil and debris from the site of a 1960 nuclear-missile accident on an Ocean County section of Fort Dix, military officials said yesterday. McGuire Air Force Base officials said the six-month cleanup at the former Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center site on Fort Dix would begin between early and mid-May. For security reasons, the project's exact start-up date will not be announced, officials said. The $9.6 million cleanup will be performed by Duratek Inc., a South Carolina company that specializes in removal of radioactive waste. Under the military's plans, the waste will be excavated from a site off Route 539 on a portion of Fort Dix in Plumsted Township and packaged in steel containers. The containers will be loaded onto trucks and driven nine miles on restricted military roads through Fort Dix to a reconstructed rail-loading platform at the Lakehurst Naval Air Station in Ocean County. From Lakehurst the material will be loaded onto railroad cars and taken to an underground hazardous-waste depository in Clive, Utah, officials said. "At no time while the material is in the trucks will it be leaving Department of Defense property," McGuire Air Force Base spokeswoman Lt. Diane Weed said. "That was a big deal to a lot of community members, and we're happy that this plan makes them feel more comfortable." The military's original plan was to transport the material on Route 539 to a railhead in Manchester Township, Ocean County, where it was to be stored and eventually loaded onto rail cars. Area residents and officials spoke out against the proposal because the hazardous material would be transported on a public road and then left unguarded at the railhead. Most of the debris and soil is not particularly dangerous, Weed said yesterday. "Ninety-five percent of it contains radiation levels so low that it doesn't even warrant being labeled hazardous," she said. She said Duratek still planned to take precautions. "They'll be spraying down the whole area with water to keep airborne articles from spreading," she said. "There'll also plastic coverings and air monitors around the entire site. Plutonium, which can be transported by dust particles, has been linked to cancer of the lungs, liver, bones and lymphatic systems if inhaled or ingested. The Fort Dix soil and debris became contaminated on June 7, 1960, when an Air Force nuclear-tipped air-defense missile caught fire. The heat from the blaze melted the missile's warhead, releasing plutonium into the air and spreading waste across the 75-acre site. Since the fire, the federal government has monitored the site, taking soil samples and making sure the public stays away. The worst area of contamination has been covered with a slab of concrete. The site closed in 1972. www.phillyburbs.com ***************************************************************** 33 Letter: A sad, broken mountain awaits its fate Las Vegas SUN April 29, 2002 I do not question that something has to be done to eliminate nuclear wastes, but any reasonable person knows by now that Yucca Mountain, an old mountain falling apart, an old mountain in volcanic and earthquake-prone surroundings that could very well soon consume it, is no place for a repository. I'm sorry that $6 billion-$7 billion have been spent, but what that expenditure has revealed is that the mountain cannot be a safe repository. It's time to cut our losses and move on. No objective, dispassionate observer can look at the facts and agree the mountain is a suitable site for a repository. We have to remember the Yucca studies are being examined by people over the entire world who, in their own countries, have not approved sites better than Yucca. Congress has the opportunity to continue being held in high esteem, or it can reveal that it's being governed by something other than facts. A sad, broken mountain awaits its fate. RON BOURGOIN Rocky Mount, N.C. Editor's note: The writer was the consultant to the town of Rolesville in Wake County, N.C., in 1984 when a site in that area was being considered by the Department of Energy as a potential high-level radioactive waste repository. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Clinton applauds Yucca fight Las Vegas SUN Today: April 30, 2002 at 11:05:25 PDT Ex-president says Nevada should lobby small-state senators By Erin Neff Bill Clinton said Monday if he were still the president of the United States, he would not approve Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository until unanswered scientific questions were solved. But after a speech to about 6,000 residents, politicians and students at UNLV as part of the Barbara Greenspun Lecture Series, Clinton stressed that he never opposed the site outright. "I never promised Nevada that I wouldn't approve the site," Clinton said in response to a question submitted in advance by a UNLV environmental studies student. "The only promise I ever made to you was I wouldn't do it if I weren't convinced it was safe based on the science." Two independent panels have determined that almost 300 scientific questions must be answered before Yucca Mountain could be licensed to hold waste. During his presidency, Clinton vetoed a proposal to temporarily store waste at Yucca Mountain. Clinton's five-minute response to the Yucca Mountain question came after a 35-minute speech on America's role in a global community -- a role he said had greater relevance in the post-Sept. 11 world. But his Yucca statements drew the most laughter and hearty applause of the night. Clinton discussed the legislation placing Yucca on a list of three potential places, including Deaf Smith County, Texas, in western Texas, "which is farther from any large population site than this one here," he said to tremendous applause. Clinton then said he read an article that said the original transportation route was changed when it took the waste within 100 yards of the U.S. Capitol. The Energy Department has not published any transportation routes. Still, Clinton's comment on the routes drew laughter. "They had to reroute it," Clinton said. "If the think it's so darn safe why don't they leave it where it is?" The laughs led him to comment that the whole situation is laughable due to its absurdity. "Oh, I don't want it in Texas," he said, hamming to the crowd by taking a jab at the way leaders in Washington are deciding the issue. "And I don't want it traveling too close to the Capitol. And I'm sorry you had an earthquake on the site. I really am. But we've got to put it somewhere, and I'm just going to ram it through to Nevada." Clinton recommended that Nevada take its case to the senators of every small state and "ask them how they would feel if this was being done to them." He also said he was sympathetic to utility companies that are trying to remove the waste so they can generate more power. But, he stressed, the current solution is being promoted "in a superficial way." "I just think it's a mistake. I don't think it can be justified on the merits," Clinton said. After spending about 40 minutes answering questions, Clinton worked the crowd, signing autographs, posing for pictures with babies and shaking hands. "I touched him," screamed Marcia Gomez, a nurse at University Medical Center who said she was thrilled to meet one of her personal heroes. "I love him for all the things he talked about," said Gomez, who is black and who noted Clinton's commitment to racial equality. During his speech -- interrupted 18 times by applause -- Clinton appeared most troubled when discussing the current battles between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. He said both sides are trapped in a "death lock" over what individual residents want and what their countrymen believe en masse. As a result, Clinton said, America must stay involved -- perhaps by sending in troops -- to validate the peace efforts. Clinton also applauded the recent trip to the region by Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying he disagreed with preliminary reports calling his visit a failure. "We have to start with the little steps," Clinton said. He also talked briefly about his current life as Citizen Clinton -- a public servant who splits his time between speeches, fund-raisers, writing, planning his presidential library and promoting his foundation. Clinton has given almost 200 speeches in 30 countries since leaving office, according to a recent article in Newsweek. The overseas speeches earn him between $200,000 and $300,000, with talks to American conferences and banquet appearances beginning at $125,000. Organizers declined to discuss the speaking fee. Monday's speech, sponsored by the Greenspun family, which owns the Sun, was offered free. The lecture series, which has featured Carl Bernstein, Leslie Stahl and Hillary Clinton in recent years, is typically held in the 1,800-seat Ham Hall at UNLV. But organizers knew Clinton could pack the 3,500-seat Cox Pavilion. When tickets quickly ran out for that venue, the event was moved to the Thomas &Mack Center -- with curtains blocking out more than half of the arena to give the speech a more intimate feel. A total of 6,500 tickets were distributed, with numerous state and local politicians grabbing VIP seats on the floor, and the public filling the general admission seats in the stands. The majority of those in attendance Monday cheered wildly when Clinton took the stage and stood when he concluded his speech. Although the former president was dogged by sexual scandals and impeachment, many in the crowd said they would vote for Clinton again if they could. "He's the best president we'll ever have," said Corey Russell, who snapped a photo of his 6-month-old daughter, Carter, with Clinton. Jessica Yatrofsky, a 20-year-old UNLV sophomore, said she found Clinton's remarks refreshingly honest. "He didn't talk around the questions," she said. "He just came out and told it like it is. It's not the kind of vibe that I get from President Bush." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 35 N-Storage, Quakes Discussed The Salt Lake Tribune -- Tuesday, April 30, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS The state's lawyers Monday began attacking a claim that a major earthquake would not seriously damage a concrete pad in Skull Valley where a consortium of nuclear utilities wants to store nuclear power plant waste. Attorneys for the consortium, called Private Fuel Storage, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which says a license should be granted for the storage facility, defended their earthquake evaluations as federal regulators began their third week of licensing hearings for the storage site. Arguments for and against the storage proposal are being heard by three administrative judges comprising the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which expects to decide this fall whether to grant a license for the $3.1 billion facility. If the license is approved, the out-of-state consortium would be allowed to put steel-and-concrete casks containing up to 44,000 tons of deadly radioactive waste on a 3-foot-thick reinforced concrete pad at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. It would be big enough to hold all the waste produced at U.S. commercial facilities since utilities began producing power four decades ago. The licensing board originally rejected the state's request to discuss earthquakes during these Salt Lake hearings because the state raised the issue too late. But then the consortium twice changed its own earthquake evaluations. Last winter, the licensing board said it wanted to hear more about the state's concerns. The panel now is considering extending the hearings for another two weeks. As with other hearing questions -- about contaminating groundwater, impairing wilderness and surviving the impact of an airplane crash -- the deliberations on earthquakes have taken much longer than expected. The board expects to hear from 25 experts on earthquakes. Attorneys for the consortium and federal regulators insist the risk of strong earthquakes is remote, with just one "Big One" likely in 10,000 years. And even if there was such an earthquake, they say, the casks are so strong that Utahns could count on not being exposed to strong doses of radiation. But attorneys for the state of Utah -- the project's most vigorous opponent -- say that's too optimistic. They say the site lies directly above a couple of faults in an area highly susceptible to quakes bigger than those that shook Seattle last year and Oakland, Calif., in 1989. They also question the wisdom of placing the casks like so many soft-drink cans arranged, unsecured, atop a picnic table. They attacked the project for: * Using an "unconventional design" never before used for a nuclear facility. * Depending too much on computer models and too little on real-world results. * Relying on structural strength standards lower than those required for highway overpasses in Utah. * Asserting the casks can withstand the extreme forces of the "Big One," the violent motion and the gelatin-like consistency of the soil beneath the pad. