ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n050

Internet Message Format | 1998-12-15 | 61KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #50
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest   Wednesday, December 16 1998   Volume 01 : Number 050




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:34:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Letter about Nuclear Waste Shipment from Pennsylvania to Pleasenton, CA

Below is my first draft of a letter to the editor about the planned
irradiated nuclear fuel rod shipment from Limerick, PA to Pleasanton, CA.
Will the shipment go through Davis?  How tough are the casks (ie. How hard
an impact can they withstand, how much heat can they withstand, how long can
they stay under water before corroding, what are the chances of radiation
being released during an accident, what are the chances of a terrorist
attack, etc).  Please tell me how I can improve my letter:

Watch out!  More irradiated nuclear fuel rods will soon come through
Sacramento. In early 1999, ten irradiated nuclear fuel rods (so radioactive
that a person standing three feet away from unshielded irradiated fuel would
receive a lethal dose of radiation in just 10 seconds) will be shipped by
truck from the Limerick, Pennsylvania nuclear power plant to General
Electric's Vallecitos Nuclear Center, a nuclear laboratory in Pleasanton,
CA.  The fuel rods will travel along some of the nation's busiest freeways,
including through Reno, Sacramento, Stockton and the Tri-Valley's 580/680
freeway interchange
before arriving at Vallecitos, situated along highway 84.  This worries me,
since according to DOE projections, trucks average 6.4 accidents per 1
million miles, which works out to a 1.92% chance of an accident for a 3,000
mile trip, and an accident involving irradiated fuel could cause $2 billion
of damage in an urban area, according to a 1980 NRC study.

The Vallecitos Nuclear Center has been involved in more than 50 shipments
(totaling 513 kilograms) of spent nuclear fuel rods since 1977, including at
least 11 in the past five years, all without any public notification. Many
or those shipments have come rolling across the nation's highways from
faraway places like Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania and Hope Creek, New
Jersey.  However, this time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chose to post
approval (given last month) of the latest shipment on its website due to the
shipment's size and distance, and to tout the extensive security measures it
plans.

Why are they coming here?

According to the NRC, the GE Vallecitos facility "tests the feasibility of
burning fuel in commercial reactors for a longer period than is the current
practice." A GE official explained that the nuclear workers cut into the
rods to check the plutonium levels and to search out any cracks or flaws.
This is done at Vallecitos in "hot cells," special rooms lined with thick
concrete walls.

The stated goal of the program at Vallecitos is to determine if the nuclear
industry can save money by allowing power plants to change fuel rods less
frequently. As fuel rods sit in nuclear reactors, they are bombarded by
neutrons and some of the rod's uranium 238 ultimately becomes plutonium 239.
Thus, fuel rods become progressively "hotter" and more radioactive the
longer they are used in a reactor. This raises questions as to whether an
eventual outcome of the research program at Vallecitos will be to cut the
margin of safety at U.S. nuclear power plants.

Since shipments of irradiated fuel rods to and from Vallecitos has been kept
secret for so long, I believe that General Electric and the NRC have a moral
and legal obligation to hold public hearings on the shipments and on the
Vallecitos research programs in Livermore, Pleasanton, Sunol, and all along
the transportation route, to address the following concerns.

According to the NRC, highway accidents with nuclear fuel rods have
occurred, though the NRC says there have not been documented radioactive
releases from them. Transportation casks have been found with inadequate
welds and other problems. And, unpredictable situations- like the collapse
of the Cypress freeway structure during the Loma Prieta earthquake, or a
truck falling off a bridge onto a passing train- do happen.

According to Dept. of Energy records, the DOE's "hot cells" at Vallecitos
are severely contaminated and in need of cleanup. Will any of DOE's "hot
cells" be used for this program? What is the total number of
"hot cells" at the site? What other facilities will be used? How are the
nuclear rods cut open? What kinds of analyses are performed? What are the
waste streams from these extremely hazardous operations? How many nuclear
rods will be used in the program overall? When will this program  end? What
is the potential health impact on workers and the public?

In 1977, General Electric had closed its main reactor at the Vallecitos
Nuclear Center following controversy over its location atop an active
earthquake fault.  I am concerned that an earthquake could release radiation
from the 64 irradiated fuel rods at Vallecitos- the 54 already there plus
the 10 due to arrive next year.

There have been some problems with the shipment. The Limerick nuclear power
plant encountered "minor problems" during the last week in November when it
attempted to load the ten 12-foot long
irradiated, also called spent, fuel rods into a shipping cask, according to
an internal NRC report. "There were also believed to be some irregularities,
so the operation was halted," the memo continued.

Due to these unspecified "problems" and "irregularities," coupled with an
imminent, already-scheduled fuel reload at  Limerick, the fuel rod shipment
destined for Vallecitos will be delayed until 1999, the memo said. The NRC
did not disclose, however, just how soon after the New Year that shipment
might come.

Further, the NRC alluded to new efforts to identify and acquire different
rods "to minimize any schedule slippages in the research program."


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:22:09 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PRESS RELEASE RE UKRAINIAN NUKE REACTORS

- ----
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:30:53 -0500
From: Michael Mariotte <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NIRS

To: [e-mail]
Subject: press release on k2/r4 letter

Sender: [e-mail]


Thanks to everyone who signed on!

Michael Mariotte
NIRS

NEWS FROM NIRS
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036
202-328-0002; fax: [phone]; [e-mail]; www.nirs.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            Contact: Michael Mariotte,
202-328-0002
December 14, 1998

80+ ORGANIZATIONS ASK CLINTON, EBRD TO STOP FUNDING FOR NEW UKRAINIAN
REACTORS

DECEMBER 14 IS INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST AGAINST UNNECESSARY K2/R4
PROJECT

More than 80 environmental and consumer organizations December 14 sent
a
letter to President Clinton and to the U.S. representative on the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) urging them to
stop funding for Ukraine's proposed K2/R4 atomic reactors. 67 of the
groups were from the United States.

