* Nuclear Clean-Up Meeting Today (Denver Sept 10)
* Uranium plant hearings begin Sept. 16: Paducah site
* Uranium Workers to Undergo Study
* Paducah Idled For a Day to Review Safety
* 'Stand Down' Is Ordered For Nuclear Plant in Ky.
**
* State of Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects Meeting
* DOE Nuclear weapons subcritical experiment called "Oboe" (Nevada)
* Demonstration at Vandenberg AFB, California on Saturday, September 25
* CTBT Rally at the US Capitol Building September 14th at 1:00-2:00pm (DC)
* New Action Required to Maintain SOA Victory!! (Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121)
* Action Alert: Senate is to Act on Nuclear Waste Bill, S. 1287, in September
* IEER re BEIR Study of Genetic and Birth Defects as Radiation Risks

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

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

Nuclear Clean-Up Meeting Today -

Colorado Briefs, Yahoo News, September 10, 1999
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/colorado/story.html?s=v/rs/19990910/co/index_1.html#5

(DENVER) -- Governor Bill Owens will join several other governors in Denver today to discuss ways to clean-up nuclear weapons sites with U-S Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. South Carolina Governor James Hodges, Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist and Washington Governor Gary Locke, whose states all contain major cleanup sites, will also be in Denver for the meeting.

-----------

By Gail Gibson HERALD-LEADER WASHINGTON BUREAU, September 10, 1999, in the Herald-Leader
http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader/news/091099/statedocs/10whitfield.htm

WASHINGTON -- Congressional hearings about safety conditions at the uranium enrichment plant near Paducah will begin Sept. 16 in the House Commerce Committee.

In announcing the first hearing, U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield said yesterday that lawmakers want to find out to what extent workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant were exposed to radiation and other hazards, and what government or private agencies were responsible.

The hearings also could help determine how much federal money should be set aside for health testing of former and current workers. Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, said he might seek as much as $3.2 million for the medical studies as part of an emergency spending bill this fall designed primarily as relief for hard-pressed farmers.

``I think it's one of the most important things we're going to be involved with because the health of current and former workers is the most important issue,'' said Whitfield, who serves on the commerce subcommittee for oversight and investigations.

Hearings also are expected in the Senate. Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, a member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, plans to hold a hearing in Western Kentucky.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, a member of the Senate Appropriations committee, also has asked that panel's energy subcommittee to hold hearings. No dates have been set.

The hearings follow published reports about radioactive contamination at the plant, which first produced enriched uranium for nuclear weapons but now produces fuel for power plants. News reports last month alleged that thousands of workers had been unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive materials from the early 1950s into the 1970s.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson responded to the reports by launching a major investigation, including sending a team to Paducah to evaluate worker exposure.

Yesterday, a section of the plant controlled by the Energy Department was closed for a 24-hour ``safety stand-down'' after that preliminary investigation uncovered lapses in worker safety programs.

The daylong shutdown did not directly affect the plant's uranium operations, which are managed by a private company, U.S. Enrichment Corp., under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight.

A complete report on the Energy Department investigation is expected by early October. Whitfield said yesterday that he had requested a briefing on the findings before next week's hearing.

---

Friday, September 10, 1999 BY JIM WOOLF THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/sep/09101999/utah/22591.htm

Scientists will be in Moab later this month to study whether people who worked in uranium mills in the 1950s and 1960s suffered long-term damage to their health.

Legislation that would compensate these uranium millworkers, along with uranium ore transporters and above-ground uranium miners, for work-related illnesses was introduced last August by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.

But an aide to the Republican senator conceded Thursday that no rigorous scientific studies have been done to show exactly what types of illnesses the workers developed or how frequently they occurred.

Hatch is basing his call for compensation on "horror stories" told by thousands of people who worked in the uranium industry before modern worker-safety regulations were enacted, said Larry Kerr, a legislative aide to the senator. With these stories as a basis, he said, it is "not very hard" to conclude that the workers were damaged by their work in the uranium industry.