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune ***************************************************************** 36 Battle of Yucca Mountain (washingtonpost.com) Tuesday, April 30, 2002; Page A18 CONGRESS made its first moves last week toward approval of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository site; the full House is expected to take up the question soon. Opponents are fighting the designation on two main grounds: the potential dangers in transporting highly radioactive waste across the country to Nevada, and concerns about the mountain's suitability for safely storing the waste for thousands of years. They raise questions that should be confronted, but in the end their arguments fall short. Congress should override Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto and allow work on Yucca Mountain to proceed. The alternative is to allow spent fuel to continue to pile up at reactor sites across the country for the indefinite future, with no clear prospect of its ultimate disposal. There's a lot about this process to inspire discomfort. When the three leading sites under study were narrowed to just Yucca Mountain in 1987, budget and politics mostly drove Congress's decision. The more money that has been spent to investigate this site, the more momentum has been created to find a way to make it work. Officials are under pressure because an expensive meter is ticking on lawsuits over the government's failure to meet its legal obligation to take possession of generating plants' nuclear waste. The federal government's dismal failure at the beginning of the nuclear age to adequately protect against harm from nuclear testing and production justifies skepticism about today's reassurances. But while years of investigation haven't answered all the questions, neither have they produced adequate reason to stop the project in its tracks. Nuclear plants are running, generating about a fifth of the nation's electricity, and spent fuel continues to be produced. It is true that opening Yucca Mountain won't magically remove all nuclear materials from plant sites around the country. It will take at least a decade to begin moving waste, decades more to haul the waiting tons to Nevada, and in the meantime plants will keep generating more. But without Yucca, the plants will still be going, the waste will still be waiting, and the amounts sitting at all these sites will be that much greater. Opening an orderly pathway to a remote disposal site would hold down the volume of spent fuel near major population centers and water supplies. It also would open the way for final removal of waste from decommissioned plants. There is no denying that picking up toxic material and moving it creates possibilities for accident or attack, though existing plant sites pose security concerns as well. But the safe record of spent-fuel transport in the past is evidence that it can be done. And this is a problem that must be solved: Any solution short of permanently leaving the waste where it is will require safely transporting it. Opponents also rightly note that extensive testing of the mountain has revealed surprising information, particularly about water movement within it, and that over time the Energy Department has changed the standards for the project. Independent scientists reviewing the Energy Department's work have said the technical base for its estimate of how the repository will perform is only "weak to moderate," but they also found no specific factor that would eliminate Yucca Mountain from consideration. The independent board recommended a number of steps to increase confidence in the Energy Department's projections: Congress needs to exercise strong oversight to make sure those steps are taken. And during the many years that the mountain will remain open, officials must aggressively monitor its operation. A vote to override Gov. Guinn doesn't solve the nuclear waste problem forever or throw open the door to unfettered expansion of the nuclear power industry. Existing nuclear plants and military sources of waste are already projected to produce more nuclear waste than the law allows for Yucca Mountain. But moving ahead with the Nevada project begins to address the 40,000-ton problem that already exists. Congress should not cut that work off now. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 37 EPA to begin temporary cleanup at Superfund site in Concord By Associated Press, 4/29/2002 19:02 BOSTON (AP) Federal environmental officials are beginning a $500,000 ''temporary cleanup'' of a Concord Superfund site. The Environmental Protection Agency will install a permanent fence around the ''old landfill'' portion of the 46-acre Starmet Corp. site, install temporary covers over the old landfill and a holding basin, and provide security if needed. The site, where depleted uranium armor-piercing bullets were made until 1999, was named to the National Priority List a year ago. According to the EPA, the holding basin and groundwater at the site have been contaminated with depleted uranium, volatile organic compounds and other toxic metals, including beryllium. Starmet, known as Nuclear Metals Inc. until 1997, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in South Carolina earlier this month. The EPA said it plans additional soil sampling to determine where the fencing and temporary cover should be placed. It will also take soil and water samples from the holding basin to see if contaminants in the basin are leaching into the ground water on the site. There are about 3,800 drums and other containers of depleted uranium waste and other hazardous substances still stored at the site. Company president Robert Quinn referred questions to an attorney, Ethan Jeffery, who did not immediately return a call Monday. Boston Globe ***************************************************************** 38 Diablo Above ground N-waste storage controversy News briefs from California's Central Coast The Associated Press Tuesday, April 30, 2002 SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (AP) -- Residents concerned about above-ground storage of used radioactive fuel rods asked county officials to analyze all options before approving Pacific Gas &Electric's plan. More than 75 people showed up for Monday's county meeting over the utility's storage plans at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. They want a full analysis by the county before consideration of a license to build an above-ground dry-cask storage facility. Supervisors Peg Pinard and Shirley Bianchi were among those expressing grave concerns about continuing to produce highly radioactive waste without knowing where it will eventually end up. "It doesn't make sense to me that we continue to produce a material as dangerous as this," Pinard said. PG wants to build a series of concrete pads behind the power plant that will house as many as 138 casks containing spent nuclear rods from Diablo's two reactors. The storage facility will have to be built and ready to accept spent fuel by 2006 when the plant's wet-storage pools become full. County energy planner James Caruso said it is unclear what would happen if the county refused to issue a coastal development permit for the project. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pre-empted much of the authority for licensing the facility, including radiological safety and security. "We are not here with many answers tonight," Caruso said. "We are looking for the questions." The San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 39 German nuclear waste reportedly dumped in Sweden BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 29, 2002 Waste containing plutonium from the dismantling of the former nuclear plant of Siemens in Hanau in Hesse ends up on a dumping ground in Ranstad in central Sweden. The unsecured dump in a birch forest is in the neighbourhood of the uranium-reprocessing plant of Ranstad Mineral, which cooperates with the Westinghouse concern and where nuclear technologists from Syria work as part of a "scientific exchange". The reusable uranium from the old Hanau plant is officially recovered there; the Swedish radiation protection institute has ascertained in samples that the admissible limits are exceeded fivefold. According to the institute, altogether "120 metric tons of foreign nuclear material", including 40 tons from Siemens, have been delivered to Ranstad Mineral. According to a Swedish parliament resolution, the import of radioactive waste into the country is prohibited in principle. "We do not deliver radioactive waste abroad, but useful residues," Helmut Rupar, chief of the Hanau nuclear plant, said. In the official transport permit of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, the Hanau deliveries by truck and ship to Sweden are declared "contaminated residues." Source: Der Spiegel, Hamburg, in German 29 Apr 02 p 20 /© BBC Monitoring ***************************************************************** 40 New nuclear warhead to be decided in Rhode Island Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:05:58 -0500 (CDT) We need your help! We are probably one Senator away from winning or losing on whether Congress funds the new nuclear warhead (the "bunker buster") next week. That Senator is Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Please forward this action alert to your friends and contacts in Rhode Island. Thanks! David Culp Legislative Representative Friends Committee on National Legislation ----------------------------------------- RHODE ISLAND: Legislative Action Alert The following action items from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby based in Washington, D.C. R.I. SEN. JACK REED TO DECIDE ON NEW NUCLEAR WARHEAD In its FY 2003 budget request, the Bush administration is asking for $15.5 million for a study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). The RNEP would be designed to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets such as bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons. Because of its lower yield and earth penetrating capability, the RNEP is considered to be a more "useable" nuclear weapon than large yield, "strategic" nuclear weapons. However, reports by scientists indicate that the RNEP is far from being a "clean" weapon. If detonated in an urban setting, 10,000 to 50,000 people would receive a fatal dose of radiation within the first 24 hrs. This does not take into account traumatic injuries arising from the extreme pressures of the blast or thermal injuries arising from the heat of the explosion. Nor does the casualty estimate consider the consequences of fires and the collapse of buildings from the seismic shock that the explosion would produce. Moreover, proceeding with the production of RNEPs would significantly undermine the global non-proliferation regime because the obvious targets for these weapons are non-nuclear weapon states. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the use of nuclear weapons against such states. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic will be considering the new nuclear weapon the week of May 6 as part of the defense authorization bill. The chairman of the subcommittee is Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He is likely to be the deciding Senator on the issue. ACTION: Immediately contact Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.). Because of delays in the mail to the U.S. Capitol, messages must be sent by telephone or by fax to Sen. Reed's Washington office. His telephone number is (202) 224-4680. His fax number is (202) 224-4680. The message should be to the attention of his defense aide, Liz King. BACKGROUND: The U.S. introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in 1997, the B61, modification 11. The B61-11 modified a nuclear explosive from an earlier bomb by putting it into a hardened steel casing with a new nose cone to provide ground penetration capability. The deployment was controversial because of official U.S. policy not to develop new nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy and the national weapons labs have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 was merely a "modification" of an older delivery system because it used an existing warhead. According to Dr. Rob Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists, "The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited...Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast would simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area." (For more information, visit .) The development of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would also have disastrous consequences for the international arms control regime. A nuclear weapon designed for battlefield use would increase the perception that nuclear weapons were as usable as any other part of the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal and that the U.S. was preparing to use them. If the U.S. proceeds with these weapons, other nations with far less conventional capability will seek to deter a U.S. attack by developing their own weapons of mass destruction, most likely chemical or biological weapons. The U.S. and other nuclear weapon states pledged in 1995, not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states (with certain exceptions), as an inducement for those non-nuclear weapon states to agree to extend, indefinitely, the NPT. Therefore, the development or testing of these weapons would be a de facto repudiation of these assurances. To quote Rep. Markey in his letter, "the RNEPs may offer marginal military benefits at best while imposing major costs and risks." P.S. Because the urgency of the message, we ask that you forward this e-mail to five (or more) of your friends in Rhode Island. Thanks! ### ***************************************************************** 41 [toeslist] URGENT: Stop New Nuclear Warhead Funding Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:25:02 -0500 (CDT) ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Miller To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: 911 Peace Coalition Action Alert--Please Forward Dear Friend, Please contact Senator Patty Murray, who is a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In the strongest terms possible, please ask her to oppose the idea of "usable" nuclear weapons and to cut funding from the Energy Department budget for the new nuclear warhead called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator." We are asking you to fax this message because mail delivery to the Congress is still very unreliable, and we have been told by Congressional staff that e-mails are not always read. Patty Murray's fax number is 202-224-0238. Her regular phone is 202 224-2621. As you may know, recent news accounts report that the Bush Administration plans to target non- nuclear states with nuclear weapons. This new nuclear policy is contained or implicit in the classified "Nuclear Posture Review" delivered to Congress on January 8, 2002. It is very important that our political policy makers understand that most people in the United States do not find such a policy acceptable. Please check the Legislative Action Message which was sent out by FCNL for background information and to send a fax: . (You must click onto the button on the left labeled "Take Action Now".) We are contacting several thousand people around the country who have representatives or senators on this or another crucial decision-making committee in Congress. Your action will join with many others to make a difference in the outcome. We hope you will take part in this crucial campaign to stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Senator Murray is key to this decision. Please contact her as soon as possible, as we anticipate a vote very soon. Many thanks for your ongoing support. Sincerely, Kathy Guthrie Field Program Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/NJYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: toeslist-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 42 Russia Offers U.S. Alternatives on Reduction of Warheads April 30, 2002 By SABRINA TAVERNISE MOSCOW, April 29 — The Russian defense minister, Sergei B. Ivanov, said today that Russia had offered the United States "a number of new ideas" on nuclear arms reduction to resolve disagreements in arms talks between the countries. Mr. Ivanov made the comments at a news conference here with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was here today on a stopover during a trip to Central Asia. The two men met for more than two hours. Russia's proposal, submitted to American officials last week, "could provide the basis for an agreement" on nuclear arms cuts, Mr. Ivanov said at the news conference, at Sheremetyevo airport. Mr. Rumsfeld, in his remarks, said, '`We're making progress, and the meetings will continue later this week in Washington." He also noted that America's relations with Russia have changed. In Soviet times, arms control defined the relationship, he said, while today the relationship is "between two nations that are no longer enemies." A person close to the negotiations today said American officials gave a "largely positive" reaction to the Russian proposals. "There is a clearer road map to an agreement than there was before last week," when "some pretty big differences still existed," this person said. More detailed discussions on the proposal will take place later this week, when Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov meets with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Washington. Both officials said the final decision on arms reductions would be left to President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who are to meet in Moscow in late May. American officials have said that even after the United States cuts its 6,000-warhead nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads — the plan announced by Mr. Bush during a summit meeting with Mr. Putin in November — it would store hundreds of warheads so that it would have the potential to respond to future threats. Russia has repeatedly warned that it will not accept that plan and has pressed for a formal agreement on arms reductions, a condition that Mr. Bush, in a policy turnaround last month, embraced during Mr. Ivanov's last trip to the United States. Russia has also said it wants a system to verify American reductions. The Russian proposal announced by Mr. Ivanov today sets out "ways to try to avoid having those issues become hang-ups," said the person close to the negotiations, who added that "the odds have increased," for a treaty next month, "although it is far from a done deal." Under Secretary of State John Bolton left Moscow unexpectedly last week, ahead of his planned departure date, after receiving the proposal from Russian negotiators. At times during the news conference today Mr. Ivanov, who has expressed strong opposition to the American intention to store nuclear warheads, seemed to hint that Russia had become more flexible. "We are not simply thinking mechanically, maybe like we did before, about the number of carriers, warheads and so on," he said. "We are trying to forecast the situation in the world in our bilateral relations five, seven, nine years from now." Russian nuclear experts remained skeptical that a quick solution could be reached. "The rules of how to verify, and of storage versus destruction — these are very serious problems," said Anatoly Dyakov, director of the Center for Arms Control at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. "Saying we are friends, not enemies, and don't need treaties anymore — it is just not true yet." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 43 Engineer Sentenced in Nuclear Trigger Case April 30, 2002 LOS ANGELES Weapons: Richard Kelly Smyth, extradited from Spain, admitted a 'grave error' in shipping to Israel devices that can fire nuclear weapons. By DAVID ROSENZWEIG, TIMES STAFF WRITER A Southern California engineer who fled the country in 1985 after being indicted on charges of selling Israel electronic devices that can be used to fire nuclear weapons was sentenced Monday to 40 months in federal prison. Richard Kelly Smyth, now 72 and in frail health, was discovered living in southern Spain last year. He was arrested by local police and extradited to the United States. He pleaded guilty in December to violating the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and making a false statement about the contents of one shipment of the devices, which are known as krytrons and have a variety of applications, from triggering nuclear warheads to operating photocopying machines. Despite the sentence, federal Judge Pamela A. Rymer ruled that Smyth could immediately apply to be released on parole. She also fined him $20,000. Israeli authorities denied having acquired the 2-inch-long krytrons for their nuclear weapons arsenal. After Smyth's indictment, they returned the remaining devices to U.S. authorities. Appearing in Los Angeles federal court Monday, Smyth said he made a "grave error" when he shipped about 800 krytrons in the early 1980s to Heli Trading Co. in Israel without State Department approval. Heli Trading was owned at that time by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli-born arms trader who later became a successful Hollywood film producer. His movies have included "Pretty Woman" and "L.A. Confidential." Milchan has denied involvement in the krytron deal. He told CBS' "60 Minutes" two years ago that he had allowed the Israeli government to use his company for trading with the United States. In court, Smyth also apologized for fleeing the United States just before the start of his scheduled 1985 trial before Rymer, now a federal appeals court judge. He said he panicked after reading newspaper articles saying he could be sentenced to up to 105 years in prison if convicted on all of the 30 criminal counts originally lodged against him. The 105 years represented the maximum sentence allowed by statute. Statutory maximums are only rarely applied. Abandoning his engineering business, Milco International Inc., and an expensive home in Orange County, Smyth and his wife, Emelie, flew to Switzerland and then settled in Malaga, Spain, passing themselves off as retirees. Smyth, using his real name, was vice president of the American Club in Malaga. He and his wife got along on Social Security and occasional gifts from relatives. U.S. authorities learned of Smyth's whereabouts by accident. Last year, he opened an account at a bank in Malaga, noting in his application that he was a U.S. citizen. A routine check by the bank with Interpol turned up an arrest warrant issued in Los Angeles. Smyth was taken into custody by Spanish police. While in jail awaiting extradition, he suffered two strokes. His lawyer, James D. Riddet, cited his client's medical condition and age as he appealed to Rymer for leniency. Riddet asked the judge to follow the recommendation of the federal probation office that Smyth be sentenced to 10 months in prison, roughly the same amount of time he has spent behind bars. Smyth did not know that krytrons could be used as nuclear triggers when he sold them to Israel, Riddet said. He described his client as a patriotic American who had served his country loyally as a technical advisor to the Air Force and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Smyth, he said, was a "brilliant scientist who was just not very intelligent when it came to practical matters," such as obtaining a government permit to sell the krytrons to a foreign buyer. But Assistant U.S. Atty. Daniel S. Goodman objected to the portrayal of Smyth as "an absent-minded professor." He said Smyth knew that krytron sales overseas were restricted. In the mid-1970s, he noted, Smyth was denied a permit to ship them to Israel. "If the defendant had gone to trial and been convicted in 1985, he would have long since been released and returned to his family," Goodman said in a memo to the judge. "The fact that he now stands before this court for sentencing at the age of 72 is not the fault of the government." Goodman asked for a five-year sentence to show that "justice cannot be turned into a game of hide and seek where the prize for the elusive is the immunity of old age." In sentencing Smyth, Rymer said she found it difficult to accept the notion that he was naive about the law. Observing that he and his wife spent "15 idyllic years in Spain" after fleeing the United States, she questioned why he made no effort to come back on his own to face the music. Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 44 Iraq ready to let weapons inspectors back in Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Ewen MacAskill in Baghdad Tuesday April 30, 2002 Iraq is preparing to back down on its refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to the country in the hope that this will avert a US attack. The US and Britain have led calls for Iraq to permit the UN weapons inspectors to establish whether Saddam Hussein is hiding biological and chemical weapons and developing a nuclear capability. Iraqi willingness to cave in, after more than two years blocking the entry of the inspectors, comes amid reports that the US is planning an invasion of Iraq early next year. The Iraqi foreign minister, Naji Sabri al-Hadithi, is to begin three days of talks in New York tomorrow with the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to discuss the weapons inspectors and sanctions. According to a participant in discussions at the Iraqi foreign ministry in recent days, the Iraqi government will compromise, though it may try to string out the negotiations. "I think it is now very likely that the inspectors will return," the participant said. Both President Saddam and his deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, are said to be extremely worried about the threats from the White House. The Iraqi government is said to believe that any attack will be by missiles but does not know whether the targets will be confined to military, presidential and ministry sites or will include civilian infrastructure, such as power plants. The UN weapons inspectors, who first went into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf war, spent seven years checking whether Saddam had a hidden arsenal. They left before the US and Britain bombed Baghdad in 1998. Both the US and Britain insist that Saddam has built up his arsenal in the absence of the inspectors. Iraq denies it. Mr al-Hadithi will tell Mr Annan that the weapons inspectors can return but will try to set conditions. The main one is that the inspections be time-limited rather than, as previously, indefinite. Another condition is that they are not allowed into Saddam's presidential palaces. The Iraqis may be willing to back down on the second condition. The participant in the foreign ministry talks said that the inspectors had been allowed in before: "It is nonsense to think that Saddam would sleep above a pile of biological and chemical weapons." In the talks with Mr Annan, the Iraqi government will press him to be even-handed, claiming it is a breach of international law for President George Bush to declare he wants to overthrow the head of another sovereign state. Mr al-Hadithi will also challenge Mr Annan on the legitimacy of US and British planes attacking Iraqi positions and the continuation of sanctions, which are under the auspices of the UN but are only vigorously pursed by the US and Britain. Also on the agenda for New York is a new set of sanctions, in which almost all goods other than military would be allowed through. Iraq opposes this, claiming the UN would still retain control over Iraqi spending. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 45 It's the ultimate in retro-chic - nuclear weapons Guardian Unlimited | Columnists | Simon Hoggart Tuesday April 30, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Yesterday a Labour defence secretary promised to use nuclear weapons if needs be. He got away with it, as you'd expect now that Labour is the war party. As someone pointed out, Tony Blair talks about the "first" Gulf war, implying that we're right on course for the second. But how it took me back, to a time in the past which some younger readers may not even recall! Cliff Richard was top of the pops, income tax was four and sixpence in the pound, we all gathered round the TV to watch great natural history shows starring David Attenborough, Arsenal were top of the league, and Margaret Thatcher was a little known figure on the very fringe of politics. So not much has changed in 40 years or so. Still, in those days we had CND, Aldermaston marches, Michael Foot in his duffel coat waving his stick round Trafalgar Square, and The War Game, a television drama which pointed out that when a nuclear bomb exploded over your city, there wouldn't be much point in protecting yourself in the manner suggested by the authorities, to wit, hiding under a table. Then we forgot about nukes and got on with buying DVDs and holidays in Florida. Until now, when they might return as a form of retro-chic, like hippie clothes. Malcolm Savidge, a Labour MP, asked whether the words of Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, signalled a change in government policy. Were we going back on an undertaking we had given to the non-nuclear states, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, not to use nukes against them? And in any case, hadn't it always been the policy of successive British govern ments that nuclear weapons were "the deterrent of last resort"? At this point, as always with any discussion of nukes, things turned metaphysical. "It is still a deterrent of last resort," said Mr Hoon. "But in order for it to be a deterrent it must be possible for a British government to express its view that ultimately, in conditions of extreme self-defence, those nuclear weapons would be used." Which of course begged the question which Mr Savidge had really been asking, which was "what would the government of Iraq have to do before we rained death on millions of Iraqi civilians?" (I was reminded of a deeply cynical joke I heard in the States. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides go to the Oval Office to see President Bush. They tell him that their estimates show a nuclear strike would kill 10 million Iraqi civilians and one bicycle repair man. "What's with the bicycle repair man? asks Bush. "See," says Rumsfeld, turning to his aides, "I told you no-one would care about the 10 million Iraqis.") Diane Abbott was incredulous. What, she asked, was extreme self-defence? "You're either defending yourself or you're not." Geoff Hoon certainly wasn't going to answer that. "I accept that there are those, and some of them are on my side of the house, who do not believe in the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances. That is not the position of the government. "So it is important that I set out that, er, the government has the availability of nuclear weapons and in certain specified conditions that I have already indicated, we would be prepared to use them." But he hasn't indicated those conditions, and I suspect he never will. He's hardly going to say: "My pledge to Saddam: do what you please and we won't nuke you." On the other hand, you could almost see Labour MPs scrambling for their duffel coats and packing their fish paste sandwiches for the long walk to Aldermaston. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 46 Ridge Says Terrorism is 'Permanent' Las Vegas SUN April 29, 2002 NEW ORLEANS- Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said Monday that al-Qaida terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons and if they succeed in their quest "I don't have any doubt they would try to use" them. Ridge, in an address and question-and-answer session with publishers at The Associated Press annual meeting, said terrorism in America is a "permanent condition" and outlined goals for a long-term security strategy. "We are at war. If we think there are only 20 terrorists - the one we just caught and the 19 others" who attacked on Sept. 11, he said, "we are naive. We have got to believe there are more here." For the first time, Ridge reviewed plans to release this summer or fall a national strategy to rank the nation's homeland defense needs. The plan will focus government resources where the risks are the highest, where most lives can be saved and most property can be protected, he said. "It will reveal, in our judgment, what we need to protect. It will outline the resources available to us and point the way for their best use," Ridge said. Bioterrorism, for example, poses one of the greatest threats for massive loss of life "and our preparedness has historically lagged behind the threat," Ridge said. He told the news executives the homeland defense strategy "will answer two questions often asked by your reporters, and rightly so: `Whose job is it - and who pays for it?'" Following the terrorist attacks, President Bush named the former Pennsylvania governor to be the White House point man for domestic defense programs. The assignment touches on scores of federal activities, including border control, intelligence and safeguards against bioterrorism strikes. Some in Congress want to give the position Cabinet-level status, which would grant lawmakers oversight power and, they say, increase Ridge's influence. Bush has balked, insisting that he has given Ridge enough power to overhaul homeland security from his working space just a few steps from the Oval Office. Ridge recently unveiled a color-coded warning scheme to keep the nation on guard for terrorism. He told publishers that the warning system may be "tweaked" to adjust for suggestions raised during a public comment period. Ridge was asked about the potential threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or exploding nuclear materials in a "dirty bomb." He replied that there is evidence the al-Qaida are seeking nuclear technology. "If they obtain it one way or another I don't have any doubt they will try to use it," he said. In his address, Ridge said the fear of terrorism has receded for many Americans since Sept. 11. "The world is just as dangerous today, if not more so," he said. "The threat is real; it's as real as it was seven months ago. In fact, it is a permanent condition to which this country must permanently adapt." Ridge said his office is working with states and the private sector to study the nation's infrastructure and determine where the greatest risks are. "The challenge is vast. It encompasses so much - oil and gas refineries, power plants and electrical substations, water treatment plants and reservoirs, dams, pipelines, just to name a few. Add to that our schools and hospitals, our banks and financial institutions, our airports and seaports, our bridges and highways," Ridge said. He said many communities are already at work securing potential targets and preparing emergency workers to respond to attacks. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 U.S., Russia Report Progress in Nuclear Arms Talks (washingtonpost.com) U.S., Russia Report Progress in Nuclear Arms Talks As Presidential Summit Looms, Sides Advance on Ideas Put Forth by Moscow By Sharon LaFraniere Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, April 30, 2002; Page A14 MOSCOW, April 29 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, said today that they were making progress in nuclear arms talks aimed at an accord that could be the centerpiece of next month's presidential summit here. At a news conference at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, Ivanov said he and Rumsfeld made some headway on "a number of new ideas" that Russia proposed four or five days ago. Ivanov said he hoped for "even greater progress" when talks resume in Washington this week. Rumsfeld sounded slightly less positive, saying only that negotiations were progressing. Both men made clear they have not reached a deal. Rumsfeld stopped off for two hours of talks at the airport as he wound up a trip to Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. With the summit between Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin just more than three weeks away, the two sides are meeting every few days to try to forge an agreement. The key issue is the handling of thousands of nuclear warheads that both countries have agreed to cut from their arsenals. The United States wants to hold them in reserve in case they are ever needed. Russia, whose weapons are fast becoming obsolete, wants both sides to destroy them. A senior U.S. defense official traveling with Rumsfeld en route to Moscow said Washington is adamant about keeping some weapons on the shelf as a hedge against unforeseen threats. "It's a fact of life," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Many military and political experts now agree that Russia -- like it or not -- probably cannot convince the United States otherwise. With a military budget dwarfed by that of the United States, they say, Russia has not been able to modernize its nuclear arsenal in the past decade and is unlikely to be able to afford to upgrade it any time soon. Some analysts argue that, in reality, Russia would lose little if the United States kept a few thousand warheads in reserve, because Moscow would still have hundreds of warheads ready to launch. Both sides have between 5,500 to 7,000 warheads, depending on how they are counted. Even though the United States could rapidly pull its warheads off the shelf, a strategic arms expert with the Academy of Military Sciences, Vladimir Dvorkin, said last week: "I don't think that would be a serious threat to Russia because Russia will be able to retain the potential for nuclear deterrent." Nonetheless, arms control experts agree, Russia cannot be seen as simply giving in to the U.S. position without some face-saving concessions. One compromise might be to allow the United States to store its decommissioned warheads while giving the Russians some way to check on the reserve. Both sides see political benefits in a new accord. Bush could point to it as evidence that he is not a unilateralist when it comes to international treaties. Putin could use an agreement to show his foreign policy tilt toward the West is in Russia's self-interest. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 48 Study Urges Focus On Terrorism With High Fatalities, Cost (washingtonpost.com) By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, April 29, 2002; Page A03 A million people could die if terrorists launch a biological attack that widely disperses smallpox, anthrax, ebola or other agents, according to a new study that analyzes the damage that could be caused by the use of weapons of mass destruction. Even though such a biological attack was deemed extremely unlikely, a team of scholars from the Brookings Institution said the Bush administration should concentrate homeland security efforts on similar doomsday terrorist scenarios that have the potential for causing the largest numbers of deaths and economic losses, and the greatest psychological damage. The study estimated that 100,000 people would die if a nuclear bomb hit a major U.S. city and that 10,000 would perish in a successful attack on a nuclear or toxic chemical plant. If weapons of mass destruction were directed against the shipping industry, the report said, the economy could suffer up to $1 trillion in losses. The report, scheduled for release Tuesday, is one of the most comprehensive studies since the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people at the Pentagon and World Trade Center and in Pennsylvania. The authors, who specialize in economic and foreign policy studies, said they hoped to aid policymakers such as Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, who is developing a national strategy, figure out where to put resources. Ridge's staff already has devoted much attention to "high consequence" scenarios, such as attacks using thermonuclear devices, smallpox and other potential weapons of mass destruction. But administration officials have cautioned that assessing threats and assigning probabilities is difficult because authorities don't know about all terrorist cells and because terrorists frequently shift tactics. Because the government and private industry cannot guard against every conceivable kind of attack, the Brookings authors maintained that officials should devote the bulk of resources to protecting against nuclear, chemical or biological terrorism as well as more conventional large-scale attacks at places such as airports, seaports, nuclear and chemical plants, stadiums, large commercial buildings, and monuments and other icons. "There are an unlimited number of potential vulnerabilities," said report author Michael E. O'Hanlon. "We're going to have to spend some time prioritizing and organizing our thinking. We really should be focusing on potentially catastrophic attacks, meaning large numbers of casualties or large damage to the economy." O'Hanlon, who specializes in foreign policy studies, said the estimates concerning economic and human losses were based on a 1993 government report done for Congress about weapons of mass destruction, the casualties from the atomic bombs released in World War II, previous disasters and criminal acts, economic data and other factors. The Department of Health and Human Services is building up a stockpile of smallpox and anthrax vaccines, working with states to improve early-warning disease networks, and taking other steps to prevent or respond to bioterrorist threats. D.A. Henderson, director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness, an arm of HHS, said yesterday that the government is "in much, much better shape today than three months ago." Henderson, a physician who led efforts to eliminate smallpox in 1977, said the study's casualty estimates were not out of the realm of possibility for smallpox and anthrax but that the prospect of a huge ebola attack was remote. "Quite candidly, I think smallpox ranks way at the top," he said. The Brookings scholars said the government should invest heavily in technology to identify and apprehend suspected terrorists before they can strike. The report estimated that a biological attack in a major urban area could create $750 billion in economic damage, and that widespread terror against a key part of the economy -- such as shopping malls or movie theaters -- could cost $250 billion. The White House is seeking about $38 billion in the fiscal 2003 budget for homeland security, including $10.6 billion for border security, $5.9 billion to defend against bioterrorism, $3.5 billion for local police, firefighters and other emergency responders, $4.8 billion for aviation security and $722 million for new technology. Ridge has said the amounts are but a "down payment" in a multiyear plan. The Brookings study said even that amount isn't enough. Shoring up security will likely cost the government $45 billion a year, the report said, adding that private industry will need to spend up to $10 billion annually. In some cases, new regulations will be required to bring the private sector in line, the report said; in others, lower insurance rates or other incentives could be offered. Economic specialist Peter R. Orszag, another team member, said the group sought to identify the "most glaring vulnerabilities" to help frame public debate. Called "Protecting the American Homeland," the report credits Ridge and the White House for setting many sound priorities, but urged more spending on information systems for law enforcement. It also recommended significantly higher spending on air defenses, cargo security, food safety and cyber-security. More must be done, the report added, to protect the nation's 12,000 chemical facilities and 103 nuclear power plants, and to shield air-intake systems of skyscrapers from biological or chemical agents. In recent months, Henderson and other government officials have warned about many of the same threats. Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner, for example, has said that the detonation of a nuclear device hidden in a ship's cargo container would cause massive damage and indefinitely shut down the shipping industry. Bonner said the United States must win agreements with other countries that have "megaports" in which cargo is checked at the point of origin. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 49 North Korea Invites U.S. Official Las Vegas SUN April 29, 2002 WASHINGTON- North Korea has informed the United States it would welcome a visit to Pyongyang by a State Department envoy, apparently opening the way for the first official talks between the two countries in 18 months, an administration official said Monday. There was no official word as to how the U.S. will respond, but the administration has said it would be willing to meet with North Korea any time, any place to resume security talks. The administration has seemed eager to resume talks despite President Bush's designation of North Korea last January as a member of an "axis of evil." The North Korean invitation did not come as a surprise. Officials in Pyongyang informed visiting envoys from South Korea weeks ago that they were ready to resume a dialogue with Washington. After that disclosure, U.S. envoy Jack Pritchard visited Seoul for detailed discussions on what the South Korean officials learned during their talks in Pyongyang. Pritchard, a State Department expert on Korean affairs, is expected to be tapped by the administration for the trip to Pyongyang. There have been no substantive discussions between the United States and South Korea since the late Clinton administration. President Bush did not immediately pick up where Clinton had left off, choosing instead to undertake a policy review. He offered last June to restart the discussions but North Korea showed no interest. The Clinton era talks focussed mainly on a proposed deal under which North Korea would curb its development and export of missiles in exchange for economic benefits from the United States. The talks suggested the possibility of a new era in relations between the United States and North Korea after a half century of hostility. The highlight of the process was a visit to Pyongyang by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Bush felt that the Clinton era talks were too narrowly focussed and should be expanded to include any other issue either side wanted to raise. Of particular interest to the United States was the large North Korean force buildup near the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea. The United States also is eager for accounting of North Korean nuclear activity prior to a 1994 agreement in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze a suspected nuclear weapons program. In return for the freeze, South Korea and Japan would provide two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea. For its part, the United States agreed to provide the North with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel annually until the nuclear reactors become operational. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 50 Ridge warns of Al Qaeda threat Boston Globe Online: Print it! Says terrorists are seeking to get nuclear weapons By Ron Fournier, Associated Press, 4/30/2002 NEW ORLEANS - Tom Ridge, the director of homeland security, said yesterday that Al Qaeda terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons and that if they succeed, ''I don't have any doubt they would try to use'' them. Ridge, addressing publishers at the Associated Press's annual meeting, said terrorism in the United States is a ''permanent condition'' and outlined goals for a long-term security strategy. ''We are at war. If we think there are only 20 terrorists - the one we just caught and the 19 others'' who attacked on Sept. 11, ''we are naive. We have got to believe there are more here,'' he said. Ridge reviewed plans to release a national strategy this summer or fall to rank the nation's homeland defense needs. The plan will focus on government resources where the risks are the highest and where most lives can be saved and most property can be protected, he said. ''It will reveal, in our judgment, what we need to protect. It will outline the resources available to us and point the way for their best use,'' Ridge said. Bioterrorism, for example, is one of the greatest threats for massive loss of life ''and our preparedness has historically lagged behind the threat,'' Ridge said. He said the homeland defense strategy ''will answer two questions often asked by your reporters, and rightly so: `Whose job is it - and who pays for it?''' After the terrorist attacks, President Bush named the former Pennsylvania governor to be the White House point man for domestic-defense programs. The assignment touches on scores of federal activities, including border control, intelligence, and safeguards against bioterrorism. Ridge recently unveiled a color-coded warning scheme to keep the nation on guard for terrorism. He told publishers that the warning system may be ''tweaked'' to adjust for suggestions raised during a public comment period. Ridge was asked about the potential threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or exploding nuclear materials in a ''dirty bomb.'' He replied that there is evidence the Al Qaeda are seeking nuclear technology. ''If they obtain it one way or another, I don't have any doubt they will try to use it,'' he said. In his address, Ridge said the fear of terrorism has receded for many Americans since Sept. 11. ''The world is just as dangerous today, if not more so,'' he said. ''The threat is real; it's as real as it was seven months ago. In fact, it is a permanent condition to which this country must permanently adapt.'' Ridge said his office is working with states and the private sector to study the nation's infrastructure and determine where the greatest risks are. ''The challenge is vast. It encompasses so much - oil and gas refineries, power plants, and electrical substations, water treatment plants and reservoirs, dams, pipelines, just to name a few,'' he said. ''Add to that our schools and hospitals, our banks and financial institutions, our airports and seaports, our bridges and highways.'' He said many communities are already at work securing potential targets and preparing emergency workers to respond to attacks. This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 4/30/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 51 Employees were made sick by nuke facilities OR workers, kin collect more than $43 million from reparation fund KnoxNews: Business News-Sentinel photo by Paul Efird Dr. David Michaels, an architect of the compensation program for those made sick by the government's nuclear facilities, speaks at a conference in Knoxville on Monday. By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer April 30, 2002 Oak Ridge workers or their survivors have received more than $43 million so far from a federal fund established to compensate those made sick by the government's nuclear facilities, officials said Monday. "In terms of the way the government works, this program has moved phenomenally quickly," Dr. David Michaels, a consultant to the Department of Labor program, said Monday during a visit to Knoxville. Oak Ridge is the largest single center for the national