The letter was part of an international day of protest against the
unnecessary and dangerous project. Demonstrations are expected in some
30 European cities on December 14, which marks the end of a
controversial "public consultation" period intended by the EBRD to
solicit public comment on its participation in the project.

The Clinton administration has supported construction of the new
reactors as the price to pay for a permanent shutdown of the two
remaining operable Chernobyl atomic reactors. But environmentalists and
critics throughout Europe-and now the United States-have pointed out
severe safety shortcomings in these "new," but Soviet-designed
reactors.
Opponents also have argued that the EBRD is required to support only
least-cost energy projects. A blue-ribbon panel, including U.S. utility
and nuclear experts Peter Bradford and David Freeman, concluded in 1997
that the K2/R4 project is decidedly not a least-cost energy strategy
for
Ukraine. But the EBRD commissioned a new study, by nuclear contractors
Stone & Webster, which argues that the reactors are a least-cost energy
alternative.

Said NIRS executive director Michael Mariotte, "The Stone & Webster
study is faulty from beginning to end. It barely recognizes
decommissioning costs-which in U.S. experience runs at about initial
plant construction costs; it completely ignores radioactive waste
storage costs, which may be the highest nuclear-related cost of all;
and
its estimate of construction costs will be met only if Ukraine doesn't
plan on paying its construction workers."

Mariotte added, "We agree with President Clinton that permanently
closing Chernobyl is of paramount importance. But there is little
reason
to believe that Ukraine will keep its promise to close Chernobyl if K/2
and R/4 are built-after all, what other nation would keep Chernobyl
running at all? Further, it makes precious little sense to build two
new
unsafe reactors in highly-populated regions to replace two unsafe
reactors in an abandoned region. And K2/R4 are decidedly unsafe-neither
could be licensed in the U.S., or anywhere in the west."

"Instead of building the next nuclear accident waiting to happen, the
EBRD and the U.S. should be helping Ukraine develop and implement
renewable energy projects and especially new energy efficiency
measures.
Ukraine actually has plenty of electrical capacity, but it also is
among
the least energy efficient nations in the world. It would be much more
cost-effective and a greater boon to its economy to help make Ukraine
an
energy efficient nation supported by new local energy efficiency
industries," said Mariotte.

Background on K2/R4
Khmelnitski 2 and Rovno 4 are two partially-built, Soviet-designed
1000MW VVER nuclear units situated in northeast Ukraine. The
construction of these reactors was stopped in 1991 after the collapse
of
the Soviet Union. However, in 1996, the Ukrainian government proposed a
project to complete these reactors to replace two operational units at
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which is to be closed down by 2000.
Ukraine signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the G7 countries and
the European Union in which the conditions for this deal are
formulated.

The project is expected to cost $1.72 billion. The Ukrainian government
has approached the EBRD for a loan of $190 million for the project.
Once
this loan is obtained, additional funding will come from Euratom,
Russia
and from Export Credit Agencies in Europe, Japan and the U.S.

The EBRD has been considering the loan for years, but seems hesitant to
come up with the loan, as the project fails to meet many of the
criteria
the Bank has formulated for such projects. In 1997, an independent
panel
of the EBRD concluded that K2/R4 does not meet the EBRD economic
criteria, in the sense that the project is not economic in terms of
rate
of return and is not a least cost solution for the problem of energy
supply.

Safety problems
The project also poses many serious safety problems, most of which are
due to structural flaws in the original Soviet design. The
international
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified these safety problems, which
include an increased risk of fire due to improper cable layout, faulty
steam generators, containment vessels that are susceptible to rupture,
faulty control rods and poor and obsolete instrumentation and control.
Despite the significance and importance of these safety problems, the
project sponsor is not planning to complete all safety measures, and
planning to solve some of the known safety problems only at the first
refueling--after three years of reactor operation.

Poor public consultation
EBRD regulations require that the project sponsor, the Ukrainian state
company Energoatom, undertake public hearings on the project, as
arranged under the Convention on Environmental impact assessment in a
Transboundary Context, (the Espoo convention). For this reason, a
Public
Participation Process started in August, with the objective of
gathering
input from the public on the environmental impact assessment. This
process, which ends in mid-December, has been hampered from the very
first day by many problems, mostly due to a lack of interest from the
Energoatom. Decisions have, to a large extent, been carried out on a
non-transparent basis, and information about the project has not been
readily available. Project sponsors have been consistently
uncooperative
throughout the public participation process.

The Ukrainian government has little patience with any public
opposition,
which might weaken its efforts to complete the reactors and in some
cases has actually attempted to silence opposition by using
intimidation
and physical threat. The Ukrainian Secret Service (the successor to the
KGB) has harassed, interrogated and arrested without warrant persons
who
have openly campaigned against the project.

NIRS can place reporters in touch with European contacts on these
issues. More information is available on NIRS' website: www.nirs.org

- --30--




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:27:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Jackie Cabasso <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST DOE!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, December 14, 1998         P.1 of 2
CONTACT: Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation [phone]
              Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs [phone]

"HOORAY!" BIG WIN BY 39 PLAINTIFF GROUPS!!

GROUPS WIN LANDMARK NUCLEAR WEAPONS "CLEANUP" VICTORY; TO AVOID CONTEMPT
FINDING, ENERGY DEPARTMENT AGREES TO OPEN DATABASE, ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM
STEWARDSHIP PLANS, $6.25 MILLION CITIZEN MONITORING FUND

WASHINGTON, DC/SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- To settle a lawsuit brought by 39
environmental and peace organizations including the Oakland-based Western
States Legal Foundation and Livermore's Tri-Valley Communities Against a
Radioactive Environment (CAREs), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has
signed a landmark agreement which will increase public oversight of its
efforts to address severe contamination problems in the nation's nuclear
weapons complex.

The settlement, which was delivered to Federal District Court Judge Stanley
Sporkin today, ends nine years of litigation charging that DOE failed to
develop its "cleanup" plans properly. DOE faced a contempt of court hearing
before Judge Sporkin for not complying with a previous legal agreement in
the case.

