ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n403

Internet Message Format | 2000-12-07 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #403
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Thursday, December 7 2000    Volume 01 : Number 403




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

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:48:26 -0800
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) DOE Long-Term Stewardship/article+comments

DOE Releases Long-Term Environmental Stewardship Study

by Peter Strauss and Marylia Kelley
from Tri-Valley CAREs' December 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

On October 31, DOE released its draft study on long-term environmental
stewardship, in accordance with a 1998 Settlement Agreement with the NRDC
and other plaintiffs, including Tri-Valley CAREs.

Long-term stewardship (LTS) is generally defined by DOE as the physical
controls, institutions, information and other mechanisms needed to protect
people and the environment at sites where the Department has "completed"
its active cleanup efforts. The DOE's stewardship concept includes such
things as land-use controls, long-term monitoring, maintenance and
information management over long periods of time, so long as there are
significant hazards left in the ground.

Community groups have understood for some time that many DOE sites will not
be cleaned up, in the usual sense of the word, even after DOE declares it
has finished with remediation measures. For example, how do you "clean up"
after many hundreds of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada? At numerous DOE sites,
dangerous radioactive and chemical contaminants will remain  in the soil
and groundwater for hundreds and even thousands of years. Moreover, in many
cases, "remedies" chosen during active cleanup may include landfills
containing wastes with  radioactive half-lives in the thousands of years.
These dumps, even the newly-lined ones, will fail after 50 years or so.
They, too, are therefore future candidates for long-term stewardship. In
sum, the unprecedented magnitude and complexity of the environmental mess
caused by nuclear weapons activities has motivated groups to urge DOE to
grapple with issues of long-term environmental stewardship.

On the other hand, how can communities ensure that DOE will aggressively
remediate all pollutants that can be cleaned up? How do we make sure DOE
does not merely "transition" sites into long-term stewardship, which
essentially baby-sits the wastes, when a little more money and effort
applied today would result in a permanent remedy? What is the appropriate
interface between active cleanup and long-term stewardship? How will the
public be brought into decision-making in a meaningful way over the long
haul?

First, the draft study is very readable and comprehensive. It lays out the
very complex issues involved in the long-term stewardship program and shows
the reader the choices facing DOE. However, the study lacks a
community-based perspective -- which differs from the agency-based
analysis, and can contribute a whole different set of values, insights and
recommendations to the long-term stewardship effort.

While it states the problems very well, the DOE' draft study only suggests
paths and policies needed to establish this program that will affect many
generations to come.

Below are some of Tri-Valley CAREs' comments on the Draft Long-Term
Stewardship Study. Feel free to use them as "talking points" for the Dec.
14th public meeting or incorporate them into your written comments. (See
below for details.)

*       THE HIGHEST PRIORITY SHOULD BE PLACED ON SELECTING REMEDIES THAT
PROTECT THE LONG-TERM SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AND OF THE
ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE DOE FACILITY. All aspects of establishing,
maintaining and funding long-term stewardship activities should be
considered during the remedy selection process that is part of active
cleanup. Wherever possible, we prefer that DOE facilities are cleaned up to
a level that allows unrestricted use and avoids the need for long-term
stewardship. Where cleanup to such a level is not practical due to current
technical constraints, we want commitments inserted into final remedy
decision documents detailing the stewardship plan and funding.

*       DOE SHOULD DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD
MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP.  We are aware
that some contaminants will have to be "stored" in place or at the site for
long periods of time. This may be true for many radionuclides and some
chemicals, often when they are in the form of dense-non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs). We also believe that once decisions are made to leave a
contaminant in place, it is difficult to get funding to monitor it while
simultaneously continuing research on how the contaminant could be safely
treated. Still, developing a remedial treatment that destroys a chemical
contaminant, for example, should remain a high priority, as it avoids the
need for long-term stewardship measures.  We propose that DOE form a
dedicated program that keeps an eye towards the future, and continually
looks for solutions to these problems. In short, DOE should continue to
develop new and better remediation technologies for sites that are in the
long-term stewardship mode, and then to move them back to active cleanup
when it is technically feasible to do so.

