[Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy exploring dry nuclear fuel storage facilities at Robinson, Brunswick nuclear plants", April 30, 2003] RALEIGH, N.C. (April 30, 2003) -- Progress Energy [NYSE: PGN] today announced it is exploring dry storage facilities for spent fuel at its Robinson Nuclear Plant in Hartsville, S.C. andÊ Brunswick Nuclear Plant near Southport, N.C. The company has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking solutions for on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel.Ê Evaluating these facilities will allow the company to ensure that spent fuel storage needs are met until Yucca Mountain opens after 2010. "We plan to operate our plants for many years and evaluating all options for interim spent fuel storage makes the most sense for our plants and our customers," said C.S. "Scotty" Hinnant, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, Progress Energy.Ê "License renewal is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Robinson and plans are underway to file for a Brunswick license renewal in 2004.Ê In addition, the rail containers currently used to ship spent fuel by the company will need to be relicensed or replaced after 2005.Ê Given these factors, the decision has been made to evaluate all options." The company would likely select one vendor to supply spent fuel storage containers for the facilities at Brunswick and Robinson.Ê Both wet (pool) and dry (cask) storage are proven safe technologies to store fuel.Ê There are currently about 15 utilities in the United States utilizing both wet and dry storage.Ê For dry storage, the coolest fuel (fuel that has been in the pool for a minimum of five years) is transferred into a specially engineered container of concrete and steel.Ê The typical dry storage container can weigh more than 50 tons empty. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its 1987 amendments require the U.S. Department of Energy to locate, build and operate a repository for high-level waste and to develop a transportation system that safely links U.S. nuclear power plants and the permanent repository. By law, the repository was to be in place by January 31, 1998. Progress Energy (NYSE: PGN), headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., is a Fortune 250 diversified energy company with more than 21,900 megawatts of generation capacity and $8 billion in annual revenues. The company's holdings include two electric utilities serving more than 2.8 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. Progress Energy also includes nonregulated operations covering generation, energy marketing, natural gas exploration, fuel extraction, rail services and broadband capacity. For more information about Progress Energy, visit the company's Web site at www.progress-energy.com. ---sbs---

April 30, 2003

Brunswick, Robinson look to dry cask storage

Dry cask storage RFP for Brunswick and Robinson plants was announced today by Progress Energy. The utility expects to choose one vendor to supply casks for both sites. Both plants have been transporting spent fuel to the utility's Harris plant for wet storage. "We plan to operate our plants for many years and evaluating all options for interim spent fuel storage makes the most sense for our plants and our customers," said C.S. "Scotty" Hinnant, Progress' senior vice president and chief nuclear officer.Ê "License renewal is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Robinson and plans are underway to file for a Brunswick license renewal in 2004.Ê In addition, the rail containers currently used to ship spent fuel by the company will need to be relicensed or replaced after 2005.Ê Given these factors, the decision has been made to evaluate all options." [Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy exploring dry nuclear fuel storage facilities at Robinson, Brunswick nuclear plants", April 30, 2003] ---sbs--- [Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy Brunswick Plant successfully completes refueling outage; Unit 2 now able to generate more electricity", April 7, 2003] SOUTHPORT, N.C. (April 7, 2003) -- Employees of Progress Energy's Brunswick Nuclear Plant completed a scheduled refueling outage Sunday, April 6 when Unit 2 was returned to service generating electricity for the company's customers. While the unit was off line, an outage workforce of approximately 2,000 personnel completed about 8,000 planned work activities. Plant employees replaced approximately 43 percent of the unit's fuel, completed many maintenance activities that cannot be performed while the plant is operating, and implemented the first of two phases of an "extended power uprate" project that increases significantly the generation of the unit. "The successful completion of this outage positions us to operate safely and reliably until the unit's next refueling outage in 2005," said Brunswick Plant Vice President Jack Keenan. "The Brunswick outage team, made up of employees from a half dozen Progress Energy locations as well as an expert contract workforce, performed exceptionally well to safely and effectively complete the refueling outage." The refueling outage was particularly significant for Brunswick since several major pieces of equipment -- the high-pressure turbine, a high-pressure feedwater heater, both reactor feedwater pump turbines and controls, and power range instrumentation -- were replaced to support Unit 2's extended power uprate project. These upgrades, as well as improvements in fuel design, will allow the unit to generate at least 50 additional megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 35,000 average size homes. Similar upgrades to Brunswick Unit 1 were made last year and resulted in approximately 52 additional megawatts. The multi-year effort to enhance the efficiency and output of the Brunswick Plant will increase the plant's generation capacity by approximately 15 percent by the summer of 2005. "With demand for electricity expected to grow by at least 10 percent over the same time period, the increased output of electricity from the Brunswick Plant will help ensure a reliable supply of energy to the region," said Keenan. "And with Progress Energy in the process of renewing Brunswick's operating license for an additional 20 years through 2034, these equipment upgrades also mean that the safest and most efficient equipment available in the industry is in place for the long-term." "The refueling outage, the unit's 16th, followed an outstanding two-year fuel cycle during which the unit operated continuously except for a mid-cycle maintenance outage when it was taken out of service for approximately one week," said Keenan. "While we are very proud of these accomplishments, we plan to continue improving in every aspect of our business so that well-planned and implemented refueling outages are regularly followed by 'breaker-to-breaker,' two-year operating runs." Since nuclear power is Progress Energy's most cost-effective source of electric generation, short outages and long operating runs between outages help keep Progress Energy customers' electric rates stable. During plant outages, other Progress Energy electricity generating facilities provide electricity to the company's customers. Progress Energy's four nuclear power plants -- the Brunswick Plant's two units located near Southport, N.C., the Harris Plant located just outside of Raleigh, N.C., the Robinson Plant located near Hartsville, S.C., and the Crystal River Plant located close to Crystal River, FL -- produced 36 percent of the company's electricity during 2002. Progress Energy [NYSE: PGN], headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., is a Fortune 250 diversified energy company with more than 21,900 megawatts of generation capacity and $8 billion in annual revenues. The company's holdings include two electric utilities serving 2.8 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. Progress Energy also includes nonregulated operations covering competitive generation, energy marketing, natural gas exploration, fuel extraction, rail services and broadband capacity. For more information about Progress Energy, visit the company's Web site at http://www.progress-energy.com. ### Contact: Mike McCracken -- Telephone (910) 457-3113; Email -- mike.mccracken@pgnmail.com ---sbs---

Summary of Plant Status (Jan - March 2003)

Brunswick unit 1 began the period operating at full power. The unit operated at full power for the entire period with the following exceptions. On January 12, Unit 1 experienced an automatic reactor scram from full power that was caused by a trip of the 1B reactor feed pump due to low oil pressure. The reactor was restarted the same day and reached full power on January 16. On January 17, power was reduced to 78 percent for rod improvement and steam leak repairs. On March 1, power was reduced to 54 percent for main condenser waterbox repairs.

Unit 2 began the period operating at full power. On February 17, the 2A reactor recirculation pump tripped due to a trip of the motor generator set on a loss of excitation. Unit 2 operated in single loop operation at approximately 40 percent reactor power until the 2A motor generator set was repaired. The unit returned to two loop operation following the repairs and achieved full power on February 18. On March 7, Unit 2 commenced a power reduction and shutdown for Refueling Outage B216R1. Unit 2 remained in the refueling outage throughout the remainder of the period. The unit returned to service on April 6. [Source: J. Austin et al. (USNRC inspectors), Inspection Report No. 50-325/03-03 and 50-324/03-03, April 28, 2003] ---sbs---

April 7, 2003

Brunswick 2R16 outage accomplishments

During the unit 2 2003 refueling outage, an outage workforce of approximately 2,000 personnel completed about 8,000 planned work activities. Plant employees replaced approximately 43 percent of the unit's fuel, completed many maintenance activities that cannot be performed while the plant is operating, and implemented the first of two phases of an "extended power uprate" project that increases significantly the generation of the unit.

"The successful completion of this outage positions us to operate safely and reliably until the unit's next refueling outage in 2005," said Brunswick Plant Vice President Jack Keenan. "The Brunswick outage team, made up of employees from a half dozen Progress Energy locations as well as an expert contract workforce, performed exceptionally well to safely and effectively complete the refueling outage."

The refueling outage was particularly significant for Brunswick since several major pieces of equipment -- the high-pressure turbine, a high-pressure feedwater heater, both reactor feedwater pump turbines and controls, and power range instrumentation -- were replaced to support Unit 2's extended power uprate project. These upgrades, as well as improvements in fuel design, will allow the unit to generate at least 50 additional megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 35,000 average size homes. Similar upgrades to Brunswick Unit 1 were made last year and resulted in approximately 52 additional megawatts.

The multi-year effort to enhance the efficiency and output of the Brunswick Plant will increase the plant's generation capacity by approximately 15 percent by the summer of 2005. "With demand for electricity expected to grow by at least 10 percent over the same time period, the increased output of electricity from the Brunswick Plant will help ensure a reliable supply of energy to the region," said Keenan. "And with Progress Energy in the process of renewing Brunswick's operating license for an additional 20 years through 2034, these equipment upgrades also mean that the safest and most efficient equipment available in the industry is in place for the long-term."

"The refueling outage, the unit's 16th, followed an outstanding two-year fuel cycle during which the unit operated continuously except for a mid-cycle maintenance outage when it was taken out of service for approximately one week," said Keenan. "While we are very proud of these accomplishments, we plan to continue improving in every aspect of our business so that well-planned and implemented refueling outages are regularly followed by 'breaker-to-breaker,' two-year operating runs."

[Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy Brunswick Plant successfully completes refueling outage; Unit 2 now able to generate more electricity", April 7, 2003] ---sbs---

... nuclear power is Progress Energy's most cost-effective source of electric generation... Progress Energy's four nuclear power plants -- the Brunswick Plant's two units located near Southport, N.C., the Harris Plant located just outside of Raleigh, N.C., the Robinson Plant located near Hartsville, S.C., and the Crystal River Plant located close to Crystal River, FL -- produced 36 percent of the company's electricity during 2002.

Progress Energy [NYSE: PGN], headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., is a Fortune 250 diversified energy company with more than 21,900 megawatts of generation capacity and $8 billion in annual revenues. The company's holdings include two electric utilities serving 2.8 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. Progress Energy also includes nonregulated operations covering competitive generation, energy marketing, natural gas exploration, fuel extraction, rail services and broadband capacity. The company's Web site is http://www.progress-energy.com.

[Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy Brunswick Plant successfully completes refueling outage; Unit 2 now able to generate more electricity", April 7, 2003] ---sbs--- Google articles ---sbs--- http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/05/15/rtr972626.html Reuters, 05.15.03, 4:06 PM ET Xcel nuclear storage plan gets boost in Minnesota SAN FRANCISCO, May 15 (Reuters) - Xcel Energy Inc's (nyse: XEL - news - people) bid to store more radioactive waste at its Prairie Island nuclear power station in Minnesota got a lift from an Indian tribe that lives near the plant. Minneapolis-based Xcel may have to shut the 1,076 megawatt twin-reactor station in 2007 if it cannot store more used radioactive fuel in steel and concrete casks at the plant in Red Wing, Minnesota. The Prairie Island Mdewankanton Dakota Tribe on Wednesday approved an agreement with Xcel to accept more storage outside the plant if it is authorized by the Minnesota Legislature, said tribal spokesman Jake Reint. Under the agreement with Xcel, the tribe will get $1 million a year for as long as Prairie Island operates, plus lesser annual amounts for emergency evacuation routes, health studies and land development. The Minnesota Senate this week passed a bill to allow more waste and the House was expected to take up its own version of the bill later Thursday. Xcel spokeswoman Mary Sandok said Prairie Island needs to add 12 more waste storage casks to the 17 already permitted. The company also faces a storage problem at its Monticello nuclear plant in 2010. Xcel has tapped San Jose, California-based Calpine Corp. (nyse: CPC - news - people) and private energy developer LS Power Associates in Orlando, Florida, as potential builders of two new power plants if Prairie Island is forced to shut. Xcel also is part of a utility group seeking approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a temporary storage dump for radioactive fuel on Indian-owned land in Utah. The NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold a hearing on the Utah proposal on May 29. The board has blocked a license to build a 4,000-cask storage dump because of fears fighter jets from a nearby Air Force base might crash into the site. The utility group has asked the board to reconsider storage of 336 casks. Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service ---sbs--- http://wjz.com/localstories/local_story_135130835.html WJZ TV-13 (Baltimore), May 15, 2003 1:05 pm US/Eastern Baltimore Gets Nearly $11 Million In Federal Homeland Security Money Senator Mikulski says Baltimore is receiving 10.9 million dollars from the Homeland Security Department to cover the costs of increased security here from January of this year through next April. The Maryland Senator says she plans to press for even more funding because Baltimore deserves the additional funds because of its proximity to the nation's capital, the vulnerability of the port, and the proximity to a nuclear plant. ---sbs--- http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=46902 The Associated Press - 5/15/2003 10:07:27 AM Government Questions Maintenance at Monticello Nuclear Plant Even under the scrutiny of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Xcel Energy spent less than average last year to maintain its 32-year-old generating station here, according to documents the company filed with federal regulators last month. The NRC has questioned the maintenance practices at the atomic plant 40 miles northwest of the Twin Cities. Xcel spent $3.4 million on maintenance at the plant in 2002 -- nearly two-thirds less than its $9.9 million average annual maintenance outlay from 1994 to 2001. By comparison, the $35 million spent to maintain Xcel's Prairie Island nuclear station was 36 percent higher than the previous seven-year annual average of $25.8 million . Minneapolis-based Xcel says the two stations are safe and meet all NRC requirements. Charles Bomberger, Xcel's general manager of nuclear asset management, said in a written statement that Monticello's maintenance costs dropped because there were no refueling outages. Operators shut down the reactor during a refueling outage so they can replace spent radioactive fuel rods with new ones. As for Prairie Island, Bomberger wrote that maintenance costs rose last year because the twin-reactor, 1,186-megawatt plant near Red Wing had two refueling outages, compared to a single refueling outage in 2001. But the drop in maintenance spending at Monticello has left at least one key state lawmaker wondering if Xcel hasn't already decided that the plant's days are numbered. "To me, the question that jumps out is: Are they not going to try and relicense Monticello?" said Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, chair of the Senate's Commerce and Utilities Committee. "If they're not investing in it, that shows some concern." In the biennial resource plan Xcel filed with the state last year, it said it wanted to keep both plants open as long as economically feasible. The company warned that its decision on the plants' futures hinged on whether the Legislature relaxed its limit on the amount of spent radioactive fuel that could be stored at Prairie Island. Xcel said that if extra storage wasn't allowed, it would have to close Prairie Island in 2007 and Monticello in 2010. On Tuesday, the Senate reached a compromise that allows for additional storage at Prairie Island. But in its resource plan, Xcel said that if it can't ship Monticello's spent fuel to a permanent or temporary repository, it will need permission to store waste at that facility if it is to remain open past 2010, when its license expires. The Prairie Island plant and the 631-megawatt Monticello plant generated about 40 percent of the electricity that Xcel sold to its customers last year, according to documents filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Xcel says closing one or both plants would force it to buy electricity from more expensive sources and drive up customers' bills. (Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Last Updated - 5/15/2003 10:07:27 AM ---sbs--- http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_051503_indianpoint.html AP, May 15, 2003 NRC Ends 'Yellow' Risk Designation For Nuclear Plant (Buchanan, NY-AP, May 15, 2003) Ñ The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant has recovered from the poor performance of its control room operators in a 2001 test. As a result, the plant will no longer carry the "yellow" designation imposed on it by the commission, although it will still be subject to closer than usual inspections. Four of the plant's seven crews failed their annual requalification tests in October 2001, and operators had to be removed or retrained. The tests put control room operators through simulated accidents, with 67 critical tasks designed to keep dangerous conditions from arising or to deal with them once they have arisen. The failures had "substantial safety significance," the NRC said at the time, and were characterized as yellow on the NRC's color-coded safety assessment, which runs from green, meaning low significance, to white, yellow and red. Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Corp., said, "It's nice to see that the NRC has noticed these important improvements. I think the people living near Indian Point 2 can take comfort in that." The safety and security of the two nuclear plants at Indian Point have become a major issue in the northern New York City suburbs since the terror attacks of 2001. (Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ---sbs--- http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885345584.html The Washington Post, May 16 2003 Tehran accused of biowarfare program By Joby Warrick in Washington Iran has begun production of anthrax and is working with at least five other pathogens, including smallpox, to build an arsenal of biological weapons, an opposition group says. The Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, citing informants inside the Iranian Government, says the anthrax weapons are the first fruits of a program begun secretly in 2001 to triple the size of Iran's biowarfare program. The push for new biological weapons was begun in parallel with a more ambitious campaign to build nuclear facilities capable of producing components for nuclear bombs, said officials of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the group's political arm, which seeks the overthrow of the Iranian Government. "We can say with certainty that the Iranian regime now has the capability of mass production of biological material for weapons use," Alireza Jafazadeh, the council's United States representative, said. Although many weapons experts believe Iran maintains at least a rudimentary biological weapons program, few details are known. The CIA, in an unclassified report released this year, said Iran "probably" maintains an offensive biological weapons program and probably "has capabilities to produce small quantities" of biological agents. The Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or People's Mujahideen, is listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, though weapons experts and intelligence officials say many of its claims about Iranian weapons plans have been largely reliable. The group first exposed a nuclear plant built near the town of Natanz to make enriched uranium, which can be used for commercial nuclear power or to make nuclear weapons. The expansion of Iran's biological weapons program was spelled out in a four-page document called the "Comprehensive National Microbial Defence Plan", which was approved by Iran's Supreme National Security Council in 2001, Mr Jafazadeh said. The plan called for a tripling of bioweapons production capacity by 2003, and divided responsibilities across a network of research cenres linked to Iran's armed forces or Revolutionary Guard. Among the pathogens being prepared for weapons use were anthrax, aflatoxin, typhus, smallpox, plague and cholera, Mr Jafazadeh said. Weapons experts reacted cautiously to the claims, especially the report about smallpox. But several said the group's description of Iran's bioweapons program seemed plausible. ---sbs--- http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/may/15sinha.htm Sinha discusses trade issues with Russian PM May 15, 2003 19:02 IST Taking a serious view of the "below potential" economic cooperation, India and Russia, on Thursday, agreed to take steps to enhance trade and investment and expedite setting up of a proposed task force relating to rupee debt funds for investment in joint projects. During wide-ranging discussions with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and his deputy Alexei Kudrin, External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha sought Moscow's co-operation in addressing three major areas of concern to both Indian and Russian business sectors. These included, absence of physical and financial infrastructure, which Sinha stressed, could only be addressed through better transport links, faster clearance of goods and expanded contacts between banking sectors. The minister also sought Russian understanding on the need to have a flexible and friendly visa regime to facilitate increased business exchanges and early settlement of outstanding claims of Indian exporters. The Russian premier shared Sinha's view that existing trade and investment ties were far below potential and that economic and commercial cooperation needed to be at the core of the strategic partnership between the two countries. Kasyanov assured the minister of Russia's "full understanding and support" towards creation of a conducive environment for growth of economic and commercial ties. The two sides emphasised on the need to qualitatively expand the existing trade basket by providing a special thrust to merging cooperation in areas like energy, agriculture products and food processing, machinery and equipment, manufactured goods and information technology. India and Russia have agreed that a proposed task force for considering means of utilising part of the rupee debt funds for investment in joint projects should be set up soon. Both sides agreed to take all possible measures to not only enhance trade and investment but also to align this engagement with market determined practices. The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to the full implementation of the joint declaration on strengthening and enhancing economic, scientific and technological cooperation, signed during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India in December last year. They agreed that its implementation will impart a new thrust and dynamism to bilateral commercial and economic engagement. During the talks, it was felt that increased contacts between financial institutions would facilitate building of trust and greater understanding. As a step in this direction, the two sides agreed to encourage opening of branches of their banks in each other's country. Sinha said that Confederation of Indian Industry would soon be