"From the perspective of protecting the nation's water, air and land, this
settlement is superior to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
DOE originally agreed to prepare," said David Adelman, a Natural Resources
Defense Council lawyer who represented the plaintiffs. "We now have the
data, the resources and the processes necessary to make DOE's environmental
work more accountable to the public." The Washington, D.C. law firm of Meyer
& Glitzenstein provided pro bono litigation counsel.

Key elements of the settlement include:

    Creation of a regularly updated, publicly accessible database including
details about contaminated facilities and waste generated or controlled by
DOE's cleanup, defense, science and nuclear energy programs, including
domestic and foreign research reactor spent fuel, listing characteristics
such as waste type, volume, and radioactivity, as well as transfer and
disposition plans;

    DOE funding for at least two national stakeholder forums to assure the
database is comprehensive, accurate and useful;

    Completion of an environmental analysis, with public input, of plans for
"long-term stewardship" at contaminated DOE sites to ensure protection of
the public and the environment;
                                    More . . .

. . . Continued, P. 2 of 2

    Establishment of a $6.25 million fund for non-profit groups and tribes to
use in monitoring DOE environmental activities and conducting technical
reviews of the agency's performance;

    Payment of plaintiffs'legal fees and expenses incurred to litigate this
case; and

    Continuing federal court oversight to assure adherence to the agreement.

    "I'm really excited! This is a major victory both for the environment and
for public
participation," said Marylia Kelley, of Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore,
California, one of 39 plaintiff groups." We have won access to the tools the
public needs to monitor DOE's compliance with the nation's obligation to
address the radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production."
DOE's "cleanup" program is slated to become the largest environmental
project in U.S. history, with an estimated total cost of more than $250
billion.

    "Since the mid-1980's we've been asking for a breakdown of DOE-generated
waste by program and facility," added Jackie Cabasso of Oakland's Western
States Legal Foundation, a plaintiff and communications coordinator for the
lawsuit. "DOE is currently gearing up its nuclear weapons research and
development activities -- the same kinds of activities that created this
environmental disaster. Now, for the first time, using DOE's own data, we'll
be able to demonstrate the link between cause and
effect, a powerful argument against any further nuclear weapons design and
production."

    Many of the groups first sued DOE in 1989, claiming that the agency must
conduct a thorough analyses before moving ahead with plans to address the
radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production and modernize its
facilities. The next year, DOE signed a legal agreement promising a full
public review of its proposals. In 1994, however, DOE leaders decided to
abandon the Environmental Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement process without consent of the plaintiffs or Federal Court Judge
Sporkin, who had approved the initial settlement. In April, 1997, plaintiffs
went back to Judge Sporkin seeking enforcement of the original agreement.

    In a series of court hearings, Judge Sporkin made it clear that he expected
DOE to abide by its commitments. Earlier this year, he ordered DOE to "show
cause" why it should not be held in contempt for failing to conduct the
environmental analysis. In depositions taken by the plaintiffs, former
Energy Secretary James Watkins and other former senior DOE officials
strongly backed plaintiffs claims. The discussions which led to today's
settlement were conducted at Judge Sporkin's urging.

- - - 3 0 - -

Note:  Representatives from Western States Legal Foundation, Tri-Valley
CAREs and other northern California plaintiff groups will hold a news
conference today, Mon. Dec. 14, at 12 noon at the San Francisco offices of
the Natural Resources Defense Council, 71 Stevenson, Suite 1825  (near
Montgomery Street BART at 2nd Street, south of Market Street in San
Francisco).  Representatives from attorney of record NRDC will be available
by speaker-phone from Washington, DC.


* * * Copies of the settlement agreement are available on request. * * *

PLAINTIFF ORGANIZATIONS
The Atomic Mirror, CA
Bay Area Nuclear (BAN) Waste Coalition, CA
Citizen Alert, NV
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, NM
Citizens Opposed to a Polluted Environment, CA
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, NM
East Bay Peace Action, CA
Energy Research Foundation, SC
Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC
Greenpeace, Washington, DC
Hayward Area Peace and Justice Fellowship, CA
Lane County American Peace Test, OR
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, NY
Livermore Conversion Project, CA
Los Alamos Study Group, NM
Nashville Peace Action, TN
Natural Resources Defense Council,Washington, DC
Neighbors in Need, OH
Nevada Desert Experience, NV
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, CA
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, TN
Peace Action, Washington, DC
Peace Farm of Texas
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Greater SF Bay Area, CA
Physicians for Social Responsibility, CO
Physicians for Social Responsibility, NM
Physicians for Social Responsibility, NY
Plutonium Free Future, CA
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO
San Jose Peace Center, CA
Seattle Women Act for Peace/Women Strike for Peace
Shundahai Network, NV
Sonoma County Center for Peace and Justice, CA
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, CA
Western States Legal Foundation, CA
Women Concerned/Utahns United
Women for Peace - East Bay, CA
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom - East Bay Branch, CA

   ********************************************
       WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
           1440 Broadway, Suite 500
             Oakland, CA USA 94612
              Tel: [phone]
              Fax: [phone]
               [e-mail]
   ********** Part of ABOLITION 2000 **********
   Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:17:57 -0500
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: US SIGN ON - URGENT! DOE COMMERCIAL/MILITARY LINK

LCNP (Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy) will be glad to sign on to
the letter.
                    Peter Weiss, President, LCNP