*       WE STRONGLY ADVISE THAT DOE DEVELOP A MECHANISM WHERE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES WILL BE INVOLVED IN LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP DECISIONS. This
should include involvement in initial long-term stewardship activities and
any changes to those activities that may occur as a result of re-evaluation
or modification of the remedy. The community should also be involved in
periodic reviews, such as the five-year review cycle under CERCLA (the
Superfund law) to re-evaluate the effectiveness and performance of long
term stewardship activities. Additionally, independent technical expertise
should be provided to communities to assist them in wading through the many
technical documents that form the basis for key decisions.

*       DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS AT THE TIME CLEANUP DECISIONS ARE MADE.
The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council recommended
that "DOE should plan for uncertainty and fallibility" of some aspects of
the long-tern stewardship program; including developing plans "to maximize
follow-through on phased, iterative and adaptive long-term institutional
management approaches at sites where contaminants remain." We believe that
these plans should be developed concurrent with cleanup decisions, and
should be periodically revisited.

*       DEVELOP FIRM FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP.
Funding for stewardship activities must be adequate.  When the final remedy
is agreed upon at a site, full funding for stewardship activities should be
defined, including the role of the parties who will manage the funding and
the funding sources.

*       PERIODICALLY RE-EVALUATE THE REMEDY. DOE (or subsequent federal
managers) should implement a systematic process for re-evaluating and if
needed, modifying existing LTS activities to ensure that developments in
science, technology and performance are incorporated. This reevaluation
should consider the following: changes in health standards associated with
contaminants that are left in place, changes in technology that were not
available at the time when initial cleanup decisions were made but if
implemented would eliminate the need for long-term stewardship activities,
and performance of the remedy in place. The community should be involved in
these re-evaluations.

*       A RELIABLE, UP-TO-DATE RECORD MANAGEMENT FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO THE
COMMUNITY IS REQUIRED.  DOE must fully characterize, document, and disclose
all environmental contamination at its sites in case failures occur. At a
minimum, DOE needs to develop a record management system that will always
be accessible at or near the location of the stewardship activities.

*       DEVELOP POLICY AND REGULATIONS ON PROPERTY TRANSFERS. One of the
more difficult aspects of this program is deciding how to handle property
transfers and the obligations of DOE and the new owner after the transfer.
We strongly advise that this be addressed as policy and specific
regulation, which contains the premise that DOE is responsible for a site
in perpetuity unless the new owner has altered the property (e.g., drills
through a landfill), violated a legal deed restriction, or contaminates the
environment.

*       AVOID TRANSFERRING OR RELOCATING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. This
practice adds the complication of transportation and reclamation of the
former site, while still maintaining the burden of long-term stewardship
activities.  We are also concerned that some locations with lax standards
could become the dumping ground for many long-lived hazardous materials.

*       ALL CLEANUPS THAT FALL UNDER THE LTS PROGRAM SHOULD USE THE CERCLA
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. There are many cleanups conducted pursuant to
non-CERCLA authority.  We propose that DOE take the initiative to form a
consistent regulatory mechanism for the LTS program, and that CERCLA is the
method that provides the most opportunity for community involvement in
decision making.

*       WHEN CONTAMINANTS ARE LEFT IN PLACE, DOE SHOULD COMPENSATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS.  Compensation to fund protective equipment, emergency
preparedness, and sophisticated record keeping should be available to all
local governments where LTS activities fall under their jurisdiction.

We invite your comments and perspectives, and we hope you will participate
in this and future opportunities to hold DOE's feet to the fire on key
environmental issues.

*****
"Stakeholder Workshop"
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 6:00 - 8:00 P.M.
ARGENT HOTEL, 50 THIRD STREET, SAN FRANCISCO
(just one block south of the Montgomery BART station)

Copies of the Draft Study can be requested by telephone at 1-800-736-3282.
The Draft Study and its supporting technical documents also are also
available at www.em.doe.gov/lts.