Now a group of researchers from the University of New Mexico is trying to more precisely determine what happened to uranium millworkers. Their study, funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, will look at about 500 people who worked in uranium mills in the Four Corners region from 1947 to 1971. Each will be interviewed about their health and work experience, and receive a medical examination.

"We want to see if there are persistent impacts on their health," said William Lambert, an associate professor of medicine at the University of New Mexico.

Kerr said Hatch would welcome more detailed information about the workers. "If they are able to truly quantify the information that they are saying they are going to study, of course we're interested. The more information the better."

About 110 former millworkers in the Moab area have been asked to participate in the study between Sept. 27 and Oct. 1. "People who received a letter from us are encouraged to respond," said Lambert. The scientists hope at least half of the people contacted will qualify for the study and agree to participate.

Because the research subjects were selected randomly from lists of people working in specific jobs during specific time periods, the researchers will not accept volunteers. Only those previously notified will be allowed to participate.

A specially equipped van will be in Moab so researchers can do on-the-spot clinical tests needed for the medical screening.

Former uranium mill workers also are being studied in Grand Junction, Colo., and Grants, N.M.

Lambert declined to speculate about the long-term health effects of working in the old uranium mills until the study is complete, but others say the damage is obvious.

"The conditions we've heard about were heinous," said Kerr. In fact, he said the health problems were so serious that many of these people died long ago. The most common health problems reported among mill workers were pulmonary diseases -- lung cancer and silicosis -- related to exposure to radioactive dust.

A Colorado administrative law judge in 1998 ordered compensation for a chemical expert who worked in a Canon City, Colo., uranium mill from 1958 until 1979. He claimed his lymphoma cancer was a direct result of being exposed to uranium.

Hatch in 1990 sponsored the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that provided payments to people who developed certain illnesses after working in underground uranium mines or being exposed to radioactive fallout from open-air weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.

So far, 3,717 victims, or their heirs, have made a claim under the act.

Utah's senior senator now is proposing to amend the 1990 law, extending the compensation to above-ground uranium miners, uranium mill workers and uranium ore transporters. If approved, an additional 17,000 people could receive payments ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Total cost of the amendment would be about $1 billion over 21 years.

The payments are justified because these workers were extracting uranium for the nation's fledgling nuclear weapons program, Hatch said in a speech while introducing his amendments in the Senate.

"We have an obligation to care for those who were injured, especially since, at the time, they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved with their work," he said. "Now is our chance to compensate these men and women for their injuries."

--------

By Joe Stephens and Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, September 10, 1999; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/10/072l-091099-idx.html

PADUCAH, Ky., Sept. 9Workers strung a banner decorated with smiley faces across the entrance to the Department of Energy's uranium plant here today in preparation for their annual family picnic.

But the mood was somber behind the plant's razor-wire fence, where hundreds of workers observed a 24-hour "stand down" to review safety practices at the facility.

"All but the most critical operations were suspended," said Jimmy Massey, who manages operations at the plant for Bechtel Jacobs Co., a Department of Energy contractor. "Employees were reminded of the existence of plutonium on site."

Plant officials acknowledged that they were taken by surprise Wednesday when Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ordered the day of review and assessment. His decision was made after a preliminary investigation found lapses in programs designed to shield workers from radiation.

The safety operation idled about 400 employees of the Energy Department and its contractors at the site but did not directly affect the plant's uranium operations, which are now managed by a private corporation.

Managers said they drilled workers on safety procedures and invited them to raise concerns. Some wanted quicker reports on how much radiation they were exposed to on a daily basis, Massey said.

Others wanted more details on the results of periodic air tests on the site.

"They wanted more feedback," Massey said.

Richardson's decision came after a month of bad news for the Paducah facility. A Washington Post investigation revealed in August that radioactive material was seeping out of the site, and that thousands of workers had unknowingly been exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals.