Robert Smirnow wrote:
>
> ---
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:02:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Peace Action - National Office <[e-mail]>
>
> Sender: [e-mail]
> Subject: US SIGN ON - Urgent!
> To: [e-mail]
>
> To  :  Abolition caucus
> From: Brad Morse <[e-mail]> and Bruce Hall <[e-mail]>
> Please respond to Brad
> Subject: tritium sign-on letter
> Status: RO
>
> Dear folks
>
> The DOE decision on renewing
> production of tritium for nuclear weapons is imminent.  As such, Peace
> Action and ANA have drafted this letter, asking one more time that
> Secretary
> Richardson have the courage to recognize our (hopefully) shrinking
> nuclear
> arsenal and the lack of any real need for tritium, and choose not to
> produce
> tritium at all.  As it appears more and more that DOE is going to make
> SOME
> decision, and perhaps leaning in the direction of the commercial
> reactor
> option, we are asking specifically that he not choose that particular
> method, on the grounds that doing so would cross the line between
> commercial
> and military uses of nuclear technology, and would diminish the
> position of
> the US to further the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.
>
> Because there will be a "public meeting" on Monday night in Tennessee
> (see
> my earlier message of today) to discuss the commercial production of
> tritium
> at the Watts Bar or Sequoyah plants, we are looking for sign-ons from
> any
> and every group by Monday Dec. 14 at noon.  We will fax the letter to
> Secretary Richardson on Monday, so that it is at DOE Headquarters by
> the
> time they are having the "meeting" in Tennessee.  In addition, we are
> looking for ways to get it to Tennessee in time for the "meeting" as
> well.
>
> That's it.  Please let me know if you can sign on.  Thanks all.
>
> Brad
>
> >>>
> >>>December xx, 1998
> >>>
> >>>The Honorable Bill Richardson
> >>>Secretary of Energy
> >>>Washington, DC
> >>>
> >>>Dear Secretary Richardson:
> >>>
> >>>The undersigned organizations, representing thousands of concerned
> >>>citizens throughout the country, strongly oppose U.S. plans to
> >>>utilize commercial nuclear power plants to produce tritium for
> >>>nuclear weapons.  In our view, such a plan would blur the line
> >>>between civilian and military applications of nuclear power and
> >>>thus sets a dangerous precedent from a non-proliferation
> >>>standpoint.  In addition, further reductions in nuclear arsenals,
> >>>supported by your administration and increasingly likely, would
> >>>make a new source of tritium unnecessary.
> >>>
> >>>As you are aware, it has been the long-standing policy of the
> >>>United States to separate military and civilian uses of nuclear
> >>>technology.  We stand behind that policy and continue to believe
> >>>that in this area, the United States must make non-proliferation
> >>>concerns paramount.  Recent revelations that the Indian government
> >>>procurred tritium for its nuclear weapons program from Western-
> >>>built 'civilian' reactors reinforces our view.
> >>>
> >>>Section 56e of the Atomic Energy Act forbids special nuclear
> >>>material produced in a commercial reactor from being used "for
> >>>nuclear explosive purposes."  While definitions of "special nuclear
> >>>material" do not include tritium, this technicality does not mask
> >>>the fact that the Department of Energy plans to use a source of
> >>>civilian electricity as a source of materail to boost the
> >>>destructive power of the nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal.  As
> >>>a former Ambassador to the United Nations you must be able to
> >>>appreciate how apparent contradictions in our nuclear weapons
> >>>policies undercut our ability to champion the cause of nuclear non-
> >>>proliferation abroad.
> >>>
> >>>The U.S. timeline for securing a new source of tritium is
> >>>based on out-dated thinking in terms of the size of the U.S.
> >>>nuclear arsenal.  The United States still bases its planning on
> >>>maintaining a START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) I arsenal.
> >>>Implementation of START II, now pending ratification in the Russian
> >>>Duma, will delay the "need" for new tritium until at least
> >>>2011 since the tritium from nuclear weapons being retired under the
> >>>provisions of the START treaties can be recycled into the nuclear
> >>>weapons slated to remain in the arsenal.  The lower force levels
> >>>envisioned under the broad outlines of START III agreed to by
> >>>Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin last year would delay the "need" for
> >>>new tritium even further into the 21st Century.
> >>>
> >>>We are particularly concerned about the prospect of using tax payer
> >>>dollars to complete the construction of the Tennessee Valley
> >>>Authority's Bellefonte nuclear reactor to produce nuclear weapons
> >>>tritium.  In addition to the substantial burden this proposal would
> >>>present for taxpayers, bringing Bellefonte on-line would add to the
> >>>ever growing amount of nuclear waste in the United States.  A
> >>>problem for which there is no adequate solution.
> >>>
> >>>We understand that your office is under considerable pressure to
> >>>choose between a number of potential tritium sources, each of which
> >>>has considerable fiscal or non-proliferation drawbacks.  At a time
> >>>of emerging consensus on the desirability of significantly reducing
> >>>the U.S. nuclear arsenal we urge you to make the courageous
> >>>decision of "none of the above" regarding tritium sources.  We
> >>>stand ready to work with your office on the removal of legislative
> >>>language forcing the United States to maintain a massive Cold War-
> >>>sized arsenal.
> >>>
> >>>The United States does not need to move forward with a new tritium
> >>>program that will waste further taxpayer dollars and has the
> >>>potential to undercut long-standing non-proliferation policy.
> >>>
> >>>Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>                          ********************************
>                                      Brad Morse
>                                  Program Assistant
>                           Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
>                                1801 18th St., NW
>                                    Suite 9-2
>                              Washington, DC  20009
>                                www.ananuclear.org
>                       ph:[phone]  fax:[phone]
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:51:31 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: INDIA MAY TEST H BOMB, TEST BAN TREATY JEOPARDIZED

- ----
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:03:30 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Harsh Kapoor)

Sender: [e-mail]
Subject: Indian Test Failure (fwd)
To: [e-mail]