setting up its office in Moscow to boost business contacts. Both sides underscored the need for imparting a new dynamism to investment ties. While Indian investment of $1.7 billion in Sakhalin-I project and a similar Russian investment in Kudankulam nuclear plant were significant, the two sides stressed that business sectors needed to explore more avenues for mutually beneficial engagement. It was agreed that cooperative efforts in the field of natural diamonds should be sustained. © Copyright 2003 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent. ---sbs--- http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2003/Art/0515/region.php Prague Post, May 15, 2003 REGIONAL NEWS PLANT REPAIRS ¥ One of four reactors at Hungary's sole nuclear plant could take 18 months to restart following a radioactive gas leak last month. Reactor II at the Paks plant in central Hungary leaked traces of radioactive gas May 10 in what was the country's most serious nuclear incident to date. Thirty fuel rods overheated during cleaning. ---sbs--- http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/15/Business/Progress_Energy_looks.shtml St. Petersburg Times, May 15, 2003 Progress Energy looks around, boasts The CEO offers a brighter-than-industry outlook for the utility based in Raleigh, N.C. By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer ASHEVILLE, N.C. - "We're not Enron" was the overriding theme last year at Progress Energy Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting. This year, Progress chairman and chief executive Bill Cavanaugh's message to shareholders was slightly different: "We're not everyone else." "Progress Energy is dealing with financial pressures but not the significant ones that others face," Cavanaugh said at the meeting of about 60 shareholders here. "Many in our industry are struggling to recover from a steep downward spiral. Some have been forced to overhaul their basic strategy and slash dividends. Companies have seen their credit ratings drop to junk-bond status." Cavanaugh cited the company's stable, investment-grade debt rating, the recent 15th consecutive annual increase in its dividend and a stock that continues to outperform utility stock indexes. Still, Cavanaugh conceded that Progress hadn't escaped unscathed, noting Moody's Investors Service's one-notch downgrade of the company's long-term debt rating in February and the fact that the Raleigh, N.C., utility - the parent of Progress Energy Florida Inc. of St. Petersburg - fell slightly short of its earnings target for 2002. "Even though we're not batting 1.000, overall we've made solid strategic choices and did not succumb to fleeting strategies (such) as buying foreign utilities or getting too far out on a limb with merchant power plants and energy trading," he said. Cavanaugh even took a jab at companies such as TECO Energy Inc., which have been badly burned by aggressive investments in wholesale power. While Progress' own more modest wholesale operations "will remain a key part of our balanced, diversified strategy," Cavanaugh noted that "we chose not to bet the farm on the phantom gold rush in deregulated markets." Shareholders defeated two proposals on corporate governance that were opposed by the company's board. A proposal to require that stock options be expensed attracted a substantial 45 percent of shares voted. Another, which received only 20 percent support, would have tied all future stock option grants to senior executives to the performance of the company's stock compared to that of other utilities. During a brief question-and-answer session that concluded the 58-minute meeting, a shareholder asked Cavanaugh what he thought of the prospects for an expansion of U.S. nuclear power generation capabilities. Progress operates four nuclear plants, including a generating unit in Crystal River. Cavanaugh said he doesn't expect any more nuclear power plants to be built in the United States until plant operators receive environmental tax credits for their plants' low emissions. Without that type of credit, a new nuclear plant wouldn't be competitive versus a natural gas plant, he said. "Unless there's a crisis, I don't think you'll see Congress act," Cavanaugh said. When another shareholder argued that the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors made them unsafe, Cavanaugh responded that "the comment is a common misunderstanding." After the meeting, Cavanaugh said that, "I know there's a lot of discussion going on (about expanding nuclear power generation), but the question is what will happen, and I can't predict that." If the United States were to embark on an expansion of nuclear power, the utility industry would be prepared to follow through, Cavanaugh said. "We've got standardized designs that have already been approved, we know how to build these plants and we know how to operate them," he said. "We're in much better shape to build these plants than we've ever been in the past." - Louis Hau can be reached at hau@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3404 © St. Petersburg Times published May 15, 2003 ---sbs--- http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~1392272,00.html Brattleboro Reformer, May 15, 2003 Douglas inks disaster plan By EESHA WILLIAMS Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- The Douglas administration has reauthorized the Vermont Yankee emergency plan, even though none of the six Windham County towns within 10 miles of the nuclear plant has approved the plan, and two of the towns have rejected it. A draft of the annual "letter of certification" sent by the Douglas administration to the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Jan. 31, and the final version sent on March 3, listed some problems with the Vermont Yankee evacuation plan, as well as successes. The letter was written by Lewis Stowell of the Vermont Emergency Management Agency (VEMA) and signed by VEMA director Albert Lewis and Kerry Sleeper, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Safety. "All we were certifying was that the Dean administration did its job last year and evaluated the plan," said Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs. "FEMA does not require that individual towns certify the plan." Asked if Gov. James Douglas would approve the plan next year if the towns near Yankee have rejected the plan, Gibbs said, "We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it." He noted that Hinsdale, N.H., had rejected the VY plan and that the state of New Hampshire had implemented a "compensatory plan" for the town. "We could do the same thing," Gibbs said. But even if the towns, the governor, and/or FEMA rejected the emergency plans, federal regulators could still license the plant, experts say. A law passed after the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania calls for local, state and federal officials to work together to create viable emergency plans. But a Reagan administration rule change allows states or the federal government to require towns to accept an evacuation plan for nearby nuclear plants against their will. Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissioner Peter Bradford, who teaches energy policy at Yale University, called that change "a piece of howling nonsense." "The gist of the rule, which the NRC issued in the wake of the closure of the Shoreham nuclear power plant in New York (in 1989), is that, regardless of what the towns say, the NRC can pretend that the plan can work," he said. Bradford, who was chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission at the time, said, "It is known as the 'realism doctrine,' but in New York we called it the 'delusional doctrine.' It is completely ridiculous." Even if Douglas had joined the Marlboro and Dummerston selectboards in rejecting the plan, and even if FEMA had accepted the governor's recommendation, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission could have modified the plan to allow VY to continue operating, said Robert Backus, who, in 1977, founded the Manchester, N.H., law firm of Backus, Meyer, Soloman, and Branch. Backus sued the NRC in federal court in 1988 to try to force the commission to close the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire because the towns near it had rejected the evacuation plan as inadequate. "We lost in the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals," he said. "But the decision has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Vermont Yankee and Indian Point are both within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit, so it could issue a different opinion." The NRC is unlikely to give local towns the power to close their nuclear power plants because the commission receives 97 percent of its funding from fees paid the nuclear industry, he said. Closing a nuclear plant would mean less business for the NRC, he said. If the NRC, whose members are appointed by the president of the United States, doesn't change the "realism doctrine," also known as federal law 10 CFR 50.47(c), only Congress or the Supreme Court can change it, Backus said. "Vermont's congressional delegation should get together with the members of Congress from the Indian Point area and hold public hearings asking people, 'Is the NRC truly fulfilling its mission to protect the public's safety?'" Backus said. The Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., like Vermont Yankee, is owned by Entergy Corp. of New Orleans. Eleven members of Congress recently joined approximately 310 local elected officials in calling on FEMA to shut Indian Point because the plant's evacuation plan is inadequate. Diane Curran, a partner in the Washington law firm of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg, said implementing the "realism doctrine" to overrule the objections of the town near Vermont Yankee would require the NRC to change Vermont Yankee's operating license, which the commission could do only after holding public hearings. "From any logical position, the realism doctrine is not a good way to plan for an emergency because the local officials would have never seen the plan before they had to use it," she said. "But it is an escape hatch for Entergy." Last Tuesday and again on Monday, standing-room-only crowds turned out for selectboard meetings in Halifax and Guilford that focused on the inadequacy of the towns' plans for an emergency at Vermont Yankee. Both towns are scheduled to vote on whether to accept the plan at upcoming meetings. The Dummerston selectboard in February refused to approve the plan. Marlboro also has rejected the plan. Brattleboro and Vernon have missed the January deadline for approving the plan. The Vernon selectboard is scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on the evacuation plan at its meeting on Monday at 7 p.m. According to federal law 44 CFR 350.6(a), "An integrated approach to the development of offsite radiological emergency plans by states, localities and (Entergy) with the assistance of the federal government is the approach most likely to provide the best protection to the public." ---sbs--- http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3884040.html Star Tribune, May 15, 2003 Prairie Island tribe accepts nuclear storage pact by Tom Meersman, Star Tribune The Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Tribe will not stand in the way of additional nuclear waste storage near its reservation, according to referendum results. By more than 2 to 1, tribal members ratified a financial agreement with Xcel Energy, which owns the nearby Prairie Island nuclear plant in Red Wing. "The tribe considers this as probably the most significant decision in their community's modern history," tribal spokesman Jake Reint said Wednesday. Under the agreement, announced two months ago, the tribe would receive $2.25 million each year for the next 10 years and lesser amounts after that. Among other things, the funds would be used for a tribal health study, an improved emergency evacuation route from the island and the purchase of land so that some members could move away from the nuclear plant. ---sbs--- What's News -- Nevada Gov web page Updated - Thursday, May 15, 2003 ---sbs--- http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/may/15/515086505.html Las Vegas SUN, May 15, 2003 at 11:36:49 PDT Study on tunnel fire prompts investigation; Nevada officials question institute's findings By Benjamin Grove and Mary Manning , LAS VEGAS SUN The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Inspector General is investigating allegations that NRC staff inappropriately influenced an NRC-commissioned study of the Baltimore rail tunnel fire. The fire in July 2001 raised questions about whether metal rail shipping containers loaded with nuclear waste would have survived such a blaze. So an NRC team contracted with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to analyze the fire, with a focus on how the waste containers would have performed. NIST officials used sophisticated modeling and salvaged samples of materials from the blaze. They determined that the container would not have failed in the fire. They said that while the blaze burned for three days, with initial peak temperatures of up to 1,800 degrees, the fire burned below an average temperature of 1,475. That temperature is important because nuclear waste shipping containers are required by the NRC to withstand a 1,475-degree fire for 30 minutes. Nevada officials have questioned the study's results. The state's experts said a waste container would have failed after 12 hours. Much is at stake for the NRC, which is responsible for regulating the waste-shipping containers. NRC officials have defended their waste-container safety standards. But questions about whether NRC staff influenced the study were raised in an article in "Inside NRC," a twice-monthly publication that tracks news inside the agency. The article prompted the IG investigation, George Mulley, spokesman for the agency's IG office, told the Sun. The investigation has been under way for about two weeks, he said. Mulley said there was little to report from the investigation so far. Robert Halstead, a senior consultant on nuclear transportation to Nevada, was quoted in the NRC article and NRC investigators plan to speak with him Friday, he said. Halstead was quoted as saying that the NIST staff "felt they were being leaned on by the NRC to focus on an analysis of the fire that would support NRC's regulatory standard, not being tasked to do a totally unfettered study of the fire." Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said NIST's final conclusions were somewhat surprising. "It seems to me the scientists agreed with the state (Nevada) when they talked to these guys originally, then it changed," Loux said. Nevada officials plan to use tunnel fire data in comments they plan to submit on the NRC's upcoming package performance study, Halstead said. The NRC has announced plans to conduct full-scale cask tests, one involving a full-sized truck shipping container, the other for a full-sized rail shipping container. The NRC is proposing to subject the containers to drop and fire tests. --- Inside N.R.C., March 24, 2003, p. 7 NEV. CRITICIZES PPS DRAFT PROTOCOL, PREPARES LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS by Maureen Conley, Washington Nevada doesn't like several aspects of NRC's proposed plan for full-scale tests of spent fuel transport casks and is preparing detailed recommendations for changes that could run the gamut from how the tests are conducted, to how many casks are tested. Bob Halstead, Nevada's consultant on nuclear waste transportation, made the state concerns known at each of the four public comment sessions NRC held this month on the agency's draft protocol for the Package Performance Study (PPS). In February, NRC proposed to conduct drop tests on one Holtec rail cask and one General Atomics truck cask and then engulf each of the casks in fire (INRC, 24 Feb., 15). The results will be used to benchmark computer-modeling codes against extreme accident conditions and to bolster public confidence in a stepped-up nationwide spent fuel shipping campaign. Halstead said at two NRC meetings in Nevada this month there was near-unanimous public support for requiring that all certified transport casks undergo such tests to ensure they meet 10 CFR Part 71 requirements. There also was widespread support for testing to failure. ''The difficulty is in narrowing down how to specify failure,'' he said last week in a telephone interview. Halstead said he is leaning toward recommending the tests be done without the impact limiters that would be used in actual transports, in order to better assess cask performance. He said he also might push for a different orientation for the truck cask drop test. Rather than the proposed ''extreme back-breaker,'' where the side of the cask between the impact limiters would strike a target, Halstead said Nevada favored testing a head-on impact. ''Particularly combined with the fire test, this would present a much greater likelihood of releasing some radionuclides,'' he said. He criticized NRC's proposed impact test speed of 75 miles per hour, saying that would be fine for dedicated trains but that DOE has not yet committed to such restrictions. ''You could conceivably have a runaway train and have a 90 mile-per-hour impact,'' he claimed. But Nevada's biggest concern involves the fire test. The state disputes NRC's study of how a spent fuel transport cask would have performed during a chemical fire similar to the one that raged inside a Baltimore rail tunnel in 2001. Sources in the technical community have reported that ''the people who actually did the study at NIST [the National Institute of Standards and Technology] felt they were being leaned on by NRC to focus on an analysis of the fire that would support NRC's regulatory standard, not being tasked to do a totally unfettered study of the fire,'' Halstead said. That, he said, is the reason the study is defective. He said the NRC tunnel fire study didn't deal with the ''enormous amount of heat'' absorbed by the tunnel walls during the first three to seven hours. The heat will eventually radiate back to the fire, essentially meaning the fire burned hotter and longer than the NRC study showed, Halstead said. That also means, he maintained, that NRC's clear and precise delineation of heat zones is overly simplified. ''You solve that by running the fire simulation for at least three hours, rather than the 30 minutes they did,'' he said. However, NRC staffer Chris Bajwa, who worked on the tunnel fire study, reported earlier that NRC staff found that a cask engulfed in a fire with temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees F for seven hours would maintain its structural integrity (NuclearFuel, 20 Jan., 19). NRC regulations require that a cask survive a 30-minute fire at a temperature of 1,475 degrees F. The draft PPS plan calls for the casks to be engulfed in dense fire for at least 30 minutes. NRC does not specify a preferred test time, but Halstead said he believed seven to 12 hours would accurately capture thermal effects. He added he believed a cask damaged in the drop test could fail during that time. Halstead also said Nevada might propose a fire test be conducted on an undamaged cask equipped with instruments to measure heat on the interior canister. The test, he said, should be run until the cask temperature reached 750 degrees C, hot enough for ceramic pellets to explode into a fine dust, in order to gauge when the cask would reach the failure threshold. The state also might propose a fire test of three or more hours at 1,000 degrees C, followed by a cool-down period. NRC regulations do not deal with the cool-down period, Halstead said, adding it is possible that cask failure would not occur during the fire itself but during the intense heat transfer that continues after the blaze is extinguished. Elsewhere, public concerns have been raised about potential barge shipments of spent fuel on Lake Michigan, Halstead said. He criticized NRC for not requiring a more rigorous test to gauge a cask's ability to withstand submersion. The regulations allow a criticality test to address performance at a depth of one meter for eight hours, but Lake Michigan's typical depths range between 15 and 100 meters, and could exceed 250 meters, he said. Separately, Halstead pointed out that, based on figures in DOE's environmental impact statement (EIS), he estimates 60% to 70% of all truck and rail shipments to a spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. would travel through Illinois, with one out of every six shipments traveling through downtown Chicago. There are more power reactors in that state than any other state, but it also is a likely transportation corridor for the movement of spent fuel from power reactors in the east and midwest to a Yucca Mountain repository. ''Personally, I think they can reroute away from there without too much trouble. But if they are so brain dead on the public relations side, they probably are on the safety side. To have put out an EIS [environmental impact statement] with that assumption in it, that's what scares me,'' Halstead said. ---sbs--- http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/May-15-Thu-2003/news/21327670.html Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 15, 2003 Law firm sues to represent Yucca New York-based lawyers want DOE contract award By Steve Tetreault, Stephens Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- A law firm that has been trying to obtain legal work on the Yucca Mountain Project moved Wednesday to block the Energy Department from hiring anyone else for the job. If any law firm is granted a multimillion-dollar contract to represent DOE in licensing the proposed Nevada high-level nuclear waste repository, the New York-based LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae contends it should be the one. The firm's attorneys filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking an injunction to prevent the Energy Department from doing anything different. The firm requested a ruling before May 30, when DOE has indicated it could complete its search for a law firm to prepare licensing documents and defend them before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Yucca Mountain Project has been without outside legal representation since November 2001, when the Winston & Strawn firm departed amid conflict-of-interest allegations. LeBoeuf, Lamb was a spurned bidder when DOE awarded a $16.5 million contract to Winston & Strawn in 1999. The New York firm subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the award. When Winston & Strawn left the Yucca program, LeBoeuf, Lamb argued it should be hired as a replacement since it had scored a perfect 1,000 points in technical competition. The Energy Department resisted, and the matter remains in court. After fighting for years in court, DOE is not expected to recruit LeBoeuf, Lamb in its new search, officials said. Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said DOE will respond to LeBoeuf, Lamb in court, "explaining why their contention is incorrect." Davis said he had no further information on DOE's position. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal ---sbs--- http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/may/15/515086550.html Las Vegas SUN - Law firm seeking Yucca job takes case to court May 15, 2003 at 11:36:49 PDT Law firm seeking Yucca job takes case to court LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- An international law firm that has long coveted a job with the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Project is going to court -- again -- to get the work. At issue is highly specialized legal assistance the department needs to assemble a license application to construct Yucca, the proposed site of a national nuclear waste repository. The department plans to submit the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December 2004. The $16.5 million legal contract initially was awarded to Chicago-based Winston & Strawn in 1999, but the firm quit the job two years later amid allegations that it had a pro-Yucca conflict of interest, a charge the firm strongly denied. New York-based LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae had sued in March 2000 to obtain the job, arguing it was the most qualified of any firms. That matter is still pending. The department has not hired another firm, but it intends to, according to an April 30 letter from Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. In the letter, Abraham wrote to explain to the top House lawmaker that the department intends to use an "informal" review process to hire a law firm, as opposed to the "more formalized" competitive bid process required by law. In an official "Determinations and Findings" document signed by Abraham that accompanied the letter, Abraham noted that federal law allows for informal processes when warranted by special circumstances. "We intend to award a contract to a law firm using a competitive selection process that is specially tailored to this unique and highly important endeavor," Abraham wrote. That's code jargon for "DOE will not be hiring LeBoeuf for the work," according to a legal motion filed Wednesday by LeBoeuf Lamb in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The motion is an effort to obtain an injunction that would bar the department from hiring any other firm. ---sbs--- http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/debate/2003/may/15/515085646.html Las Vegas SUN - Letter: 'Bunker busters' could do more damage at home - Ron Bourgoin May 15, 2003 at 9:25:14 PDT Letter: 'Bunker busters' could do more damage at home As Congress prepares to approve development of mini-nuclear weapons, or "bunker busters" as they've come to be called, we need to reflect on the fact that these weapons are designed to penetrate and destroy bunkers as deep as 1,000 feet down into the earth. Does the figure of 1,000 feet ring a bell? Yes, it's the depth at which the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be