Since then, workers have found more contaminated sites and safety lapses, and a $10 billion class action lawsuit has been filed against the plant's former operators.

During the stand down, plant managers said, some construction workers expressed concerns that, for the first time, they had to wear radiation monitoring badges. But overall, they said, workers told their supervisors they felt the plant was a safe place to work.

Managers also reviewed contaminated sites in and around the facility, to see if they were properly labeled and roped off. Officials discovered no major problems, Massey said, but did find some signs that needed repainting and others that listed outdated telephone numbers.

"We found out operations continue to be carried out safely on site," said Robert Poe, an assistant manager in the region for the Energy Department. "We feel pretty good from that standpoint."

By midday, many of the workers had squeezed into tiny metal buildings just outside the plant, where their supervisors recited to them from safety manuals.

"It's good to take a break and think about these things," said one worker, who declined to give his name. "Everyone's taking it seriously."

The stoppage, however, did not affect Kyle Gore, a subcontractor at the plant who is helping to build a holding facility for thousands of rusting cylinders filled with radioactive gas.

"I don't know what it's all about," Gore said with a shrug as he climbed into a white pickup. "I did hear something about it on the news."

Yet Gore said wider accounts of problems at the plant have taken a toll on workers, who fear for their health and their jobs.

"Everyone's panicking out here," he said.

Throughout the event, planning continued for the weekend festivities. But safety concerns even intruded there, as emphasized by a huge electronic sign flashing at the plant entrance with a message about radiation monitors.

"Going on a tour during the picnic?" the sign asked. "Wear your badge!"

Built in 1952, the Paducah plant produced enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, Navy submarines and commercial power plants. Workers say they were not told about the presence of plutonium, which entered the plant over two decades in contaminated shipments of uranium. Many workers believed they were handling only uranium, which is only mildly radioactive.

In Washington, a Kentucky congressman announced a Sept. 16 date for the first formal hearing on the Paducah contamination. Rep. Edward Whitfield (R), whose district includes Paducah, said he would press for answers from the plant's former contractors as well as from the investigators.

The House Commerce Committee's panel on oversight and investigations also will hear testimony from employees at the plant, including plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed with the Justice Department that alleges dumping of radioactive material outside the plant's fence.

"These allegations deserve complete answers from all parties that were ever involved with the operation of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant," said Whitfield, who plans to tour the facility next week. "The answers we get at this first hearing will determine which areas we need to further investigate. This is the first hearing, but it won't be the last."

---

By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 9, 1999; Page A01
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/09/164l-090999-idx.html
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990908/V000612-090899-idx.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Paducah-Plant.html
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990909/pl/energy_paducah_2.html

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ordered a 24-hour "safety stand down" at the agency's Paducah, Ky., uranium plant yesterday after a preliminary probe uncovered lapses in programs designed to protect workers from harmful radiation.

The announcement is expected to idle about 400 workers for a day while officials begin a comprehensive review of training and radiation monitoring at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

The safety order applies to employees of the Department of Energy and its contractors at the site but will not directly affect the plant's uranium operations, which are now managed by a private corporation, U.S. Enrichment Corp., under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight. USEC employs about 1,400 people and says it is unaware of any significant safety problems.

"This will be an effective way to focus attention," Richardson said in an interview before the announcement, "and also a way to get managers and workers to bring renewed attention to environment, safety and health."

Richardson's action comes exactly a month after he launched a major probe of worker exposures at Paducah, a producer of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and power plants since 1952. The investigation followed reports in The Washington Post about radioactive contamination at the plant, including revelations that thousands of workers had unwittingly handled materials tainted with plutonium and other highly radioactive metals.

The revelations led to a rash of new discoveries of contamination at Paducah and other DOE facilities, and triggered a $10 billion class action lawsuit against the plant's former operators.