FYI (with thanks to MV Ramana)
Harsh
South Asians Against Nukes
- ------------------------------------------------
>
>India May Test Again Because H-Bomb Failed, U.S. Believes
>By Mark Hibbs, Nucleonics Week, November 26, 1998
>
>One of India's May nuclear blasts, which was described by the New
Delhi
>government as a successful thermonuclear weapons test, was in fact a
>failure, senior U.S. nuclear intelligence analysts have concluded
after
>months of study.
>
>Discrepancies between claims made by India after the tests and actual
>seismic data recorded by several international organizations have
prompted
>speculation that at least one of three tests at the Pokaran test site
India
>said were successful on May 11 did not go off. Last week, however,
>Washington officials told Nucleonics Week that analysts at the Z
Division
>of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, responsible for making
>estimates of progress in foreign nuclear weapons programs based on
>classified data, have now concluded that the second stage of a
two-stage
>Indian hydrogen bomb device failed to ignite as planned.
>
>As a result of the apparent failure, U.S. official sources said, the
Indian
>government is under pressure by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE),
>responsible for India's nuclear weapons design and production effort,
to
>test the H-bomb again, in the face of ongoing bilateral talks in which
the
>U.S. seeks to persuade India to agree to a global nuclear test ban.
>
>Measured in terms of verified capabilities, apparent progress in
delivery
>systems, and military control of the bomb program, one U.S. official
said,
>''Pakistan may have pulled even or gone ahead'' of India in the South
Asian
>nuclear arms race, by virtue of tit-for-tat tests Islamabad carried
out two
>weeks after India's detonations.
>
>Only days after the blast, DAE announced to the world that the test
was a
>complete success, and that India now had demonstrated a thermonuclear
>weapons capability.  When India announced it had tested an H-bomb,
U.S.
>officials and some ex-DAE officials suggested that, because Indian
>officials in the past had used the term ''thermonuclear'' loosely, the
>biggest Indian shot on May 11 was a boosted fission weapon, not a true
>hydrogen bomb (NW, 14 May, 12). After several months of analysis of
>seismic, human, and signals intelligence data, however, U.S. officials
>directly responsible for interpreting the information have concluded
that
>they are satisfied that DAE tried to test an H-bomb.
>
>A boosted fission weapon is a nuclear weapon in which neutrons
produced by
>thermonuclear reactions serve to enhance the fission process, which
itself
>is set off in the type of weapons designed by India by the implosion
of a
>core of metallic plutonium. In a boosted fission bomb, the
contribution of
>the thermonuclear reaction to the total yield is relatively small.
>
>A full-fledged thermonuclear weapon is a two-stage weapon in which the
main
>contribution to the explosive energy results from the fusion of light
>nuclei, such as deuterium and tritium. The high temperatures required
for
>the fusion reaction, produced in the secondary stage of the device,
are
>initially produced by means of an initial fission explosion, generated
by
>the primary stage.
>
>According to well-placed sources, U.S. analysts now strongly believe
that,
>on May 11, the primary stage of an Indian H-bomb detonated, but its
heat
>failed to ignite the secondary stage.  "If India really wants a
>thermonuclear capability, they will have to test again and hope they
get it
>right," one U.S. official said.
>
>After the May blasts, India declared that a "thermonuclear device"
>code-named Shakti-1 had produced a nuclear yield of 43 kilotons. At
the
>same time, India asserted that a "fission device" was exploded
yielding 12
>kilotons, and that a "low-yield device" had produced a yield of about
0.2
>kilotons. But seismic and intelligence data analysed by U.S. experts
have
>prompted the conclusion that "the secondary didn't work," one source
>explained.
>
>According to data compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC),

>the expected mid-point of a range of probable yields for all blasts on
May
>11, given the seismic recordings of between 4.7 and 5.0 on the Richter
>scale, would be only about 12 kilotons.
>
>Sources said that, while the U.S. has not made any public comment
about
>what it knows about the Indian H-bomb test, the Clinton administration
has
>raised the subject with the Indian government in secretive, high-level
>talks with New Delhi over terms under which India would agree to
comply
>with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The Indian side has
asserted
>that the discrepancy between measured yield and the DAE claim of 43
>kilotons is accounted for by a precautionary reduction by DAE of the
amount
>of fuel used in the secondary, in order to prevent damaging the
village of
>Khetolai, located only a few miles from the test site. U.S. analysts
have
>concluded that was not the case.
>
>"The Indians are hopping mad that we don't believe their H-bomb
worked,"
>one source said.
>
>But the matter has now severely complicated the U.S.-Indian talks on
the
>test ban, diplomatic sources observed last week. Because the H-bomb
test
>failed, DAE "is under intense pressure to test again," one U.S.
official
>said. According to an official at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament
in
>Geneva, "The U.S. has been preparing to let India climb down" from
heavy
>sanctions which were applied nearly immediately after the May test
series,
>provided India agrees to the CTBT. But if DAE didn't deliver on the
H-bomb
>test, he said, the U.S. "will have to give India a lot more in return"
for
>a firm agreement to agree to the CTBT.
>
>Diplomatic sources said that, in 1997, India had asked the U.S. for
test
>simulation data, such as that the U.S. agreed to supply France a few
years
>ago, in order to permit India to accept the CTBT, but that the U.S.
had
>refused. One analyst said that "it would now be logical" for India to
renew
>that request. But sources said a U.S. transfer of such data to India
[was
>unlikely?]
>
>In the heady hours following what appeared to be a series of
successful
>nuclear weapons tests in May, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee
>had declared that India would not carry out further tests and would
>negotiate accession to the CTBT (NW, 14 May, Extra). But since then,
U.S.
>officials said, DAE has bid to test the H-bomb again. At the same
time, one
>Indian analyst said last week, Vajpayee is "terribly worried" about
the
>prospect that the Indian military might get control of the nuclear
weapon
>program. "The military is looking at what was apparently a DAE failure
and
>it sees what's happening over in Pakistan where the military is
directly in
>control of its weapons program," one U.S. official said. -- Mark
Hibbs,
>Washington
>
>
>Mark Hibbs is European Editor of Nucleonics Week and Nuclear Fuel,
leading
>specialist newsletters on international nuclear affairs, published by
>McGraw-Hill, Inc. Hibbs, based in Bonn, Germany, covers nuclear energy
and
>proliferation problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Asia.





- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:58:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: Janet Bloomfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST DOE!