Comments can also be submitted during the public comment period (which ends
December 15, 2000) to Steven Livingstone, Project Manager, Office of Long
Term Stewardship, (EM-51), Office of Environmental Management, U.S.
Department of Energy, P.O. Box 45079. Washington, D.C. 20026-5079, phone:
202-586-9280.

Comments may also be submitted to [e-mail] or by fax
to 202-863-7036.

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94550

<http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there!

[phone] - is our phone
[phone] - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the
U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink
campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert.



- -
 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: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:58:07 -0600
From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) RE: [abolition-caucus] 1945 (359 words)

Dear Friends: If you are interested I did an extensive analysis of the
illegality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my book The Future
of International Law and American Foreign Policy (1989, Amazon.com) I wrote
that study to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the bombings. It reviewed
all of the historical literature that had come to light at that time and
concluded that the bombings were war crimes in accordance with United States
War Department Field Manual 27-10 (1940) and other general sources of
international law in existence at that time and accepted by the United
States government, including the Nuremberg Charter. Those few additional
facts that have come to light since 1989 can be found in Gar Alperovitz, The
Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, who kindly  cites my study in the
footnotes. My conclusion, and his conclusions, have not changed. fab.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>



- -----Original Message-----
From: M.W. Stowell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:34 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [abolition-caucus] 1945 (359 words)


Hi all,
We have had some angry, name-calling opposition to our annual
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Commemoration Day. Here is our reply.
mws
......................................................................

Editor,
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defense of custom." Thomas Payne "Common Sense" 1776

In early 1945, scientists working on plutonium production at the
"Metallurgical Project" laboratory at the University of Chicago debated
whether the atomic bomb should be used against Japan. A committee chaired by

Nobel laureate James Franck urged the United States to demonstrate the new
weapon on a barren island. Conversely, another all-civilian group named the
"Interim Committee", chaired by Secretary of War Henry Stimson advised that
the weapon be used directly.

However, Stimson also stated "I am inclined to think that there is enough
such chance to make it well worthwhile our giving them a warning of what is
to come and a definite opportunity to capitulate. We have the following
enormously favorable factors on our side, factors much weightier that those
we had against Germany: Japan has no allies; Her navy is nearly destroyed
and she is vulnerable to a surface and underwater blockade which can deprive

her of sufficient food and supplies for her population; She is terribly
vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities,
industrial and food resources; She has against her not only Anglo-American
forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia."

President Truman's private journal and correspondence written at the time of

the bombings indicate that contrary to his public justification of the
bombings as the only way to end the war without a costly invasion of Japan,
Truman had already concluded that Japan was about to capitulate. Whether or
not he was correct in this estimate of when the war would end, the fact that

he held this view at the time he made his decision to use the atomic bombs
is clearly set down in his own hand.

"The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in
the Pacific by any means before Russia's participation. I'm sure if
President Roosevelt had still been there, none of that would have been
possible." Albert Einstein

Michael W. Stowell, chairperson
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Commission
Arcata, CA 822-0153

http://www.arcatacityhall.org/nukefree/index.html


____________________________________________________________________________
_________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


- -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/91925/_/976212628/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account
you wish to be subscribed to: "[e-mail]"


Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the 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: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:09:38 -0800
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Print Bites/nuclear secrets, UC contract, NIF etc.

Greetings peace and environmental colleagues: Here are a few short items
for your reading pleasure... MK

Print Bites: All the News That Fits to Print

by Marylia Kelley
from Tri-Valley CAREs' December 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

** Taking the Initiative. On November 13, even as the U.S. debated who had
won its presidency, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the two
nations negotiate drastic cuts in their long-range strategic nuclear
weapons. Putin had previously proposed that each nation limit its
long-range arsenal to 1,500 weapons-a number the U.S. summarily rejected as
too low. Now, Putin has put himself on the record as favoring an even
deeper cut. Will the U.S. please wake up and just say yes?