Although DOE investigators have not completed their analysis, agency officials said the team has found no "imminent hazards" to workers or the public. A formal report on current conditions at the plant is due to be released by the end of the month. A second, more ambitious study will delve into workplace hazards, including plutonium, that existed at the plant before 1990.

The Paducah safety order was based on the "preliminary observations" of a team of DOE inspectors who completed an initial sweep of the 740-acre plant last week. Although specific findings were not released, agency officials had expressed concern about a wide range of safety issues at the plant, including whether workers were being adequately monitored and trained for the radiation hazards they face on the job.

In the past two weeks, several clean-up programs at the plant have been disrupted by revelations of improper safeguards for workers. In one incident, DOE investigators discovered that construction workers had been laboring for months in a contaminated area without proper training or radiation-monitoring badges.

Other stories about inadequate safeguards have come from workers themselves.

Agency officials said they intend to use the 24-hour suspension to drill workers on radiation protection measures and to inspect known contaminated areas to make sure warning signs are properly posted.

"We will also remind workers of the presence of plutonium and other transuranics on site," said Jimmie Hodges, the DOE's top manager at the site.

A lawsuit filed in June by three Paducah workers alleges that plant officials failed for years to warn workers about plutonium and other hazards at the plant. Plutonium, a powerful carcinogen, slipped into the plant in shipments of contaminated uranium during the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

The suit also accuses former contractors of dumping contaminated material outside the plant fence -- both in a sanitary landfill and in a wooded area that is now part of a state wildlife park. Small amounts of plutonium have been detected in ditches and streams outside the plant, and radioactive technetium has contaminated drinking water supplies in a nearby residential neighborhood.

Richardson, in announcing the Paducah probe last month, pledged to seek expanded compensation for workers whose health was put at risk. "I will not rest until these issues are fully dealt with and any injured workers are fairly compensated," he said.

In a separate development, Energy officials yesterday also cited the agency's Los Alamos National Laboratory for safety violations stemming from a pair of accidents that spread radiation in a chemistry lab in the New Mexico complex.

One incident involved the radioactive contamination of a lab worker. The worker was exposed both internally and externally after opening an unmarked canister that contained radioactive material.

The same lab was contaminated a second time in June when a piece of equipment ruptured, spattering the room with radioactive material. While DOE labs are exempt from civil penalties, the same safety lapses at another facility would have resulted in fines of more than $200,000, agency officials said.

"We are most concerned that these problems continue to repeat themselves and that laboratory management -- despite commitments made in previous enforcement actions -- has failed to correct identified problems," said David Michaels, the DOE's assistant secretary for environment, safety and health.

Problems at Weapons Plants

Worker health and safety issues at nuclear weapons facilities across the nation pose mounting problems for the Department of Energy. In the first half of the decade, DOE spent $70 million for legal defense of former and current contractors who operated the plants. Here are some key cases:

Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Wash.: In 1997, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded that 14,000 people living near Hanford were exposed to enough radiation to put them at risk of thyroid cancer and other diseases. The agency has proposed a $12.9 million fund to pay for medical screening for local residents, but Energy officials have not yet agreed to pay.

Rocky Flats in Colorado: This plant's production of plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs resulted in an epic case of plutonium contamination on the outskirts of Denver. The plant's former manager, Rockwell International Corp., has paid millions of dollars in fines stemming from environmental problems. In April, Rockwell was ordered to pay another $4.1 million based on whistleblower claims that the company lied about environmental problems to boost profits.

Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio: DOE last month agreed to pay millions of dollars for long-term health screening for plant workers, who produced nuclear bomb detonators. Plaintiffs claim they were exposed to radiation hazards without being informed. In one case, urine samples that were collected from workers to measure radiation weren't tested for more than three years.

Fernald Environmental Management Project in Ohio: The plant's 3,500 workers won a $15 million court settlement from DOE in 1995. Most of the money will go for medical screening of workers, who process uranium metal into fuel rods for nuclear reactors. Earlier, a class action suit garnered $78 million for hundreds of homeowners whose property values were diminished by Fernald's contamination.