Dear everyone,
all I can say is  "jolly well done"!
Have a wonderful holiday and let's look forward to more success in 1999.
Love and peace,
Janet Bloomfield.
Saffron Walden,
England.


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 06:31:19 -0500
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews U.S.: NIRS / y2k; Yucca Mt; DOE settlement; TX dump; stockpile stewardship

1. http://detnews.com/1998/technology/9812/13/12130202.htm
Group says unplug nuclear plants not set for Y2K

2. http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/nevada-waste.html
Contradictions Seen in Report on Possible Nuclear-Waste Site

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-12/16/038l-121698-idx.html
Energy Dept. Settles Suit on Waste Cleanup

4. http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Dec/10/national/DUMP10.htm
Texans' dump plan angers Mexicans

5. http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/losalamos11.htm
Replacing nuclear detonations

- ------------------------------------

1. http://detnews.com/1998/technology/9812/13/12130202.htm

Group says unplug nuclear plants not set for Y2K

Reuters / The Detroit News December 13, 1998

    WASHINGTON -- An environmental group Thursday submitted a petition to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that nuclear power plants be shut
down if they cannot prove themselves free of Year 2000 computer bugs.
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service officials said if the nation's
104 commercial nuclear power plants are not properly tested and declared
free of the Y2K threat, there could be "severe safety and environmental
problems" caused by date-sensitive electronic systems failing when 2000
starts.
    "The Y2K computer problem is greater than most people imagined even a
year ago, and it is becoming clear that not every nuclear utility will be
Y2K compliant in time for the millennium," said Michael Mariotte, NIRS
executive director.
    The so-called Y2K problem has developed as a result of computer systems
recognizing years by their last two digits, reading 1999 for example as
"99." When the new millennium begins, computers will misread the year 2000
for 1900, and if not corrected, could cause system-wide malfunctions.
    The first petition by the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service would require the NRC to close by
Dec. 1, 1999, any reactor that cannot prove, through full
testing, that it is Y2K compliant.
    A second NIRS petition would mandate that nuclear
utilities install additional backup power units to ensure
steady supply of electricity to reactors. A third and last
petition requires each utility to engage in a full-scale
emergency response exercise during 1999 for testing
plant personnel.
    "The nuclear industry and the NRC are working
diligently to resolve the Y2K problem, and we believe
them. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the problem is so
large that not every nuclear utility is likely to complete
their work in time," Mariotte said.
    NIRS said the possibility of electrical grid instability
and local and regional blackouts cannot be ruled out as
a result of possible computer malfunctions. The group
noted that few utilities have actually tested emergency
plans to cope with potential difficulties.
    In a statement, the Nuclear Energy Institute said the
industry had thus far found Y2K issues a challenge, but
manageable. The industry group noted that systems
needed to safely shut down nuclear plants respond to
plant conditions and operator commands, not to
date-driven data bases, prone to Y2K or millennium
bugs.
    "The NRC stated in 1997 that safety-related shutdown
systems are not subject to the Year 2000 concern,"
according to the NEI statement.
    The environmentalist group asked the NRC to
consider their petitions on an expedited basis, and
allow outside verification of nuclear plant Y2K testing
and compliance.

- ------------------------------------

2. http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/nevada-waste.html

Contradictions Seen in Report on Possible Nuclear-Waste Site

By MATTHEW L. WALD, New York Times, December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON -- After 15 years and $6 billion of research, the Energy
Department plans to release this week its first detailed analysis of
whether Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada desert, is a good place to bury
nuclear waste for what amounts to eternity.

The report is expected to say there is no reason to stop investigating
Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, as the site for storing thousands of tons
of long-lived radioactive waste from the production of electricity and
nuclear weapons. But according to people who have been briefed on the
assessment, and public comments by agencies advising the Energy Department,
several contradictory points are contained within its thousands of pages

First, water has been found to move through the desert mountain faster than
many proponents of the site had hoped, posing the possibility that nuclear
contamination could be carried relatively quickly into the groundwater
under the mountain and then beyond the boundaries of the waste repository.

Because the mountain alone will not be able to contain the waste without
some help from man, if then, engineering details such as how the wastes are
packaged and how the storage tunnels are laid out will be crucial, the
assessment states.

But the report's supporting documents also predict that the peak period of
radioactive releases from the waste will be so far in the future -- 200,000
years or more -- that man-made features, like corrosion-resistant
canisters, will not be reliable.

Officials at the Energy Department, which was supposed to have begun
accepting reactor waste in February, say the report, known as a viability
assessment, merely lays out a path for further research before 2001, when
the department is supposed to make a recommendation on the site to the
president.

Department officials and nuclear-power executives say the assessment is a
step toward the department being able to recommend the site, even if the
rock is not as impermeable as once believed.

But other experts, including independent reviewers brought in by the
department, say that making any predictions about the site will be
extremely difficult if the Environmental Protection Agency, which must
eventually establish the criteria for it, decides that it must perform well
hundreds of thousands of years from now. Two thousand centuries from now,
they say, Yucca Mountain, now one of the driest and most remote places in
the United States, may no longer be desert.

Energy Secretary William Richardson said in a telephone interview that
predictions would be stated in probabilities. "That's all one can offer,"
he said. "I don't think in science one can offer certainty."

The assessment runs five volumes; thousands of supporting documents have
already been made public. Many are available at http://www.ymp.gov/va.htm.

The nuclear industry, which is eager for the government to take spent
reactor fuel off its hands, is asserting that the assessment shows there
are no "show-stoppers" that would nullify Congress' instructions to the
Energy Department to investigate Yucca Mountain.

Theodore Garrish, an expert on waste at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the
industry's trade association, said study of the mountain was going through
"a natural progression" into man-made aspects of the project.

"They're saying what kind of engineering needs to be put into this site to
make this thing work," Garrish said. "This is a combination of geology and
man-made barriers and engineering."

Garrish also said that the work thus far is sufficient to lay to rest some
concerns -- for example, that a volcano or an earthquake would disturb the
site.