** It's the Mission, Stupid. Six top positions at Livermore Lab are now
vacant, more at one time than anyone can recall in the history of the Lab.
Robert Kuckuck, Livermore Lab's second-in-command, announced his retirement
in Nov. Already vacant are 4  of 10 Associate Director positions and the
director's post for LLNL's University Relations Program. Still, remaining
Lab managers tout NIF and nuclear weapons as the wave of the future. That
wave has passed, Livermore. It's high time - at long last - to transition
to a socially constructive, environmentally friendly "Green Lab" at
Livermore.

** Speaking of Mission. On Nov. 15, the regents of the University of
California voted to negotiate  contract extensions for the 3 DOE labs it
manages-Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Lawrence Berkeley. According to
U.C., the contracts will be "fast-tracked" and may be completed by the end
of the year. No mention that the mission of Livermore Lab is part of the
management contract. No discussion of any meaningful changes. No open
process. Just more of the same, which will beget more of the same. Shame.

** Clinton Gets One Right. The CIA wanted it. The Senate Intelligence
Committee marked it up in a secret session. Tri-Valley CAREs railed against
it in the Nov. edition of Citizen's Watch. "It" is legislation that could
have meant prison terms for whistle blowers or anyone else "leaking"
information the government deemed secret. Written overbroadly, the bill
would have become, in essence, the first U.S. "official secrets act."
Existing law makes it a crime to release classified information that might
expose a foreign agent, assist a foreign power or threaten national
security. The new bill would have greatly expanded the kinds of secrets for
which criminal penalties might be imposed. Press reports indicated Clinton
was poised to sign it into law. And then, on Nov. 4, he... vetoed it.
Hooray, a small cheer rises up from the populace. (Well, at least a sigh of
relief.)

** Advice and Dissent. Recently, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
(SEAB) finalized another in a long line of under-skeptical reviews of NIF.
Yawn. However, three SEAB members livened up the process by offering a
written dissent. Instead of racing ahead with construction of all 192 laser
beamlines, they reasoned, why not hit the pause button upon completion of
the first "bundle" (consisting of 8 beams) in 2004. Those beams should then
be tested to determine whether they met NIF's original performance
criteria, said the three members. However, the majority on the SEAB was
unwilling to seriously contemplate  any pause in construction. The board
voted to transmit its report "as is" to Secretary Richardson-along with a
letter outlining the dissenting view.

ends

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94550

<http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there!

[phone] - is our phone
[phone] - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the
U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink
campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert.



- -
 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: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:06:11 -0500
From: Ellen Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews 00/12/07 - Important stuff

Some important items have come our way which I feel the need to share with
you.  Still working hard scraping windows etc., still collecting the news, but
still short-handed and unable to disseminate as in the past.  This too shall
pass.  Check out the NucNews archives at
http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm -
thanks to Guin and Troy, we're catching up!  Meanwhile, here are some political
nuggets....

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - - -
PROVIDING COMPENSATION TO AMERICA'S
NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORKERS

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/12/7
/7.text.1

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release December 7, 2000

        By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including Public Law 106-398, the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-398, the "Act"), and to allocate the responsibilities imposed by that
legislation and to provide for further legislative efforts, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
        Section 1. Policy. Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of men and
women have served their Nation in building its nuclear defense. In the course
of their work, they overcame previously unimagined scientific and technical
challenges. Thousands of these courageous Americans, however, paid a high price
for their service, developing disabling or fatal illnesses as a result of
exposure to beryllium, ionizing radiation, and other hazards unique to nuclear
weapons production and testing. Too often, these workers were neither
adequately protected from, nor informed of, the occupational hazards to which
they were exposed.
        Existing workers' compensation programs have failed to provide for the
needs of these workers and their families. Federal workers' compensation
programs have generally not included these workers. Further, because of long
latency periods, the uniqueness of the hazards to which they were exposed, and
inadequate exposure data, many of these individuals have been unable to obtain
State workers' compensation benefits. This problem has been exacerbated by the
past policy of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors of
encouraging and assisting DOE contractors in opposing the claims of workers who
sought those benefits. This policy has recently been reversed.
        While the Nation can never fully repay these workers or their families,
they deserve recognition and compensation for their sacrifices. Since the
Administration's historic announcement in July of 1999 that it intended to
compensate DOE nuclear weapons workers who suffered occupational illnesses as a
result of exposure to the unique hazards in building the Nation's nuclear
defense, it has been the policy of this Administration to support fair and
timely compensation for these workers and their survivors. The Federal
Government should provide necessary information and otherwise help employees of
the DOE or its contractors determine if their illnesses are associated with
conditions of their nuclear weapons-related work; it should provide workers and
their survivors with all pertinent and available information necessary for
evaluating and processing claims; and it should ensure that this program
minimizes the administrative burden on workers and their survivors, and
respects their dignity and privacy. This order sets out agency responsibilities
to accomplish these goals, building on the Administration's articulated
principles and the framework set forth in the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Energy shall be responsible for developing and implementing
actions under the Act to compensate these workers and their families in a
manner that is compassionate, fair, and timely. Other Federal agencies, as
appropriate, shall assist in this effort.
        Sec. 2. Designation of Responsibilities for Administering the Energy
Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program ("Program").
        (a) Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor shall have primary
responsibility for administering the Program. Specifically, the Secretary
shall:
        (i) Administer and decide all questions arising under the Act not
assigned to other agencies by the Act or by this order, including determining
the eligibility of individuals with covered occupational illnesses and their
survivors and adjudicating claims for compensation and benefits;
        (ii) No later than May 31, 2001, promulgate regulations for the
administration of the Program, except for functions assigned to other agencies
pursuant to the Act or this order;
        (iii) No later than July 31, 2001, ensure the availability, in
paper and
electronic format, of forms necessary for making claims under the Program; and
        (iv) Develop informational materials, in coordination with the
Secretary
of Energy and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to help potential
claimants understand the Program and the application process, and provide these
materials to individuals upon request and to the Secretary of Energy and the
Attorney General for dissemination to potentially eligible individuals.
        (b) Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall:
        (i) No later than May 31, 2001, promulgate regulations establishing:
(A) guidelines, pursuant to section 3623(c) of the Act, to assess the
likelihood that an individual with cancer sustained the cancer in the
performance of duty at a Department of Energy facility or an atomic weapons
employer facility, as defined by the Act; and
(B) methods, pursuant to section 3623(d) of the Act, for arriving at and
providing reasonable estimates of the radiation doses received by individuals
applying for assistance under this program for whom there are inadequate
records of radiation exposure;
        (ii) In accordance with procedures developed by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, consider and issue determinations on petitions by classes
of employees to be treated as members of the Special Exposure Cohort;
        (iii) With the assistance of the Secretary of Energy, apply the methods
promulgated under subsection (b)(i)(B) to estimate the radiation doses received
by individuals applying for assistance;
        (iv) Upon request from the Secretary of Energy, appoint members for a
physician panel or panels to consider individual workers' compensation claims
as part of the Worker Assistance Program under the process established pursuant
to subsection (c)(v); and
        (v) Provide the Advisory Board established under section 4 of this
order
with administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and other necessary
support services and perform the administrative functions of the President
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), with
respect to the Advisory Board.
        (c) Secretary of Energy. The Secretary of Energy shall:
        (i) Provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health access, in accordance with law, to all
relevant information pertaining to worker exposures, including access to
restricted data, and any other technical assistance needed to carry out their
responsibilities under subsection (b)(ii) and section 4(b), respectively.