compensation program, with more than 4,300 claims filed on behalf of people who worked at facilities there. Many of those claims are still pending. The compensation fund was established by Congress in 2000 and became effective last summer, when some sick workers started receiving lump-sum payments of $150,000. Oak Ridge workers have complained about the inadequacy of the program, which only compensates those made sick by exposures to beryllium or who suffer from radiation-induced cancers. Health problems caused by exposures to other toxic chemicals at the Department of Energy facilities are not covered. Others have criticized the program for delays in processing applications - particularly cases where a worker's career radiation dose must be evaluated to see if it was sufficient to have caused cancer. But Michaels, an architect of the compensation program when he worked for the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said he is pleased with the progress. "The fact that we've been able to give out $190 million in nine months is remarkable and far beyond my dreams," he said, referring to the total payment of claims to date. According to statistics released by U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., 422 claims have been paid to Oak Ridge workers or their surviving relatives, with more payments on the way. More than 600 applications have been recommended for acceptance, the program report said. Total compensation paid to Tennessee residents, as of April 25, was $40.8 million. The figures on Oak Ridge workers and Tennessee residents differ because some former workers or their survivors now live in other states. Since leaving DOE, Michaels is a research professor at George Washington University's Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and serves as a consultant on the compensation program. He visited Knoxville to speak to a conference of human resources professionals who work for DOE contractors. He asked for their help in spreading information to retirees about the compensation available for sick workers. In a statement released by his office, Wamp said it was rewarding to see Oak Ridge workers receiving benefits. "This compensation could never make up for the illnesses the workers and families have suffered, but our country is officially recognizing their service and providing them with financial and medical help so many desperately need," he said. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 DOE Stops Lab Director Appointment Las Vegas SUN Today: April 30, 2002 at 4:45:14 PDT LIVERMORE, Calif.- The news releases were printed, and board members were prepared to vote. The finalists had been notified that one of them was about to be chosen as the new director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Then, just half an hour before the announcement last Friday, everything screeched to a halt. "What happened is that there was a premature announcement that they were ready to make a decision," Department of Energy spokeswoman Jeanne Lapotto said Monday. "The selection process goes on." What actually happened, according to those involved in the process, was that the chosen man - Raymond Juzaitis, associate director for weapons physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory - may have inadvertently been tainted by one of the most embarrassing episodes in U.S. nuclear history, the case of Wen Ho Lee. Juzaitis, selected by University of California President Richard Atkinson for the high-profile spot, once supervised - through several layers of management - former Los Alamos scientist Lee. Energy Department officials, who were to sign off on his appointment, apparently learned about the connection at the last moment and yanked the announcement. "Obviously, what's going on here is the administration wants to make sure nobody is going to look stupid for putting somebody in place who could be said by political opponents to have contributed in any way to the Wen Ho Lee fiasco," said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Lee was arrested in December 1999 and indicted on 59 felony counts alleging he transferred nuclear weapons information to unsecure computer terminals and computer tapes. He was held in solitary confinement for nine months, though never charged with spying. As the government's case crumbled, Lee pleaded guilty to a felony count of downloading sensitive material, and was set free. Now, the Energy Department is reviewing the background information on the finalists - two top Livermore administrators, a theoretical physicist from an engineering and science university and Juzaitis - before moving forward. "It's unfortunate on the part of the candidate who is a worthy and accomplished scientist," said UC spokesman Michael Reese. "Our principal concern today is for his reputation." Juzaitis did not return calls Monday. Critics of Livermore who fear the lab is contaminating its neighbors with radioactive waste said they hope the result of the yanked decision is that the entire process will be reopened. "We hope that they ultimately select someone who can chart a new course for the lab," said Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley Cares, a citizen group in Livermore. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., also called UC to task for the nomination slip. "A credibility gap has arisen because of the University of California's failure to have a comprehensive and transparent selection process for a new Livermore Lab director," Tauscher said. Livermore - along with Los Alamos - is run by UC for the Energy Department. It has about 7,300 employees and a $1.5 billion budget. During its 50-year history, all eight Livermore directors have been chosen from within the lab's ranks. Reese said no new date has been set for an announcement. "The information was slow to move through the process, and unfortunately it was at the last minute that the DOE realized it wanted more information that we were able to give under the time frame," he said. "This is the way government works." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 53 Program pays $43M to sick OR workers Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 10:25 a.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Claims from workers at Oak Ridge facilities: Total claims received -- 4,312 Recommended decisions to accept -- 602 Recommended decisions to deny -- 421 Final decisions to accept -- 489 Final decisions to deny -- 65 Total paid cases -- 422 Cases closed -- 65 Claimants residing in Tennessee Total claims received -- 3,781 Recommended decisions to accept -- 423 Recommended decisions to deny -- 416 Final decisions to accept -- 343 Final decisions to deny -- 57 Total paid cases -- 289 Cases closed -- 62 As officials boasted Tuesday about the more than $43 million that's been paid out to Oak Ridge employees or their survivors through a compensation plan for job-sickened nuclear workers, many of the people the program is supposed to be helping keep fighting to improve it. David Michaels, a consultant to the Labor Department on the compensation program, visited Knoxville Tuesday to speak to media officials and during a conference for human resources officials from Department of Energy contractors. Overall, the program has paid out close to $190 million in its first nine months, Michaels said in a phone interview. Of that amount, the total compensation paid for claimants who worked in Oak Ridge was $43.2 million as of last Thursday, he added. The total compensation paid for residents in Tennessee is around $41 million, according to Michaels. He said this figure is different from the total for the Oak Ridge workers because some of the employees or their survivors who got the payments no longer live in the state. According to statistics, the total number of claimants associated with Oak Ridge facilities is 4,312, with 422 of those cases receiving payment as of last Thursday. The number of claimants residing in Tennessee totals 3,781, with 289 of those cases receiving compensation. The compensation program, which officially began July 31, provides medical care and a payment of $150,000 to sick workers or their survivors, if the workers were exposed to cancer-causing radiation or to silica or beryllium, which are linked to lung diseases. The program is administered by the Labor Department. Although Michaels said he is pleased with the compensation program's success to date, many of those who are considered to be "sick workers" are not happy with what's officially known as the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. In fact, a group of those sick workers gave the program a "D-minus" on a report card they issued to the Labor Department in February. Complaints about the program range from the number of medical problems it doesn't cover to the slow pace the Department of Energy has been operating at in turning over "important" information relating to exposures. The latest development in the battle to improve the compensation program involves the controversial issue of the Oak Ridge K-25 site's water system. Although it has never been proven that K-25's water system was contaminated, a draft report on the subject issued last August suggested this could have been the case in the past due to cross-connected water systems. DOE officially terminated its investigation into the water issue earlier this year after indicating that continuation of the project would not yield further significant conclusions. Members of the Coalition for a Healthy Environment say the investigation needs to be revived. If that happens and contaminations are proved, then the matter would have to be addressed in the compensation program, the members said. "It's always an uphill battle," said Harry Williams, president of the Coalition for a Healthy Environment, whose membership includes many sick workers. "That's a battle we're going to fight." Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 54 Opinion - The Seaborg collaboration: about father, by son Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:57 a.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Editor's License Dick Smyser Glenn T. Seaborg, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1951 and chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under three presidents, had kept a journal since his teenage years. Thus, on contracting with his son, Eric, a well-established writer, to jointly write his -- Glenn's -- memoir, it seemed they had a head start. When, however, Glenn, the father, sent the first batch of his notes to Eric, the son, Eric's response was blunt: "Dad, these (the notes) stink!" Fortunately, after this less than harmonious beginning, they regrouped and the result is "Adventures In The Atomic Age -- From Watts to Washington," by Glenn T. Seaborg with Eric Seaborg and published by Eric in 2000, a year after his father's death. Eric shared excerpts from the book and other personal insights about his father Thursday night at the American Museum of Science and Energy in the third of this year's Community Lectures sponsored by Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Significantly, Glenn Seaborg became a chemist almost by accident. He first studied this science that would lead to his discovery of the whole succession of transuranic elements (those above uranium on the periodic table) only because chemistry was required if he was to achieve his goal of admittance to the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). When he was just a boy, his parents had moved to that southern California city from Ishpeming, Mich. (His father was the son of Swedish immigrants, his mother a Swedish immigrant herself.) Of the three presidents under which Glenn Seaborg served as chairman of the USAEC, predecessor agency to the Department of Energy, he was most comfortable with John F. Kennedy, least comfortable with Richard Nixon, a possible exception a telephone conversation with President Lyndon B. Johnson. Book jacket for the Seaborg memoir, Glenn, the father, at top, pointing to seaborgium 106 on the periodic table of elements. Seaborg had stopped after work for a swim at the University Club on Sixteenth Street just north of the White House. As was the custom at the all-male club pool, he was swimming in the nude when an attendant informed him that the president was calling -- wanted to speak with him on some urgent business. So there he stood stark naked by the pool disagreeing with LBJ about some proposed appointment which, ultimately, he convinced the president was unwise. Generally, however, his relations with Johnson were positive. Not so, however, with Nixon. Seaborg had been surprised when he was kept on after Nixon won the 1968 election. But quickly, he got "a sense of how different from the Kennedy and Johnson years this administration and my work in it would be." At his first meeting with Nixon, the new president gave him explicit