But outside scientists have raised many questions about the research. Many
of these scientists are not hostile to the idea of burying the wastes at
Yucca, but say that evaluation of the 15 years of research points to many
unanswered questions.

Recent reviews by outside scientists found that not enough is known about
how water, the main vector in spreading the wastes, will flow through the
mountain in coming millennia, when rainfall may be triple the mountain's
current six inches a year. The time scale is so long that it probably
includes climactic changes including ice ages.

"Greenhouse gas warming is a little blip on the screen, compared to
longer-term changes we're going to see here," said another independent
scientist who has seen the statement. Scientists have already found that in
the section of the mountain where the waste would go, 1,000 feet below the
surface, water shows signs of atomic bomb fallout, which means that it made
the trip in the last 50 years, after atmospheric nuclear testing began.

To carry wastes from the site, the water would have to percolate down
another 1,000 feet to reach the water table, but a report last month to
Congress and the Energy Department by a panel of outside scientists, the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, found that water may flow relatively
quickly, through rock fractures.

The report said the usefulness of the area above the water table as a
barrier was "uncertain," and that during times when the climate in Nevada
is wetter than it is now, travel times could be "several hundred years or
shorter," which is brief compared to the longevity of the wastes.

How fast the waste moves depends heavily on the amount of rainfall, but
even the U.S. Geological Survey, the organization that first identified the
region in 1976 as a likely site for burying waste, said in a report to the
Energy Department this month that "there is surprisingly little" in the
assessment about "reckoning the uncertainties in either past or future
climates."

Department officials say that shifting the focus of research to engineering
considerations is natural. "In any scientific endeavor, it starts off
seeming simple, and you will find more and more questions," said one
high-ranking department official, speaking on condition that he not be
further identified. Most of those willing to talk about the study said they
did not want to comment on the record before it is released by Richardson,
who could make changes in its findings.

"People used to think, 20 years ago, that the geology was so good, you
don't have to worry much about the man-made part," said the official. But
no matter what site was chosen, "you find more and more you need to
explain," he said, and eventually, engineers will have to address the
question of how the metal of the waste containers, and how the heat created
by the wastes, will interact with the rock at the site chosen.

As part of the shift in attention, the department has been testing the
corrosion resistance of a nickel alloy that it wants to use to package the
spent fuel; scientists think those tests could be used to predict the
metal's performance for centuries or even a few thousand years. But, said
one scientist who was asked by the Energy Department to evaluate its
research, "if you want to extrapolate from two years to 100,000 years, good
luck. There's no good theoretical basis for your extrapolations."

And no one is clear on how much extrapolation is necessary, because the
period for which the repository should be expected to contain the wastes
has not been established. In the 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency
suggested 10,000 years in a draft rule that was later withdrawn.

In 10,000 years the most intensely radioactive wastes, like cesium and
strontium, will have decayed away, but the plutonium and other man-made
elements will still have most of their radioactivity.

- ------------------------

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-12/16/038l-121698-idx.html

Energy Dept. Settles Suit on Waste Cleanup

By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press, Wednesday, December 16, 1998; Page A29

The Energy Department will provide its critics money
for research and expanded access to information about
nuclear waste cleanup efforts under a settlement reached
with environmentalists.

The department said it agreed to earmark $6.25 million
for citizen groups to monitor and finance independent
technical studies of the government's nuclear waste
management programs.

The settlement, approved Monday by U.S. District Judge
Stanley Sporkin, closed a nine-year lawsuit filed by the
Natural Resources Defense Council and 38 other
environmental organizations. ...(snip)

The department will put a variety of unclassified nuclear
waste and cleanup information in a new database that
will be available through the Internet, officials said.

The lawsuit also accused DOE of failing to perform
adequate environmental reviews of how it manages the
nuclear weapons stockpile. Sporkin dismissed that
section earlier this year on national security grounds.

Other plaintiffs included Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

- ------------------------

4. http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Dec/10/national/DUMP10.htm

Texans' dump plan angers Mexicans

The state wants to build a nuclear disposal site near the border. Critics
see environmental racism.

By Molly Moore, WASHINGTON POST / Philadelphia Inquirer

GUADALUPE BRAVOS, Mexico -- This bantam border town
has a message for what it sees as the overbearing bullies next
door: "Clinton and Bush -- Take away your nuclear garbage,"
screams the banner in front of city hall on Main Street.

The town's hostility is aimed 50 flat desert miles to the
southeast, where Texas plans to chew huge craters in the rocky
earth to create a nuclear waste dump for radioactive refuse from
Texas, Maine and Vermont.

But what state officials in Austin and the Congress in
Washington regard as a remote patch of scrubland -- a perfect
spot for an unpopular dump -- is considered by critics as too
close to home and water supplies for hundreds of thousands of
Mexicans who populate the towns and cities south of the border.

"For us it's a question of life and death," said Israel Trejo
Gamez, mayor of this town of 9,600 people. "We're worried for
our future generations of children. If it's not dangerous, like the
U.S. government says, why not put it in New York?"

Mexicans, as well as political and environmental opponents in
the United States, maintain they have the answer to that question.

'Why . . . this place?'

"It's obvious environmental racism," said Clara Torres
Armendariz, a state legislator in the sprawling Mexican state of
Chihuahua, which adjoins Texas. "Why choose this place? The
American side is 65 percent Hispanic and not politically or
economically important for the United States. On the other side
is Mexico."

Seldom has one issue so galvanized Mexico's disparate
political spectrum as the proposed nuclear waste dump outside
the Texas community of Sierra Blanca, 18 miles north of the
border and 80 miles southeast of El Paso. The Mexican
Congress voted unanimously to oppose construction of the
dump, and political leaders from every party have united in
protest marches, petitions and visits to Gov. George W. Bush's
office in Austin and congressional suites in Washington.