        (ii) Upon request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services
or the
Secretary of Labor, and as permitted by law, require a DOE contractor,
subcontractor, or designated beryllium vendor, pursuant to section 3631(c) of
the Act, to provide information relevant to a claim under this Program;
        (iii) Identify and notify potentially eligible individuals of the
availability of compensation under the Program;
        (iv) Designate, pursuant to sections 3621(4)(B) and 3622 of the Act,
atomic weapons employers and additions to the list of designated beryllium
vendors;
        (v) Pursuant to Subtitle D of the Act, negotiate agreements with the
chief executive officer of each State in which there is a DOE facility, and
other States as appropriate, to provide assistance to a DOE contractor employee
on filing a State workers' compensation system claim, and establish a Worker
Assistance Program to help individuals whose illness is related to employment
in the DOE's nuclear weapons complex, or the individual's survivor if the
individual is deceased, in applying for State workers' compensation benefits.
This assistance shall include:
        (1) Submittal of reasonable claims to a physician panel, appointed by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and administered by the Secretary of
Energy, under procedures established by the Secretary of Energy, for
determination of whether the individual's illness or death arose out of and in
the course of employment by the DOE or its contractors and exposure to a toxic
substance at a DOE facility; and
        (2) For cases determined by the physician panel and the Secretary of
Energy under section 3661(d) and (e) of the Act to have arisen out of and in
the course of employment by the DOE or its contractors and exposure to a toxic
substance at a DOE facility, provide assistance to the individual in filing for
workers' compensation benefits. The Secretary shall not contest these claims
and, to the extent permitted by law, shall direct a DOE contractor who employed
the applicant not to contest the claim;
        (vi) Report on the Worker Assistance Program by making publicly
available on at least an annual basis claims-related data, including the number
of claims filed, the number of illnesses found to be related to work at a DOE
facility, job location and description, and number of successful State workers'
compensation claims awarded; and
        (vii) No later than January 15, 2001, publish in the Federal Register a
list of atomic weapons employer facilities within the meaning of section
3621(5) of the Act, Department of Energy employer facilities within the meaning
of section 3621(12) of the Act, and a list of facilities owned and operated by
a beryllium vendor, within the meaning of section 3621(6) of the Act.
        (d) Attorney General. The Attorney General shall:
        (i) Develop procedures to notify, to the extent possible, each claimant
(or the survivor of that claimant if deceased) whose claim for compensation
under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act has been or is
approved by the Department of Justice, of the availability of supplemental
compensation and benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program;
        (ii) Identify and notify eligible covered uranium employees or their
survivors of the availability of supplemental compensation under the Program;
and
(iii) Upon request by the Secretary of Labor, provide information needed to
adjudicate the claim of a covered uranium employee under this Program.
Sec. 3. Establishment of Interagency Working Group.
        (a) There is hereby established an Interagency Working Group to be
composed of representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, the
National Economic Council, and the Departments of Labor, Energy, Health and
Human Services, and Justice.
        (b) The Working Group shall:
        (i) By January 1, 2001, develop a legislative proposal to ensure the
Program's fairness and efficiency, including provisions to assure adequate
administrative resources and swift dispute resolution; and
        (ii) Address any impediments to timely and coordinated Program
implementation.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.
(a) Pursuant to Public Law 106-398, there is hereby established an Advisory
Board on Radiation and Health (Advisory Board). The Advisory Board shall
consist of no more than 20 members to be appointed by the President. Members
shall include affected workers and their representatives, and representatives
from scientific and medical communities. The President shall designate a Chair
for the Board among its members.
        (b) The Advisory Board shall:
        (i) Advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the
development
of guidelines under section 2(b)(i) of this order;
        (ii) Advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the
scientific
validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this Program;
and
        (iii) Upon request by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
advise
the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of
Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible
to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is a reasonable
likelihood that such radiation dose may have endangered the health of members
of the class.
        Sec. 5. Reporting Requirements. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Energy shall, as part of their annual budget submissions,
report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on their activities under
this Program, including total expenditures related to benefits and program
administration. They shall also report to the OMB, no later than March 1, 2001,
on the manner in which they will carry out their respective responsibilities
under the Act and this order. This report shall include, among other things, a
description of the administrative structure established within their agencies
to implement the Act and this order. In addition, the Secretary of Labor shall
annually report on the total number and types of claims for which compensation
was considered and other data pertinent to evaluating the Federal Government's
performance fulfilling the requirements of the Act and this order.
        Sec. 6. Administration and Judicial Review.
        (a) This Executive Order shall be carried out subject to the
availability of appropriations, and to the extent permitted by law.
        (b) This Executive Order does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the
United States, its agencies, its officers or employees, or any other person.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 7, 2000.
- ----------