buried. Putting a few of these mini-nukes on a small aircraft and dropping them over Yucca Mountain could be accomplished with little difficulty. Before we too enthusiastically support development of these weapons, we need to consider how easily they could be used against us. RON BOURGOIN Editor's note: Ron Bourgoin was a consultant to the town of Rolesville in Wake County, N.C., in 1984 when a site in that area was being considered by the Energy Department as a potential high-level radioactive waste repository. ---sbs--- http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030515-035300-9967r UPI's Capital Comment for May 15, 2003, 4:32 PM From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk WASHINGTON, May 15 (UPI) -- Capital Comment -- Daily news notes, political rumors, and important events that shape politics and public policy in Washington and the world from United Press International. Nuclear site fallout... Bechtel, the international construction giant serving as the U.S. government's chief contractor on the Yucca Mountain project, has awarded a $30 million contract to a Maryland firm that is a subsidiary of the French-owned AVERA Group. The first contract to be awarded for the nuclear waste disposal facility, Cogema will receive $29.7 million to design robots that will be used in the waste handling process. The news that this award has been made to a French firm is raising some hackles on Capitol Hill, especially among those who did not want the Yucca Mountain project to move ahead in the first place. A spokesman for Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons said the congressman has repeatedly expressed concerns about giving contracts with sensitive national security implications to foreign-owned firms. Giving a contract to a French company "when that government has not shown itself to be an ally of the United States on matters of national security during the past year" is especially troubling, the spokesman said. Cogema reportedly beat out two other companies that Bechtel did not identify but are thought to be an Anglo-U.S. firm and a joint U.S.-Japanese venture that a source on Capitol Hill said "could have provided similar services at similar cost." While the process of designing the facility moves ahead, some, like Gibbons, believe the project may "never become a reality." According to his spokesman, "The fight over Yucca Mountain never ended. There are a lot of serious matters at stake and the awarding of this contract to a French-owned firm does not help matters." ---sbs--- http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/3117194p-3141756c.html Tri-City Herald, May 14th, 2003 Stop-work order at Hanford may get resolved By John Stang, Herald staff writer The state on Tuesday suspended until June 13 part of an April 30 order that the Department of Energy had interpreted as forcing a shutdown of much of Hanford's environmental cleanup work. Tom Fitzsimmons, director of Washington's Department of Ecology, said in a letter to DOE that the reason for the suspension is to give DOE a chance to evaluate specific impacts it believes would result from strict compliance with the order. Ecology Department staff will work with DOE to understand the federal agency's concerns, Fitzsimmons said. However, his letter added that the state will enforce other regulations, legal requirements and Tri-Party Agreement deadlines as the matter gets resolved. "We look forward to reviewing it," DOE spokesman Joe Davis said regarding Fitzsimmons' decision. DOE and its contractors on Tuesday still were sorting out specific details on what work would be shut down and how that would be accomplished if the stop-work order holds. So far, the conversion of scrap plutonium into safer forms at the Plutonium Finishing Plant is the only entire project that has been closed. At issue is a portion of the April 30 state administrative order that declared that barrels of highly radioactive transuranic wastes at Hanford and other DOE sites likely contain mixed radioactive and chemical wastes. While there is a dispute whether the state can regulate transuranic waste work at Hanford, it does have authority over mixed wastes. The April 30 order was in effect a state declaration that it has clout over transuranic wastes. On Friday, DOE responded by shutting down a large portion of Hanford's work, saying it was required to do so by one sentence in the 14-page state order. The sentence says: "DOE shall immediately stop creating a backlog of untreated mixed wastes." DOE said the sentence means Hanford can't create any new mixed wastes, even those produced incidental to cleanup work. The state, however, contends the sentence really means DOE is supposed to treat mixed wastes as it is produced. Tuesday's suspension of the state order followed a meeting of both sides Monday in Kennewick to discuss the controversy. The transuranic waste dispute, however, may not be resolved easily. Hanford has 84,000 barrels of mostly buried transuranic wastes that have to be checked and repacked before being sent to a permanent storage site in New Mexico. There currently is no uncontested binding timetable for DOE to do that work. DOE also wants to send transuranic wastes from its smaller sites to Hanford to be temporarily stored before eventually being checked and sent to New Mexico. There also is no legally binding schedule for that work. State officials maintain DOE is required to negotiate such timetables, but DOE believes the state has no right to force it to do so. Both have filed federal lawsuits against each other in the dispute. On Monday, federal judge Alan McDonald ruled DOE cannot ship any outside transuranic wastes to Hanford for temporary storage for the duration of the litigation. DOE has not yet decided whether to appeal, but it is still shipping some of Hanford's transuranic wastes to New Mexico. ---sbs--- http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=bombeffects13m&date=20030513&query=nuclear Seattle Times, May 13, 2003 Officials tell of impact of 'dirty bomb' By Warren King, Seattle Times medical reporter If a "dirty bomb" actually exploded in Seattle, radioactive dust would be a relatively short-lived but serious problem to contend with, authorities say. Law-enforcement and health officials would move quickly to get citizens away from radiation spread by the device. Warnings given at the site and by broadcast would focus on three messages: Stay away from the explosion area, seek shelter from a fallout of dust, and go to a decontamination site if you have been exposed. "There would be a fairly rapid dispersal of the dust. ... The real danger is inhalation of the dust, which could cause long-term health effects," said Dr. Alonzo Plough, director of Public Health Ñ Seattle & King County. A dirty bomb would not cause a nuclear explosion with its accompanying fallout of radiation over a long period. The explosion would be caused by TNT or other chemicals, which would spread relatively low-level radioactive material normally used in medical or industrial settings. Near the scene of the explosion, fire and police officials would warn people either to evacuate or to "shelter in place" Ñ move quickly to the interior portion of a nearby building where all sources of ventilation would be shut down. After radioactive particles settled, probably in a few hours, they would be allowed to leave through streets that had been washed clean of radiation. At the scene, firefighters and police Ñ so called "first responders" Ñ would wash people clean of radioactive material in decontamination stations that hold the water for later safe disposal. Contaminated clothing also would be sealed in bags for disposal. In outlying areas, people also would be advised to place clothing in sealed plastic bags and gently wash with soap and water. The injured from the explosion site would be transported to local hospitals, which would have their own decontamination stations. "Public Health would keep a registry of those who were decontaminated, and we would ask those with no injuries to see their physicians," Plough said. Health officials would keep track of all over an extended period to see how they fared, he said. Immediately after the explosion, emergency workers in protective clothing would monitor the scene for radiation levels. An extensively trained state Department of Health field team soon would arrive with a radiation-monitoring van to predict how radioactive dust would spread, based on the type of radiation and weather conditions. Officials at the State Emergency Operations Center at Camp Murray, Pierce County, would recommend whether people should evacuate or remain indoors for a time. Experts say the effects of the radiation would decrease with distance. Emergency officials would advise residents in outlying areas what decontamination measures would be needed, if any. "For the vast majority of the region," Plough said, "the messages would be: There's not any increased risk of harm; you should not go in the impact area; and remain calm Ñ this is not a nuclear explosion." ---sbs--- http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/ktvbn-may1503-ineel.1e7fd2a4.html KTVB - INEEL moving spent fuel to dry storage INEEL moving spent fuel to dry storage 05/15/2003 Associated Press ARCO - Officials at the Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratory say the first of 28 shipments of spent nuclear fuel from wet storage to dry storage has been completed. The fuel was moved from underwater storage at the Power Burst reactor to the Irradiated Fuel facility. The move will also allow workers to manage the fuel better and let decommissioning of the Power Burst take place. The fuel will be stored until it can be moved to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. According to a court order, all spent fuel must be removed from Idaho by 2035. ---sbs--- http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1391597,00.html Denver Post - Four plans offered for Flats refuge - By Ann Schrader Four plans offered for Flats refuge By Ann Schrader, Denver Post Staff Writer GOLDEN - No paintball, no dogs, no model airplanes, no dumping of prairie dogs and no firing range. Those will not be allowed on the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant when it becomes the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge by the end of 2006. But the 6,000 acres of prairie 16 miles northwest of Denver - with plutonium stores shipped out and buildings removed - could offer hiking, biking, observations of 250 species of wildlife and even hunting in limited areas a few weekends a year under four land-management alternatives developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are: No action - Resources would be managed in a caretaking mode, including inventory, monitoring, restoration, weed control and removal of most roads. Public access would be by "arrangement only" and guided tours. No new visitor facilities would be built. Wildlife, habitat and public use - Wildlife habitats would be restored, 14 miles of trails would be developed and roads and other disturbed areas would be revegetated. A moderate level of public use would be allowed with access by vehicle, foot and bicycle. There would be a visitor station, trailheads and parking. Ecological restoration - Roads, cultivated fields and developed areas would be restored to presettlement conditions. Public use and visitor buildings would be limited. One trail would allow guided tours of the Rock Creek Reserve on the northern third of the refuge. Public use - The highest-level of recreational opportunities would be allowed. A visitor center on the western edge would be considered. Seventeen miles of roads would be converted for hikers, bicyclists and horseback riders. Some roads would be removed with some plant areas restored and others protected. The alternatives will be presented in four public workshops over the next two weeks in neighboring communities. "We're halfway through the planning process," said Laurie Shannon, refuge planner for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which will manage the site. A draft environmental impact study and comprehensive conservation plan will be prepared by January or February. A decision on how the rolling grasslands and ponds will be managed will be made by late 2004. On Wednesday, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives briefed the Jefferson County commissioners on the alternatives, noting that the plan for moderate public access is preferred but that no decision has been made. The commissioners were concerned about preserving the Lindsay Ranch barn, controlled burns, location of a firing range and a 300-foot-wide road right-of-way along Rocky Flats' eastern edge granted in the 2001 refuge legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. Critics of the plans have deeper concerns. "The whole site is contaminated with plutonium, and last fall they heard an awful lot of public input about not allowing the public into the site itself," said LeRoy Moore