-----------

CARSON CITY, Nev.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- September 8, 1999 Company Press Release
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990908/nv_commssn_1.html

Sept. 8, 1999--Governor Kenny Guinn has been invited to attend the Thursday, September 9, 1999, meeting of the State of Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects. The Commission will meet at 1:00 p.m. at the Clark County Commission Chambers in Las Vegas.

Additionally, Wendy R. Dixon, Assistant Manager, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environment, Safety & Health will present an update of DOE's draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Staff from the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects will furnish updates of the Agency's oversight program. Also, Local Government and Tribal Leaders may be present to provide program updates.

The public is invited to attend and welcome to comment.

Contact:

State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Robert R. Loux, 800/366-0990 (toll free in Nevada) or 775/687-3744

---------

Once again the DOE is going to conduct another Nuclear weapons subcritical experiment, this one is called "Oboe". No "national interest" is more important than protecting the environment from the lethal poisons that damage the human gene pool and that last forever.

Stop being part of the Silent Majority.!!! Let your voices be heard. Now is the time to take action to protect Mother Earth. Bring Drums, Banners, costumes and friends. Families are more than welcome.

Check the Shundahai Web at http://www.shundahai.org for the latest updates and to find out how to be come involved in the upcoming Draft EIS hearings for Yucca Mountain

If you are in the Bay Area:

Rally 'round Bechtel:

DOE says there will be another "subcritical" nuclear test detonated underground in Nevada this month (September 1999). The exact date, however, is still under wraps. Tri-Valley CAREs will sponsor a protest at Bechtel Headquarters at 50 Beale St., just off Market St., in San Francisco at noon on the day of the test. Bechtel manages the Nevada Test Site for DOE. Call our office (925) 443-7148 to check for the test date and rally details.

SHUNDAHAI NETWORK
"Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304
Phone:(702)647-3095 (FAX)647-9385
Email: shundahai@shundahai.org
http://www.shundahai.org

 ------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 7, 1999

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space has announced a demonstration at Vandenberg AFB, California on Saturday, September 25 to oppose the first-ever test of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The non-violent demonstration will begin at 1:00 PM and be held at the Vandenberg main gate (Route 1).

 The missile test is scheduled to be launched from Vandenberg on September 29 and is supposed to be impacted by a second missile launched from a Kwajalein island in the Pacific Ocean. Data during the test will be gathered by orbiting Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) and fed to the Battle Management Center, which will send steering commands via satellite. 

Congress has voted to allow the NMD system to move forward as "soon as technically feasible". The Clinton administration is now beginning to consider circumventing the 1972 ABM Treaty that outlaws the development of weapons systems like the NMD. Clinton is scheduled to make a final deployment decision on the NMD system in June, 2000. Over $120 billion has been spent to date on Star Wars planning by the Pentagon.

Coming from Florida for the protest will be Global Network Coordinator Bruce Gagnon who said, "We are holding this important action at Vandenberg because Star Wars must be stopped. People all over the planet are now organizing against this launch. We cannot allow the U.S. to unilaterally decide to move the arms race into space. U.S. Space Command documents say they intend to ëcontrol and dominate spaceí. We intend to organize to keep space for peace."

Among the California groups endorsing and participating in the September 25 protest are: California Peace Action; Southern California Federation of Scientists; Grandmothers for Peace International; American Friends Service Committee (Pacific S.W. Office); Ventura County Green Party; and Abolition 2000.

Check the Global Network website at: http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk

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

For decades, responsible leaders in both parties have worked to extend President Kennedy's 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty with a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to end nuclear weapons testing forever. Nations that have ratified the treaty will meet this October to plan its implementation. If the United States doesn't ratify now, it won't be allowed to participate.

Senator Jesse Helms has bottled up the CTBT in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, holding it hostage to his extreme agenda. Tell the U.S. Senate to stand up to him and let the Senate vote.