ALSO (in case you missed it):

- - Gore Comes Out Against Using Nuclear Power
November 15, 2000 by Reuters
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/111600-01.htm
        THE HAGUE - The nuclear power industry's hopes for a major new role in
combating global warming were shaken Tuesday by the distribution of comments by
Vice President Al Gore that he opposed such a move.
        In a letter dated Nov. 3 Gore, who is still awaiting the result of the
presidential election that could put him in the White House, said nuclear
should not be used as a means of cutting ``greenhouse gases.''
        ``I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as
clean
or renewable,'' Gore said in a letter to Harvey Wasserman of the Ohio-based
Nuclear Information and Resources Center.
        Gore said proposed U.S. legislation on restructuring the electricity
sector excluded nuclear and large scale hydro electricity. ``It is my view that
climate change policies should do the same,'' he added.
        The comments will be warmly welcomed by environmentalists who fear
world
governments meeting at a ``climate summit'' during the next two weeks might
allow nuclear power to be promoted in developing countries as a way of
combating global warming, because it does not emit the carbon dioxide which
comes from fossil fuels.
        Canada and Japan are pushing for such a policy.
        The leader of the U.S. delegation at the talks, David Sandalow, told a
news briefing: ``The United States is open to discussion on this issue.
        ``We have expressed concerns. We have noted the challenges of cost,
public acceptance, non-proliferation, waste and safety,'' he said.
        Some 180 countries are meeting in The Hague to finalize the rules on
implementing a 1997 United Nations agreement on cutting six gases believed to
contribute to global warming.


- - PUBLICATIONS FOR THE HOLIDAYS
        Just what every astute activist and policy prognosticator needs for the
holidays: Fill their stockings with critical, credible, well written and
exciting reports on U.S. arms sales, the enduring Military Industrial Complex,
and National Missile Defense.
        PROFILING THE SMALL ARMS INDUSTRY (November 2000)
        NUCLEAR MISSILE DECEPTION: CORRUPTION AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE
NMD TEST PROGRAM (July 2000)
        TANGLED WEB: THE MARKETING OF MISSILE DEFENSE 1994-2000 (June 2000)
        BEYOND THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS: MILITARY TRAINING PROGRAMS HERE AND
ABROAD (May 2000)
        CORPORATE WELFARE FOR WEAPONS DEALERS: THE HIDDEN COSTS OF SPENDING ON
DEFENSE AND FOREIGN AID (August 1999)
        THE COSTS OF NATO EXPANSION REVISITED: FROM THE COSTS OF MODERNIZATION
TO THE COSTS OF WAR (April 1999):
        THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX REVISITED:
        HOW WEAPONS MAKERS ARE SHAPING U.S. FOREIGN AND         MILITARY
POLICIES (November 1998)
        U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 1995
        U.S. ARMS TRANSFERS TO INDONESIA 1975-1997:
        WHO'S INFLUENCING WHOM? (March 1997)
        WELFARE FOR WEAPONS DEALERS 1998:
        THE HIDDEN COSTS OF NATO EXPANSION (March 1998)
        WELFARE FOR WEAPONS DEALERS 1996:
        THE HIDDEN COSTS OF THE ARMS TRADE (June 1996)
Please call or email Frida Berrigan at 212-229-5808 ext. 112 or
[e-mail] to order publications.


     ___________________________________________________

Today's News and Archives: http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm
Submit URL/Article: mailto:[e-mail]
OneList Archives: http://www.onelist.com/archive/NucNews (subscribe online)
Other Excellent News-Collecting Sites -
DOE Watch - http://www.egroups.com/group/doewatch
Downwinders - http://www.egroups.com/group/downwinders

Quick Route to U.S. Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm (Senators' Websites)
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (Representatives' Websites)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Pending Legislation - Search)

Online Petition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons -
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html

Subscribe to NucNews Briefs:  mailto:[e-mail]

   Distributed without payment for research and educational
purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.




- -
 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 #403
***********************************

-
 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.