of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. "It's irresponsible to not clean up the site better." For more information, visit http://rockyflats.fws.gov. ---sbs--- http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1962191,00.html Rocky Mountain News - Federal agency pushing for deer hunts at Flats - By Charley Able Federal agency pushing for deer hunts at Flats By Charley Able, Rocky Mountain News May 15, 2003 GOLDEN - Federal wildlife managers want to open the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant to deer hunting. Limited hunting is one of the "preferred" possibilities under consideration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as it examines the future use of the 6,200-acre site. The plant, where plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons were produced during the Cold War, is to become a wildlife refuge after it is cleaned up and closed. Laurie Shannon, Fish and Wildlife Service team leader for the Rocky Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan, said hunting would be limited to a couple of weekends a year and would provide a chance to establish hunting opportunities for youngsters and possibly the disabled. Hunting would be limited to archery, shotguns with slugs and muzzle-loaders. While the idea of hunting at Rocky Flats might conjure up images of glow-in-the-dark deer, it makes sense to Stephen Torbit, senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation in Denver. "You have to realize that the deer and the elk along the Front Range are foraging on grass that grows out of soils that (contain) thorium," Torbit said. Thorium is a radioactive substance. Torbit, who is familiar with the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan, said he is sure hunting will not be allowed unless safety is assured. Shannon said the agency reviewed studies that examined deer at the site and found no trace of contamination. It also collected tissue from Rocky Flats deer killed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife last winter during a chronic wasting disease study. No disease was found Other possibilities for the future refuge include hiking trails, environmental education, scientific research and restoration of the xeric tallgrass prairie. The plans will be presented for comment in four public workshops. For information, call (303) 289-0980. ---sbs--- http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/cb_headline.cgi?&story_file=bw.051503/231355203&directory=/google&header_file=header.htm&footer_file= Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. press release, MAY 15,2003 07:45 EASTERN Jacobs Receives Decontamination and Demolition Contract at Rocky Flats ÊÊÊÊPASADENA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 15, 2003--Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (NYSE:JEC) today announced that a subsidiary company will provide decontamination and demolition services for Building 444 in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Rocky Flats Closure Project. ÊÊÊÊOfficials estimate the total contract value at $36 million, with decontamination and demolition services taking place during fiscal year 2004. ÊÊÊÊBuilding 444 is a 161,980-square-foot facility that housed specialty manufacturing for nuclear weapon components and fabrication tools. Decontamination and demolition of Building 444 is one step in the process of closing the Rocky Flats Site and turning the Site into a wildlife refuge. ÊÊÊÊJacobs has provided site closure services at Rocky Flats since 1998. Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC., DOE's prime contractor for the project, selected Jacobs to perform the demolition of Building 444 because Jacobs' outstanding safety record and first-hand knowledge of the building make them best qualified to perform the demolition. Under an existing site closure services contract, Jacobs has already managed the removal of more than one million pounds of equipment from Building 444 to prepare it for demolition. ÊÊÊÊIn making the announcement, Jacobs Group Vice President Jim Thiesing stated, "We look forward to contributing to the safe cleanup and closure of this former nuclear weapons component production facility." ÊÊÊÊJacobs, with over 35,000 employees and revenues approaching $5.0 billion, provides technical, professional, and construction services globally. ÊÊÊÊAny statements made in this release that are not based on historical fact are forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements made in this release represent management's best judgement as to what may occur in the future. However, Jacobs' actual outcome and results are not guaranteed and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions ("Future Factors"), and may differ materially from what is expressed. For a description of Future Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements, see the discussion under the section "Forward-Looking Statements" included in Management's Discussion and Analysis filed as part of Exhibit 13 to the Company's 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K. CONTACT: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Sherry Sweitzer, 626/578-6992 ---sbs--- [Source: Tasha Williams, "Texas Has N-Dump Plan", Salt Lake Tribune, May 15, 2003] Salt Lake Tribune - Texas Has N-Dump Plan - By Tasha Williams Texas Has N-Dump Plan By Tasha Williams, The Salt Lake Tribune ÊÊÊ A move in the Texas Legislature to approve the fourth low-level radioactive waste dump in the United States could vastly affect the way Envirocare of Utah operates. ÊÊÊ Lawmakers from the Texas House and the Senate are piecing together a compromise of two bills and could pass a final version by next week. If the governor signs the bill, a facility could be running in west Texas by 2007. ÊÊÊ Envirocare, which operates a hazardous and low-level radioactive waste site in Tooele County, is one of three companies in the nation licensed to store low-level waste. The Utah company also operated a hazardous waste site in Texas, but closed that facility in 2001, president and CEO Dwayne Nielson said. ÊÊÊ Although Envirocare will not seek a license to expand its low-level business into Texas, Nielson said, the emergence of a new direct competitor for such waste in Texas would divide, and possibly depress, the market. ÊÊÊ "The way it will affect Envirocare is that there will be a new competitor that can take all levels of low-level waste without any income taxes," Nielson said. "So they'll have a competitive price advantage over Envirocare of Utah." ÊÊÊ Envirocare already competes with sites in South Carolina and Washington. Executives at the Utah company have been bracing themselves for the Texas proposal for about a year. ÊÊÊ Unlike Envirocare, the Texas site will probably take Class B and C waste, officials said. ÊÊÊ After a two-year battle in Utah to ban B and C wastes, which are more radioactive than class A waste, lawmakers in March agreed to study the issue -- but they did not institute an outright ban. ÊÊÊ Class A wastes, which are less radioactive, are already accepted at Envirocare's Tooele landfill. ÊÊÊ B and C waste is only 3 percent of the country's waste, said Bill Sinclair, director of the division of radiation control for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The Texas site will only take these classes of waste from other states in its compact, currently Vermont and Maine. Utah takes Class A waste from 36 states, he said. ÊÊÊ If the Texas site is approved, the company licensed to operate the facility would compete with Envirocare for Department of Energy waste, which currently is 80 percent of Envirocare's business, Sinclair said. ÊÊÊ The Texas site wouldn't pay a surcharge on waste as Envirocare does, but would be assessed fees or taxes of some sort, said Richard Radcliff, chief of the bureau of radiation control at the Texas Department of Health. ÊÊÊ "We are not lobbying in Texas," Nielson said. "[But] our message would be that when we have a competitor that has no taxes, that is a set-up for Envirocare to fail," ÊÊÊ The jobs of the 270 Utah employees of Envirocare are constantly at risk because of the competition, Nielson said. ÊÊÊ Envirocare of Texas has hired a number of lobbyists in the past, said Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans for Public Justice. However, Wheat said it appears as though Envirocare is "ceding the turf" to Waste Control Specialists, the frontrunner for the Texas facility. ÊÊÊ "I certainly haven't seen [Envirocare] in this session or the previous session as a player as they were in the past." ÊÊÊ Because of its desirable location, Waste Control Specialists is the leading company interested in the project. ÊÊÊ Michael Lauer, vice president for program management at Waste Control, said officials are waiting to see how much radioactive waste Texas lawmakers will allow before they choose to pursue the project. ÊÊÊ "It may not be a viable bill from a business perspective." ÊÊÊ The House and the Senate came up with different volume caps for the amount of radioactive waste they would allow at the facility, ranging from 6 million cubic yards to no limit. A conference committee is working on a compromise. ÊÊÊ The site, which has come before the Texas Legislature four times and has been debated since 1981, has not only been scrutinized by Envirocare but also by members of the Texas Sierra Club. Erin Rogers, outreach coordinator for the Lone Star Chapter, said the bill finally progressed this year because legislators "were favorable to turning Texas into a dumping ground." ---sbs--- http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_1959063,00.html Knoxville News-Sentinel - A pilot project at Wal-Mart could light up lab technology - Frank Munger ---sbs--- http://www.oakridger.com/stories/051503/new_20030515007.html Oak Ridger, May 15, 2003 Split Decision: Mum: Bechtel Jacobs' cleanup contract will be split, but DOE is not saying whether the same is in store for Oak Ridge Operations. by R. Cathey Daniels, Oak Ridger staff The U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations office has announced a split in its cleanup contract work with Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC. The company, under a $2.5 billion contract since Dec. 1997, has been working under one contract for cleanup of the Oak Ridge, Paducah, Ky. and Portsmouth, Ohio, sites. Bechtel Jacobs is now slated to receive a six-month extension, starting Oct. 1, for work at Paducah and Portsmouth. The company is currently in negotiations with DOE to extend its Oak Ridge site work for five years and convert that contract to "cost plus closure." Whether that arrangement implies an upcoming rebid of the Paducah and Portsmouth cleanup work, Gerald Boyd, Oak Ridge DOE chief, said Thursday, "I don't know." When asked what would happen to the contract after March 30, 2004, Boyd noted that DOE headquarters in Washington would make that determination. On whether the Paducah and Portsmouth sites would also be split off from Oak Ridge Operations and sent to a Lexington, Ky., office, reportedly under DOE's Bill Murphie, Boyd said, "You know there are plans in the works (for a split) Ü I don't know anymore about those plans than you do, but right now nothing has changed." Boyd said there is "not going to be any impact" on the Oak Ridge site due to the Bechtel Jacobs contract split. "Bechtel Jacobs still has responsibility for all three sites, Steve Liedle (Bechtel Jacobs president) still represents all three sites Ü he now has two contracts instead of one with us," he said. Boyd said the reason for the split, effective May 1, was to "make it easier to convert the contract here in Oak Ridge to a closure contract." Liedle said Thursday in prepared statements that the company is "pleased to have the opportunity to continue this important work for the department at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites." He said, "While this decision formally separates our environmental cleanup work at Paducah and Portsmouth from our work in Oak Ridge, Bechtel Jacobs will continue as one company." Bechtel Jacobs is expected to close out Oak Ridge cleanup work by 2008 under the accelerated cleanup program. The program calls for remediation of high-risk sites on a fast track. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com. ---sbs--- Oak Ridger - DOE talks uranium campaign with citizen board - by R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger, May 15, 2003 DOE talks uranium campaign with citizen board SSAB: Members and public hear presentation, ask questions at Wednesday's meeting. by R. Cathey Daniels, Oak Ridger staff The campaign to ship nearly 7,000 uranium hexafluoride cylinders off the Oak Ridge Reservation went before the Site Specific Advisory Board Wednesday. The cylinders are likely headed for Portsmouth, Ohio, for conversion into a safer form, though environmental documents are also being prepared for shipment to the Paducah, Ky., site. Bechtel Jacobs Co. is responsible for the first half of the campaign, and United Disposition Services takes over in 2005 for the second half, which entails more hazardous cargo. David Hutchins, project manager, spoke of the Bechtel Jacobs shipments. "We are taking what we feel are prudent and appropriate steps for the shipment of these materials," Hutchins told the group during the Department of Energy presentation. Exporting the cylinders has long been a high priority of Oak Ridge cleanup advocates. Recently the issue drew attention when the state released the preferred route as through Oak Ridge and Clinton, then backed off that stance. DOE has said the route will not be the Oak Ridge Turnpike, but has declined to publicly release the preferred route. Hutchins said the preferred and alternate routes have been chosen, and that state officials along those routes will be given two weeks notice prior to shipments. He also detailed ongoing training efforts for first responders in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, and outlined transport safety precautions and risks associated with the shipments. Bill Pardue of Oak Ridge addressed the board and said that DOE, when deciding on a route, should strike a balance between the safest route the shortest route and the route furthermost from highly-populated areas. "The route through Oak Ridge is perhaps safer than some of the others," said Pardue, who has a background in transport of hazardous materials. He said that the alternative of heading west from the K-25 site, where the cylinders are stored, and driving Interstate 40 back through Knoxville could "expose a larger population than coming right through Oak Ridge." Ben Adams, SSAB member, asked whether the cylinders would be covered during transport. Hutchins said that state emergency management organizations had nixed that idea, saying that leaving the cargo uncovered eases identification and response in case of an accident. Charles Washington, SSAB member, expressed concern that hot weather could increase pressure inside the cylinders and work in combination with the poor condition of containers to more easily cause a breach during transport or accident. Hutchins said the cylinders would meet standard guidelines for pressure, and Gerald Boyd, DOE Oak Ridge chief, said efforts to maintain the integrity of the cylinders are ongoing. Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, asked about cost and risk analysis of rail versus truck transport. A LOC committee Tuesday questioned whether the rail option had been fully explored. Gawarecki noted frequent traffic congestion along I-40 and Interstate 75 as a concern for the truck alternative. Hutchins said DOE has determined truck shipment to be more cost effective than rail, but said risk was probably a "toss up." He said that generally speaking truck shipments have a higher probability of "an occurrence" whereas rail shipments have the possibility of "higher consequences." Gawarecki questioned whether DOE has engaged local governments in "long-term up front planning," and expressed surprise that "the process has gotten as far as it has without discussion with local officials." Boyd said, "Let's try to remember we're talking about a lot of communities between here and Portsmouth, OhioSÿ . When we have that many involved we turn to the state." Boyd also said he had met with local officials on the issue and that "we are available for discussions." Mayor David Bradshaw said Thursday that over the past months "DOE's had a few miscues here and there on communications. However Gerald Boyd and Steven Wyatt (DOE's head public affairs officer) are working very hard on improving the process." Kerry Trammel, SSAB member, asked Hutchins for a risk comparison. Hutchins pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, and said that for uranium hexafluoride cylinders "initial stand off distance" is 100 meters, and in the case of fire, 330 meters. For propane shipments the initial stand off distance is one-half mile, and in case of fire, 1 mile. Hutchins noted in his presentation that "there's never been an accident with a release" in the over four decades of shipping uranium hexafluoride. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com. ---sbs--- The Tennessean, May 15, 2003 The Tennessean - LES hiring adviser team to shepherd Trousdale effort - By Kathy Carlson LES hiring adviser team to shepherd Trousdale effort By KATHY CARLSON Staff Writer The international energy group Louisiana Energy Services is fielding a new team of advisers to help in its bid to build a uranium enrichment plant in Trousdale County. The list includes former Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Director Bob Corney, Nashville attorney Larry Woods and Sideview Partners Inc., the Gallatin-based consulting business of former Tennessee Valley Authority Director Johnny Hayes. National communications efforts are being coordinated by Marshall Cohen, president of the public relations and advocacy marketing group Association & Issues Management, based in Pittsburgh. ''The team is still being formed,'' said John Van Mol, a partner in the Nashville public relations firm Dye, Van Mol & Lawrence. It's ''best just to refer to everybody as a team of advisers. And it is very much a team approach.'' His firm remains on the adviser team, as does the law firm Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree on legislative and zoning issues, he said. Woods said in a telephone interview last night that he will tackle other legal issues, including those relating to economic development. He described himself as a general practitioner who has worked on environmental matters. Woods is still researching environmental issues regarding the proposed plant, but he said he recognizes the project's potential for helping the United States generate energy, as well as for creating jobs and boosting the local economy. In addition, LES announced Tuesday that former Nashville Vice Mayor Jay West will work as an adviser in community relations. LES' hiring of a new corps of consultants comes on the heels of changes in top management, with the resignations Tuesday of George Dials as president and chief executive officer and Nan Kilkeary as vice president of communications. Dials' position is now held by Pat Upson, chairman of LES and a technology executive with Urenco, a Dutch-British-German uranium-enrichment consortium. LES announced in September that it had chosen Hartsville as the site for the $1.1 billion facility, where uranium will be enriched so it can be further processed into fuel for nuclear power plants owned by U.S. electric utilities. The plants provide about 20% of the country's electricity. Since that time, residents of Trousdale and neighboring counties have been divided on whether to embrace the proposal. Some favor the plant for economic reasons, while others oppose it because of environmental concerns. A big issue to many is how depleted uranium tails that are left after enrichment will be handled. When contacted yesterday, Hayes would not comment and Corney referred a reporter's question to Van Mol. Hayes lives in Sumner County, about 20 miles from Hartsville, Van Mol said. Sumner is also one of five counties that participate in the Four Lake Regional Industrial Development Authority, which owns the land on which LES wants to build the proposed plant. Hayes served as a TVA director until 1999, when he left to become finance chairman of former Vice President Al Gore's presidential bid. More recently, he helped raise $11.3 million as finance chairman for Phil Bredesen's successful campaign for Tennessee governor. Corney, who lives in Nashville, was director for Bredesen's inaugural in January. He has been an aide to Gore and a state lobbyist. He left his position with the state Democratic Party to start a communications firm, he told the Knoxville News-Sentinel in 1999. The firm's niche was to be what he called ''grass-roots lobbying,'' generating letters and phone calls from clients on specific issues. ''It's not a replacement for traditional lobbying efforts, but basically it's the ability to harness public support for a corporation or a lobbyist,'' he told the newspaper. Woods, of Woods & Woods law firm in Nashville, was a senior ad-viser to Bredesen's transition team. Kathy Carlson can be reached at 259-8047 or at kcarlson@tennessean.com. ---sbs--- http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/2538127p-2356920c.html Hilton Head Island Packet, May 15th, 2003 Senate bill would fund SRS facility BY TIM BAIER, SpecialÊtoÊTheÊPacket WASHINGTON -- More than $400 million in a U.S. Senate defense bill would enable the Savannah River Site to build a facility to convert weapons-grade plutonium into fuel rods for commercial nuclear power plants. The Senate Armed Services Committee this week approved more than $1.7 billion for the Savannah River Site, which included $402 million for the mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication facility and more than $1.3 billion for environmental cleanup of the former bomb-making site nearly 90 miles from Hilton Head Island. Sen. Lindsey Graham is optimistic the funding will be approved by Congress, a spokesman for the South Carolina Republican said. The funding is part of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, which still has to be passed in both the Senate and House. The Senate is expected to vote on the act in the next two or three weeks; proponents predict the bill will be signed into law this year. Plutonium is headed to South Carolina as a result of a U.S.-Russia agreement that calls for each country to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium used in nuclear weapons. The fuel fabrication facility is part of a Bush administration restructuring of the U.S. plutonium disposition program, which will convert the bomb material into nuclear energy for commercial use. The United States and Russia agreed in the early 1990s to dispose of surplus nuclear materials to prevent them from being sold on the black market. The two options of disposal were immobilization, which renders the plutonium useless before it is buried in special containers, and mixed-oxide fuel fabrication. Both countries chose the mixed-oxide method; for energy-strapped Russia, it provided a new source of fuel, according to Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham. The program to ship the plutonium to South Carolina has been controversial. Former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges fought the shipments for more than a year, even threatening to lie in the road to block the trucks carrying the hazardous materials from entering the state. Hodges sued to block the shipments, but lost in the U.S. District Court and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit in January as Hodges' term as governor had expired. While Hodges took his battle to the courts, Graham, then a congressman, followed a legislative route. Legislation passed last year requires that all plutonium be shipped from South Carolina by 2017 if fuel rod production has not begun. This legislation alleviated one of Hodges' major concerns -- that plutonium would come to South Carolina and be stored at the Savannah River Site indefinitely. Graham praised the new mission of the site as well as the government's commitment to seeing it through in the safest manner possible. "At Savannah River Site we're working to keep the peace," Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said Monday. "SRS is playing a leading role in the effort to turn surplus weapons grade plutonium into fuel. They're also pushing full-bore in cleanup efforts at the site." Gov. Mark Sanford supports the development of the fuel fabrication facility for several reasons, one of which is the estimated addition of 400 jobs to the area, according to spokesman Will Folks. Shipments of nearly 34 metric tons of plutonium are expected to be completed in the next couple years, coming from sites such as Rocky Flats, Colo., and Pantex, Texas, according to Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "The important thing isn't if shipments are arriving now, but that we will keep our promise that this plutonium will not sit in storage," Wilkes said. "It will go through a disposition process where it will no longer be usable in nuclear weapons and will leave the Savannah River Site." Construction of the new facility is scheduled to begin in 2004, and the first recycled plutonium production is expected in 2008. Tim Baier writes for Medill News Service in Washington, D.C. ---sbs--- San Francisco Chronicle, May 15, 2003 State, PG&E battle in court; Post-bankruptcy plan is the issue Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and California regulators squared off before a federal appeals court Wednesday over PG&E's plan to shed state rate regulation while emerging from bankruptcy. In a hearing before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor representing the utility's parent company, PG&E Corp., argued that any state law that interferes with a debtor's reorganization plan is automatically overridden by federal bankruptcy law. Congress gave state regulators a "very limited role" in utility bankruptcies and withdrew states' authority to veto utility reorganization plans in 1978, Tribe told the court. Walter Rieman, a lawyer for the state Public Utilities Commission, said Congress gave no indication that it intended to let utilities escape all state regulation by filing for bankruptcy. Such a change would allow a utility to violate state energy and consumer laws, sell off environmentally sensitive lands and even demolish historic buildings with impunity, he said. Jeffrey Clair, a lawyer with the Justice Department, sided with the PUC, saying Pacific Gas & Electric's argument would also exempt it from a variety of federal regulations, including restrictions on transfer of nuclear plants. The three-judge panel gave little indication of its leanings during the 40-minute hearing, but promised a prompt ruling. The issue is critical for PG&E because its post-bankruptcy plan conflicts with numerous California laws, including one that requires PUC approval for transfers of utility property. The PUC says the plan also would weaken state environmental controls over 180,000 acres surrounding PG&E hydroelectric plants. The utility filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in April 2001 with $13 billion in debts. Its plan would transfer its power plants and transmission systems to newly created companies overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose market-oriented approach would likely lead to higher rates than those allowed by the state PUC for 4.5 million customers. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in August that PG&E's bankruptcy plan was exempt from any conflicting California laws. He cited a 1984 bankruptcy law that requires a reorganization plan to contain adequate means for implementation, regardless of any other law. Rieman, the PUC's lawyer, argued Wednesday that Walker had overstated the sweep of the 1984 law and that a Bankruptcy Court judge should be allowed to consider the state's interest in enforcing particular laws. Tribe countered that a Bankruptcy Court judge has no authority to act as a "junior varsity Congress" and that the uncertainty of such a system would destroy a debtor's ability to borrow money. Regardless of the appeals court's decision, the future of PG&E's plan was clouded recently by a Standard & Poor's report questioning the plan's financial viability and setting numerous conditions for a favorable credit rating. When PG&E responded with new financial proposals, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Dennis Montali suspended proceedings in his court and ordered the company into mediation with the PUC, whose competing plan would preserve state regulation. On Tuesday, PG&E Corp. reported a first-quarter loss of $354 million and said a second subsidiary, National Energy Group, could soon file for bankruptcy. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. ---sbs--- http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8023040&BRD=1091&PAG=461&dept_id=425686&rfi=6 Allentown Messenger Press - Fort Dix cleanup nearing end - By Scott Morgan Fort Dix cleanup nearing end By: Scott Morgan , Staff Writer 05/15/2003 Project to remove contaminated soil finished in one year. ÊÊÊFORT DIX Ñ The yearlong military cleanup of contaminated ground at the eastern edge of Fort Dix is almost complete. ÊÊÊLt. Diane Weed, spokeswoman for the public affairs office at McGuire Air Force Base, announced recently that the $10 million project to remove ground contaminated by a plutonium leak 43 years ago is about to end. Lt. Weed did not specify when the work would be completed, just that it would be very soon. ÊÊÊSince late spring of last year, the U.S. Air Force has overseen the cleanup of 15,000 cubic yards of ground where, in 1960, a fire inside a missile shelter cracked the shell of a nuclear anti-aircraft missile and leaked almost 12 ounces of plutonium. The missile, part of the Air Force's BOMARC anti-Soviet bomber defense plan, was flushed with water for several minutes, causing the plutonium to settle into 7 acres of ground. Military officials sealed the remote site in concrete and fenced in the area. ÊÊÊSo far, the Air Force has hauled more than 22,000 tons of contaminated soil from Fort Dix to the EnviroCare hazardous waste disposal facility in Tooele County, Utah. Once there, the ground is sealed in a urethane compound and placed in underground cells. ÊÊÊThough the land housing the BOMARC shelters is on Fort Dix property, the site was leased to the Air Force in the 1950s. ÊÊÊAccording to Lt. Col. Steven Rademacher, chief of the Radiation Surveillance Division at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, the plutonium from the 1960 accident has neither posed nor caused any health concerns. In a 2002 seminar concerning the cleanup, Lt. Col. Rademacher said the leaked plutonium was safely contained in the ground. ÊÊÊAccording to the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), plutonium is a danger only when its particles are ingested or inhaled. A 1999 study of drinking water at Fort Dix by the ATSDR in found no evidence that the accident had contaminated the water supply. ÊÊÊThe BOMARC program was discontinued in 1972. ©PACKETONLINE News Classifieds Entertainment Business - Princeton and Central New JerseyÊ2003 sbs note: Fort Dix is in New Jersey ---sbs--- http://kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=1446&cat=HOME KOB-TV, - Kirtland AFB cleans up radiation-infused soil - By Kurt Christopher Kirtland AFB cleans up radiation-infused soil Last Update: 05/15/2003 11:08:05 AM By: Kurt Christopher (Albuquerque-AP) -- The U.S. military relied on radiation-infused soil at Kirtland Air Force Base during the Cold War to teach its own how to deal with nuclear accidents. Trainees wearing protective suits and carrying Geiger counters would poke around eight fields tilled with Brazilian thorium ore, a source of low-level radiation. Today, Kirtland is cleaning half of its outdoor classrooms. A Kirtland spokesman, Steve Milligan, says completion of the work is expected by September. Base officials say the fields pose an elevated risk to human health and the environment. ---sbs--- http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8018645&BRD=1645&PAG=461&dept_id=33198&rfi=6 Middletown Press - Town's tax rate, budget head in opposite directions - By Matthew Higbee TownÕs tax rate, budget head in opposite directions By MATTHEW HIGBEE, Middletown Press Staff May 15, 2003 HADDAM - Since the mothballing of the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant, property taxes have headed in only one direction -- up. But this year, despite an 8.9-percent increase to the town budget, the Board of Finance can at long last tell taxpayers what they want to hear. Baring changes to the proposed $18.3 million budget, which went before the board for a final review Wednesday night and goes to a town meeting May 21, the tax rate will drop from 31.5 to 29.5 mills, according to JoAnn R. Woickelman, Board of Finance chairwoman. Though tax rates have dropped several times in the past 30 years, the decreases have not always translated into lower taxes. They have typically come during revaluation years, when property assessments go up, leaving the taxpayer with no net gain. This year, however, could mark the first time since 1971 that HaddamÕs tax rate goes down during a non-revaluation year. "ItÕs wonderful. The town needs a break," said First Selectman Tony Bondi. Last year, the town used money from the general fund to lower the tax rate from 33.5 to 31.5 mills. This year, the decrease will not cost the town anything. Woickelman attributed the reduction to two main causes. First, the town paid the last installment on a five-year bond that covered a $14 million overtaxation settlement reached with Connecticut Yankee in 1997. Last yearÕs bond payment equaled 3.5 mills, Woickelman said. Secondly, the Grand List grew by $22.56 million over last year. The bulk of the increase came from an $8.5 million assessment on Connecticut YankeeÕs nuclear waste storage facility. Revenue from the state is a third, but less significant, reason for the 2-mill reduction. Unlike most small towns around the state, Haddam will receive more state aid from grants than it did last year. According to figures released by the Office of Management and Budget, the town stands to gain $357,000. About $291,000 worth of this increase is scheduled to come from school funding in the form of an educational cost sharing grant. Woickelman cautioned, however, that this money is not "cast in stone" until the legislature passes the state budget. "ItÕs still unknown," she said. ©The Middletown PressÊ2003 ---sbs--- News 14 - Meeting to evaluate nuclear drill Meeting to evaluate nuclear drill 5/15/2003 8:15 AM By: news14.com ÊWATCH THE VIDEO McGuire station test; A meeting will evaluate Duke Energy's response to an emergency drill held on Tuesday. CHARLOTTE, N.C. Ð A public meeting Thursday will allow residents to hear how Duke Energy's readiness to deal with an emergency at the McGuire Nuclear Station is evaluated. Tuesday, the company tested its comprehensive safety plan that is mandated by federal agencies. The test involved Duke, along with county and state government agencies. They were given some emergency situations and the goal was to see how well they could respond. McGuire Nuclear Station The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will evaluate how well Duke and the agencies handled the scenarios. The meeting is being held at 11 a.m. at the Iredell County Agricultural Resource Center on Bristol Drive, in Statesville. Call (704) 878-5353 for more information. ---sbs--- Bennington Banner - Yankee evac plan could send children here - By Bobby Gates ---sbs--- zzz St. Petersburg Times - Progress Energy looks around, boasts - By Louis Hau ---sbs--- Charlotte Observer - Worker who lied about arrest had access to nuclear plants ---sbs--- San Francisco Chronicle - Ban on small nuclear arms reaffirmed - James Sterngold ---sbs--- Seattle Times - Close-up: No farewell to arms: Move to lift nuclear curb reflects new world view - By Paul Richter, LA Times ---sbs--- Washington Post - The Stuff of Cold War History - By Peter Whoriskey ---sbs--- Washington Post - Letters: The Benefits of Two-Way Nuclear Trade ---sbs--- New York Times - The Bush Polonaise - By William Safire ---sbs--- ENS - AmeriScan: GAO Report Adds Fuel to the Wildfire Debate ---sbs--- DOE - Department of Energy Forwards Joint DOE-NRC Report on Recovery of Radioactive Sources To GAO; Urges GAO To Read It ---sbs--- DOE - Department of Energy: "GAO Report On Recovery of Radioactive Sources Flawed" ---sbs--- Energy Department - NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project, 26294-26295 [03-12163] ---sbs--- National Nuclear Security Administration - NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Chemical and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, 26296-26297 [03-12164] ---sbs--- Nuclear Regulatory Commission - NOTICES Meetings: Yucca Mountain, NV; potential high-level waste repository - Activities overview, 26360-26361 [03-12115] ---sbs--- Nuclear Regulatory Commission - NOTICES Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 26359-26360 [03-12114] ---sbs--- Pacific: ABC - Fed Govt not coughing up on waste dump: SA ---sbs--- Asia-Pacific: Japan Today - Radioactive water leaks from Hamaoka reactor ---sbs--- Asia-Pacific: Japan Today - Nuke fuel reprocessing to cost Y15 tril ---sbs--- East Asia: New York Times - Bush and South Korean President Are Vague on North Korea Strategy - By David E. Sanger ---sbs--- East Asia: Reuters - Many Disappointed by S.Korea's U.S. Summit - By Martin Nesirky ---sbs--- East Asia: Reuters - U.S., S.Korea Vow to Halt North's Nuclear Threat ---sbs--- Europe: TerraDaily - German nuclear waste shipments head for Britain, France ---sbs--- Europe: EU Observer - 'Polluter pays' law one step closer - By Sharon Spiteri ---sbs--- Europe: The Guardian - Polluters to pay clean-up costs - Andrew Osborn ---sbs--- Europe: Salon - British ports to screen for dirty bombs - By Michael Mcdonough ---sbs--- Europe: Planet Ark - Swiss face vote on scrapping nuclear power ---sbs--- Russia: St Petersburg Times - Plan To Use Nuke Subs as Oil Tankers - By Doug Mellgren ---sbs--- Middle East: ABC - Iraq's nuclear facilities left unguarded - Leigh Sales ---sbs--- Middle East: San Francisco Bay View - Is U.S. covering up 'depleted' uranium health impacts in Iraq? ---sbs--- Middle East: Christian Science Monitor - Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq - By Scott Peterson ---sbs--- Middle East: Christian Science Monitor - Reporters on the Job ---sbs--- Middle East: Las Vegas SUN - Putin Agrees Iran Poses Nuclear Threat - By Barry Schweid ---sbs--- Middle East: Las Vegas SUN - Russia Calls for Nuclear Checks on Iran - By Vladimir Isachenkov ---sbs--- Middle East: Las Vegas SUN - Russia Wants Iran to Sign Nuclear Pact ---sbs--- Middle East: Reuters - U.S.: No Plans for Military Action in Iran - By Jonathan Thatcher ---sbs---