instructions on how to deal with the press. Then, only weeks later, at a meeting to consider the so-called Seabed Treaty, which banned nuclear weapons on the ocean floor, Seaborg offered comments on the treaty itself, Nixon interrupting and admonishing him to restrict his remarks to "my technical judgment." "Both the content and the delivery of Nixon's remark stunned me," Seaborg writes, "and left me with much to ponder. Apparently my eight years in Washington and experience working with Congress meant nothing to him. My possession of scientific expertise disqualified me from having any political judgment." On the first page of the book Seaborg the elder tells of a briefly abrasive encounter with Sen. Albert Gore Sr., then a prominent member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear power. There was a committee hearing at which a layoff of machinists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory was the issue. As the hearing progressed Sen. Gore, "growling," Seaborg writes, asked, "Dr. Seaborg, just what do you have against machinists?" "It was the best question I could have hoped for," Seaborg writes. His reply: "Senator, I don't have anything against machinists. My father was a machinist. And my grandfather was a machinist... and my great grandfather was a machinist. And if I'd had any talent for it, I would have been a machinist myself." Which left everyone in the hearing room laughing heartily, including Sen. Gore. Eric Seaborg told his Community Lectures audience also: + That his father opposed the deployment of a national missile defense-- believed it would only lead to a renewal of the arms race. + That he felt J. Robert Oppenheimer was mistreated when he was denied a security clearance. Thus when Seaborg became USAEC chairman and despite what he knew would be a storm of protest, he chose Oppenheimer to receive the annual Fermi award, the presentation made by President Johnson just weeks after he took office after the assassination of President Kennedy. + That a senator once asked the AEC chairman derisively "Dr. Seaborg, just what do you think you know about plutonium?" Seaborg, of course, being one of the discoverers of that transuranic element. + That Seaborg first met Richard Nixon in Chattanooga when they were both named among the "Ten Outstanding Young Men Of 1947" by the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Later, Nixon called him and asked that he accompany him to some function. Seaborg, sensing he was being used for a campaign photo opportunity, begged off saying, "Sorry, but I have to oil my cyclotron." -- RDS Richard D. Smyser, founding editor of The Oak Ridger, now writes a twice weekly column. He may be reached at rdsandmps@aol.com [rdsandmps@aol.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 55 Statement of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham On Senate Passage of S. 517, Senate Energy Legislation energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: April 25, 2002 I am pleased that the Senate has passed an energy bill with a number of important provisions. We can now move forward in conference to get a bill that puts us further on the path to energy security. In the coming weeks and months I look forward to working with Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Chairman Billy Tauzin, and the other leaders in the House and Senate to come up with legislation that we can be proud to send to President Bush. It’s been nearly a year since the Bush Administration unveiled our wide-ranging proposal for energy security for all Americans. We presented our ideas in the midst of a severe electricity supply crisis in California, rising gas prices nationwide, and estimates from the Energy Information Administration predicting a one-third increase in total energy demand in this country over the next two decades. That situation demanded action. The Bush Administration responded, issuing a proposal that laid the groundwork for energy security by focusing on increased energy production, improved conservation and energy efficiency measures, and strengthening our nation’s antiquated energy infrastructure. Our energy plan contained 105 specific policy proposals. The vast majority of these – 85 of them – could be enacted through executive branch action, and we have been working to put them into effect. Most of the remaining proposals will soon be in conference. I am particularly pleased the Senate took action to include the Administration’s electricity principles in the electricity title of their bill. Studying not just the situation in California but the national electricity transmission system as a whole, we came up with recommendations based on some basic principles to prevent the sorts of breakdowns in electricity supply we saw last year. The recommendations we presented would protect consumers, make wholesale power markets more competitive, strengthen the transmission grid, increase electricity supply, and improve reliability. And they would help prevent further rolling blackouts and service disruptions of the sort that wrought havoc on the West Coast last year. We are now poised to complete something Congress has been grappling with since the mid-1990s. And the roots of this success go back to the Administration’s energy proposals. Coupled with the positive elements for increased energy production and conservation in the House-passed bill, we have the tools for creating a bill that’s acceptable to both chambers and, just as importantly, a bill that’s acceptable to President Bush. There is much to be encouraged about in both the Senate and the House bills. Now it’s a matter of resolving differences, finding common ground, and working together in a bipartisan fashion to put forward the best bill we can. Media Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-071 ***************************************************************** 56 International Energy Agency urges U.S. to boost oil, gas output Tue Apr 30,10:19 AM ET PARIS - The United States must increase production of oil and natural gas if the country is to meet its future growth in energy demand and reduce its dependence on imports, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday. "A secure energy supply is essential to underpin economic growth," IEA Executive Director Robert Priddle told a news conference, after the agency released its review of U.S energy policies. The Paris-based agency said current domestic production of natural gas — which is growing at 4 percent a year — was not enough to meet growing demand, and urged the United States to step up drilling in new areas both onshore and offshore. "We'd like to see an opening up of the Arctic reserves in an environmentally sensitive way, because the U.S. needs new sources of supply," Priddle said. The agency also urged the United States to work toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encourage renewable energy. It also said the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide should join an international trading system for greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are expected to grow 54 percent by the year 2020 over 1990 levels. The IEA also encouraged the re-licensing of existing nuclear power plants in the United States, saying that it would ensure a continuing, substantial component in power production. No nuclear plants have been constructed there since 1973. (dj-kh-eg) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 57 Clearing the Air of Nuclear Myths Insight on the News Posted April 29, 2002 By Brandon Spun Albert Einstein said in 1932, "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." Before the decade was over, Enrico Fermi did just that, and today more than 431 commercial nuclear reactors generate 16 percent of the world's electricity. Even so, controlled fission remains rooted in mythology. Adversaries are hard-pressed to demonstrate that production of nuclear power, subject to all the forces of economics, as well as the boons and banes of its processes, is fundamentally different than other methods of energy production. Unfortunately, the nuclear rap is dominated by the politics of fear. But the questions raised by anti-nuclear activists are quickly refuted. Consider: Is it natural? Life on Earth depends upon energy provided by the sun. The process at the fiery center of that star is akin to what happens on the inside of a nuclear reactor. "People think reactors are unnatural because they are used to burning fossil fuels," says Michele Olsen, a University of Colorado physicist. "What makes fossil fuels natural?" she wonders. The activation of a steam turbine from the energy of coal or uranium is the same. "There is nothing inherently unnatural about making energy from fission, though it doesn't happen spontaneously on Earth," Olsen says, as it does on the sun in the great reactor in the sky. Tomorrow's tomorrow: We may not be certain how much coal, natural gas and petroleum exist underground, but we know the Earth is not replenishing supplies as quickly as man is depleting them. Richard Rhodes points out in "The Need for Nuclear Power" in Foreign Affairs that most of the world's energy still is produced from petroleum, coal and natural gas. And the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering estimates consumption of energy will double in the next 50 years. These engineers warn that "it will be an immense challenge to meet the global demand for energy without unsustainable long-term damage to the environment." Rhodes says the advantage of nuclear power "is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel." One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of coal generates four kilowatts of electricity, as does a kilogram of oil. But a kilogram of uranium generates 400,000 kilowatts of electricity. And Rhodes notes that recycling that same gram of uranium would mean it could be used to generate more than 7 million kilowatts. France generates about 75 percent of its electricity with nuclear power; Japan 36 percent. The United States, which consumes more energy than any other nation, gets only 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. Gwyneth Cravens, who writes about energy for the Brookings Review, thinks "popular misconceptions have held back progress in this area." She claims that if we disregard fuel used in gasoline-burning engines, we could consider using nuclear energy for 100 percent of our electrical and energy needs. "A reasonable goal might be to replace coal-fired power plants, or at least the oldest, dirtiest ones," Cravens says. "But given present regulations and procedures, it takes 25 years to get a nuclear plant up and running." Taking it to market: If nuclear power is such an efficient energy source, then why hasn't it taken over the market? Investing money in a power plant used to be considered a sure thing. These days it no longer means money in the bank. "Before deregulation, there was a guaranteed rate of return from the bank when investing in electricity" production, says Jerry Taylor of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "Today, with the wholesale market, there is none." Investors must choose between the higher capital investments and lower marginal costs of a nuclear plant or the lower startup costs and higher marginal costs of a coal or gas plant. While nuclear power may pay off more in the long run, it is less likely that today's investors will risk the difference in the face of antinuke activism. Taylor points out that nuclear power often is more advanced in countries where governments make decisions concerning energy investments. This is true of both France and Japan. Others think Taylor is overplaying the economic problem. "The production cost of nuclear electricity generated from existing U.S. power plants is already fully competitive with electricity from fossil fuels," Rhodes says. He believes the higher investment cost is deceptive. Large nuclear-power plants do require larger capital investments than comparable coal or gas plants, Rhodes says, "but only because nuclear utilities are required to build and maintain costly systems to keep their radioactivity from the environment." Fossil-fuel plants are not required to limit all of the pollutants and toxins they generate. If one looks at kilowatt production costs, excluding facility and safety costs, nuclear energy is far and away the cheapest electricity source. Nuclear energy produces electricity at 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, while electricity produced from natural gas costs 3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Rhodes and other experts believe economic disincentives for nuclear energy were born from social activism and political policy. "The overlooked radioactive waste that is generated while burning coal emphasizes the political disadvantages under which nuclear power labors," Rhodes says. Also, nuclear fuel is not