The battle over Sierra Blanca has spanned nearly two decades,
since Texas first began looking for a dump site to comply with
federal law urging states to take responsibility for disposing of
low-level nuclear waste generated by power stations, hospitals
and research laboratories. The alternative has been to ship it to
one of two operating dumps in Richland, Wash., and Barnwell,
S.C. Four other sites have been closed over the years because of
various problems.

Dangerous fault?

In a decision shadowed by allegations of political shenanigans,
the Texas state legislature ordered the dump built on a
16,000-acre ranch that the state purchased five miles east of
Sierra Blanca, which has a population of 600.

Environmentalists allege the site is situated over a dangerous
fault line in an earthquake-prone region. They say potential
leaks could endanger underground water aquifers. They
complain that Sierra Blanca already has the nation's largest
sewage-sludge dump and that the trend toward situating waste
dumps along the southern border of Texas violates a 1983 pact
between the United States and Mexico to "prevent, reduce and
eliminate sources of pollution" within 60 miles of the border.

But Hudspeth County officials and Sierra Blanca business
leaders argue that the site for low-level nuclear waste is safe
and that in a poor county where the biggest employer is the U.S.
Border Patrol, the dump would bring a needed financial
windfall. Even though the dump has not been built, the county
has received service fees that have helped build a new park,
library and health clinic, refurbish the high school football field,
and buy new school buses and ambulances.

In July, two Texas administrative judges recommended, after
two years of study, that the state deny the licenses sought by the
Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority to
build the dump, citing the "failure to adequately characterize the
fault directly beneath the site and . . . to adequately address
potential negative socioeconomic impacts from the proposed
facility."

But the recommendation was only advisory. Supporters and
opponents said they expected Texas authorities to give final
approval to the dump despite the warnings. In addition, the U.S.
Senate recently voted to allow Texas to enter into contracts with
Maine and Vermont to accept out-of-state nuclear waste at the
site.

- ------------------------

5. http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/losalamos11.htm

Replacing nuclear detonations

Deadly arsenal: Los Alamos, Livermore labs update weapons technology using
powerful computers.

By Mark LeibovichWashington Post

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- When Department of Energy
engineer John Pedicini was 27, he exploded his first
brainchild -- a large nuclear device -- and felt a
surge of patriotism as the Nevada desert quaked.
That was in the mid-1980s, when the Evil Empire
seemed as tangible as the underground detonations
that measured the strength of the nation's nuclear
arsenal.

Today, Pedicini is waging a new race, one known to
few beyond the shrinking community of nuclear
weapons designers here at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Far from desert bunkers, their pursuit is
unfolding on a massive computer that can perform
more calculations in one second than a hand-held
calculator can in 3 million years.

``I'm here because I wonder if (Russian President
Boris) Yeltsin's economy will keep falling apart,''
said Pedicini. ``I worry that Russia will go the way
of (Germany's) Weimar Republic in the 1920s, and
they will become a threat to us again.''

Such vigilance still pervades America's nuclear
birthplace. But as the Cold War recedes deeper into
history, the lab's basic mission has undergone a
seismic shift. The United States stopped developing
nuclear weapons in 1989 and ceased underground
testing in 1992; that leaves about 8,000 warheads in
today's U.S. stockpile (the exact number is
classified). Now the scientists entrusted with
maintaining these weapons must create a simulated
testing ground. Computer skills have become a gold
standard.

Rise of nuclear nerds

Los Alamos has reinvented itself. Last month, the
Department of Energy, which oversees nuclear
weapons, announced that the ``world's fastest
computer,'' called ``Blue Mountain,'' was fully
operating at Los Alamos. It was the latest milestone
of a period that has seen the laboratory's elite group
of Cold War physicists replaced by -- or transformed
into -- a new generation of nuclear nerds.

At the crux of this evolution is the U.S. government's
$4.5 billion-a-year effort to preserve its nuclear
weapons. Called ``Stockpile Stewardship,'' the
project's objective is to maintain the reliability of
aging weapons systems without the benefit of the
underground detonations used for decades.

The weapons project requires a computing system
powerful enough to produce a three-dimensional
likeness of how a device would perform if exploded.
It would portray the heat, light and chaos of a nuclear
detonation and, virtually speaking, place the
scientists inside a bomb as it unchains the greatest
destructive power unleashed by human beings.

The project has infused the lab with fresh urgency
following a post-Cold War identity crisis.

In the early 1990s, ``there was a sense that we would
just grab the peace dividend and get out of the
weapons business,'' said Gilbert G. Weigand, deputy
assistant secretary for strategic computing and
simulation at the Energy Department. Technicians
feared this would render them overeducated
maintenance workers. Or worse, unemployed.

But stockpile stewardship has presented fresh
challenges, many made up of bits and bytes rather
than protons and neutrons. While the program
includes non-computerized tasks, such as the routine
transport of weapons between facilities, the
simulation work represents its leading edge, many
weapons scientists here say.

Aging stockpile

Aging is perhaps the most persistent foe in the
modern arms race. By 2004, the average age of the
weapons in the stockpile will be nearly 20 years, or
the expected lifespan of many of these weapons at
the time they were constructed. During the Cold War,
older weapons were retired and new ones designed
to take their place.

But just as urgent is the aging of the Cold War
scientists who built the arsenal. Their ranks are
dwindling fast, at Los Alamos and at its sister,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. These are
the last U.S. scientists to design nuclear bombs, the
last to run underground tests.

``In the next 10 or 15 years, most of the people who
helped develop these devices will no longer be
alive,'' said Mark Goldman, director of government
programs for Silicon Graphics Inc., which holds the
$121.5 million contract to build the Los Alamos
Blue Mountain supercomputer on which the
simulations will be performed.

Weigand would not divulge exactly how many
nuclear weapons designers are still employed by the
government, citing national security concerns.
Speaking broadly, he put the figure at ``a couple of
hands full.''

_______________________________________________________________________

   * NucNews - to subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org *

                   Please forward -- help educate!
_______________________________________________________________________

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #50
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.