efficiently recycled in the United States because of proliferation concerns. "These factors have warped the economics of nuclear-power development and created a politically difficult waste-disposal problem," Rhodes says. According to a 1999 Worldwatch News Brief, nuclear-generating capacity increased only 5 percent in the 1990s, whereas it grew 700 percent in the 1970s. What to do with waste: President Jimmy Carter made reprocessing illegal because people worried, incorrectly, that it would allow weapons-grade materials to fall into enemy hands. This meant that unused uranium and plutonium from nuclear fuel could not be recycled for use in new reactor fuel. The ban since has been lifted, but the United States still is not reprocessing its nuclear fuels. Experts such as Rhodes point out the irony. "By burying spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing, we actually increase the long-term risk of nuclear proliferation." The decay of isotopes in spent fuel after one to three centuries improves the explosive qualities of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for weapons use. Based on some estimates we are at least halving our nuclear-fuel capabilities and doubling our waste without reprocessing. Even if reprocessing were not an issue, there still is a bitter debate about what to do with more than 40,000 tons of accumulated spent fuel. On Jan. 10, the U.S. Department of Energy officially endorsed the Yucca Mountain depository after three decades of research. While Nevada legislators have dubbed the plan to activate the depository the "Screw Nevada Act," it has been endorsed by President George W. Bush, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the American Public Power Association, the Heritage Foundation, assorted international organizations and even some American Indian nations. However, there are outstanding concerns, both serious and trivial, including supposed risks of water leakage, contamination of water systems, earthquakes, volcanoes, a failure to isolate waste ? and theft by terrorists. Insight writer Sean Paige has written frequently on many of these issues in the magazine's waste &abuse column, as well as in "The Fight at the End of the Tunnel" (Nov. 15, 1999). As Paige reported, many of these concerns appear bogus. Meanwhile, nuclear plants are approaching and surpassing their waste capacities. Storing nuclear waste separately at individual plants is more hazardous than at a modern central facility. Yucca Mountain would minimize the amount of waste at the various reactors and concentrate it in the Nevada site. Opponents raise another issue: the actual transportation of waste to the Nevada site. This means spent fuel could be moved through town. What opponents fail to mention is that nuclear waste and components already are transported by rail every day in containers designed to withstand all sorts of catastrophes, engineered to meet such hazards as being submerged underwater for eight hours, colliding at 80 mph with a flatbed tractor trailer carrying 1,700 tons of materials, being broadsided by a train at 80 mph and even plummeting off a 2,000-foot cliff onto concrete at 235 mph. Even with these precautions, police and emergency crews carefully track large shipments of waste and uranium. Cravens notes that "every year there are several fatal accidents on the highways regarding the transport of toxic chemicals such as ammonia, but no political calls for a halt." Study projections suggest that water leakage is not a significant risk to the Yucca site. "If the high-level waste is sealed in thick steel casks in granite rock, then two barriers prevent radiation from escaping," Cravens says. "And if you are concerned about radiating the area, it is 100 miles from a populated area." She also says that the radiation levels from the depository would be far lower than everyday "normal" background radiation. "Yucca Mountain is located at the Nevada test site where many atomic weapons were tested," Cravens adds. Unfortunately, other potential problems are long-shot possibilities. Volcanoes and earthquakes indeed might pose a threat to the structural integrity of the site. However, advocates of Yucca point out that any site would have such long-shot drawbacks. The terrorist threat: Probably the most immediate nuclear-energy issue, if it can be called that, is the potential for sabotage, terrorism and other human abuse. Since Sept. 11, security experts are considering threats once thought to be far-fetched. Could terrorists burglarize or seize a waste site or reactor? What if a plane crashed into a reactor? What if a terrorist attacked with a missile or tried to initiate a meltdown at a plant? Some current policies actually increase this threat. As mentioned, the lack of a well-protected central waste depository, as well as the failure to reprocess fuel, decreases the long-term security of weapons-grade radioactive materials, say authorities. These materials could be targeted by terrorists. However, plants are not highly vulnerable. Armed guards and facility operators are subjected regularly to mock attacks to keep everyone on their toes; new equipment and fail-safe exercises ensure that meltdowns are far from likely. Shock-sensitive reactors automatically remove rods from the core upon sensing any significant impact. System overrides thwart sabotage-induced meltdowns. Facilities have in place plans to resist infiltration and no longer are as vulnerable to the kinds of accidents that occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. While certainly not foolproof, nuclear sites consistently have improved their equipment, safety records and procedures while increasing their readiness. But is it enough? Neither uranium nor plutonium ever has been diverted from nuclear reactors for terrorist use. But this does not mean it can't happen. The issues that need attention, say nuclear advocates, are daily operations and regulation ? ensuring that facilities are run properly, the way the public expects such sensitive areas to be operated. But terrorism involving nuclear facilities is no more impossible than the seizure by terrorists of the four passenger aircraft on Sept. 11. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a McGovern-era liberal and staunch nuclear opponent, raises many of these issues in his letters and warnings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "While the NRC and the nuclear-power industry act like 'it can't happen here,' we know all too well that the terrorists of al-Qaeda have contemplated and would carry out an attack on a nuclear facility," he says. He believes the NRC must take immediate steps to revise security regulations "to reflect the true nature of the terrorist threat we now face." Markey lists the following security gaps on his Website: + NRC does not know how many foreign nationals are employed at nuclear plants. + NRC does not require background checks. + Twenty-one U.S. reactors are within five miles of an airport, with no antiaircraft capabilities. + Security is lower for spent fuel than for reactors. + Security exercises fail 50 percent of the time. + It took NRC six months to enhance regulations after the attacks of Sept. 11. While Markey insists that even an indirect hit on a reactor by an aircraft would cause a full-scale meltdown, others disagree. Cravens insists a Chernobyl-type disaster in the United States is extremely unlikely. "Reactors are the sturdiest structures on the planet, second only to nuclear bunkers," she says. She repeats that fail-safe procedures immediately would remove rods from the core. "An attempt to create a meltdown would activate multiple safeguards," she says. Still, Cravens says, nuclear-power-plant sites can be prepared for only so much. "It is important we do what we can to minimize the damage they can cause, but a resourceful individual can make a 'dirty bomb,' a low-level radioactive weapon, from a number of readily available materials, including those found in smoke detectors and discarded medical syringes." The availability of alternative weapons, as well as the difficulty of handling weapons-grade nuclear waste, might deter or thwart terrorists. Most weapons-grade waste and materials are so potent that they would kill anyone who came within contact of them almost immediately. In today's climate of suicidal terrorists this does not eliminate the possibility but merely reduces its likelihood since a perpetrator would not have long to live. And if theft really is a concern to Markey and other lawmakers, why don't they object to publication on the Web of transportation routes for nuclear waste and maps of worldwide reactor locations, waste repositories and even some weapons sites? Nine labs currently are reviewing nuclear-reactor security against terrorism. But experts believe the studies will find that the security of commercial nuclear reactors has little or no bearing on the clock that nuclear disarmers say is ticking at seven minutes to the midnight of nuclear Armageddon. Environmentalists Change 'No-Nukes' Tune "No Nukes" once was their slogan, but when greens became concerned with the depletion of fossil fuels, nuclear power became popular in their camp. Their flip-flop on the issue reflects the switch in the relative market share of oil and nuclear power. Thirty years ago, nuclear power accounted for 3 percent of electricity while oil accounted for 20 percent. Today those figures are almost exactly reversed. Greens now like nuclear energy not just for its savings but for its environmental cleanliness, something long ignored. Coal-burning pollution causes about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States alone; deaths blamed on the Chernobyl accident amounted to 3,420. Postaccident calculations indicate that a modern, U.S.-style structure would have confined the explosion and thus the radioactivity, in which case no injuries or deaths would have occurred. No one died at Three Mile Island. Coal releases toxic waste that is too immense to contain safely. Especially interesting is the quantity of radioactive releases into the environment caused by coal. Radon gas, from uranium, normally is confined underground but is released when coal is mined. A 1,000-megawatt electric coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant. Brandon Spun is a reporter for Insight. email the author [bspun@insightmag.com] Copyright © 2001 News World Communications, Inc. ***************************************************************** 58 Editorial: Senate bill should be left intact Las Vegas SUN Today: April 30, 2002 at 8:55:13 PDT The energy bill passed last week by the Senate can be seen as a small lever capable of budging the boulder that is the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries. The House energy bill can be seen as a large wedge placed under the boulder to ensure it remains in place. Members of a House and Senate conference committee will now negotiate the final bill that will go to the White House for President Bush's signature. A major victory for the environment was won in the Senate, which rejected drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a prime feature of the House bill. The victory was tempered, though, by the Senate's failure to incorporate stricter automobile fuel efficiency standards into its bill. Such is politics. Members of Congress answer to the folks back home, certainly, but clout is also wielded by interests such as unions and General Motors Corp. It's this type of pressure, ironically, that may now work in favor of the Senate bill, an important part of which calls for tripling the amount of ethanol mixed into gasoline over the next 10 years. Ethanol is made by fermenting the sugars of corn, wheat, potatoes, barley and other plants. Crop farmers represent a huge constituency, larger than the one pushing for ANWR drilling. Representatives from crop-producing states will not have much incentive to oppose the Senate bill by holding out for drilling. Ethanol mixtures, known at the pump as oxygenated fuel, are proven to produce far less carbon monoxide -- the chief pollutant in exhaust -- than straight gasoline. The basis for ethanol, renewable crops, are produced in abundance in the United States and if used in greater quantities would lessen demand for Middle East oil. While gasoline mixed with ethanol isn't the perfect cleaner-air solution and will not lead to independence of imported oil, it's a good start. The Senate bill also offers a good start in other areas -- notably tax breaks for conservation and development of renewable energy sources. While the bill is balanced with incentives for development of traditional energy sources, again, it's a start toward a future that regards renewable fuels as a priority. We would like to see President Bush's signature on an energy bill that leaves the Senate version intact. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************