Join the Rally for a Nuclear Test Ban NOW!

September 14th 1:00­2:00pm U.S. Capitol Building (Eastern center steps) o Speakers from peace, environmental and religious groups o Street theater

Nuclear Test Ban Now campaign endorsed by: Church Women United o Disarmament Clearinghouse Peace Action o Peace Action Education Fund Peace Links o 20/20 Vision Physicians for Social Responsibility Women's Action for New Directions

For more information, call Sheila Dormody Peace Action Field Director 202.862.9740 x3006 1819 H Street NW #420 Washington DC 20006 www.peace-action.org

---------

From: "SoaWatch" <soawatch@knight-hub.com> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999

In our first ever Congressional victory, the House of Representatives voted 230 to 197 in favor of Mr. Moakley's amendment cut funds to the SOA. If this vote holds in the Conference Committee (see below) it will cut about $2 million from the SOA training funds -- probably not enough to close the School, but a significant bite that sends the message that the SOA's days are numbered.

Thanks to all who have worked so long and hard to get us to this point. We have much to celebrate! But we must not let up the pressure or the victory could be snatched away. Please act now to get the amendment through the Conference Committee and get more cosponsors on HR732 and S873.

Mr. Moakley's amendment was attached to a larger spending bill, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire bill, including the SOA amendment, must still go through the House/Senate Conference Committee before it becomes law. Because the Senate version of the bill contains no reference to the SOA, it is possible that the Conference Committee could decide to eliminate the House amendment to cut SOA funds. WE MUST DO ALL WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN! We expect the Conference Committee to meet in early September. PLEASE ACT NOW!! Call members of the Conference Committee. Urge them to retain the House amendment to cut SOA funds.

NEW ACTION: Rep. Moakley has written a letter to Members of the Conference Committee asking that they retain SOA funding cuts in the final version of the bill. He needs as many other Members of Congress to sign on to his letter as possible. If your Representative voted to cut funds, please ask that he/she call Steve LaRose in Mr. Moakley's office to sign onto this letter.

Foreign Operations Conference Committee Members:

On the House side: Young (FL), Obey (WI), Callahan (AL), Porter (IL), Wolf (VA), Packard (CA), Knollenberg (MI), Forbes (NY), Kingston (GA), Lewis (CA), Pelosi (CA), Lowey (NY), Jackson (IL), Kilpatrick (MI), Sabo (MN). On the Senate side: Stevens (AK), Byrd (WV), McConnell (KY), Specter (PA), Gregg (NH), Shelby (AL), Bennett (UT), Campbell (CO), Bond (MO), Leahy (VT), Inouye (HI), Lautenberg (NJ), Harkin (IA), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA).

If you do not know your Member of Congress, please check our web page: www.soaw.org

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

3 Sep 1999 9:43:00 -0400 From: Noel Petrie <npetrie@citizen.org> Subject: action alert Sender: Noel Petrie <npetrie@citizen.org> To: CMEP-LIST@lists.citizen.org Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project

We have successfully blocked all attempts by the nuclear industry to dump their waste on the American citizenship for the past 5 years. However, the nuclear industry continues to push the federal government for a bailout by demanding that the government take away the industry's toxic trash. To combat the industry lobby, we need your help to ensure the anti-environmental legislation S. 1287 the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1999 is defeated.

S. 1287, is anti-public health and safety, anti-environment, anti-democratic, and simply another version of the same old story of serving the needs of the nuclear power industry. The bill:

* will authorize the federal government to take title and assume liability for commercial waste including all storage costs. This payoff to the nuclear industry is offered in exchange for settlement of the current legal challenges by the nuclear industry.

* prohibits EPA from setting radiation safety standards. The bill forces the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the critical radiation release standard equal to 1 excess cancer death for every 1,000 individuals exposed to radiation from Yucca Mountain. Such a standard is unconscionable. Other federal health standards typically permit only 1 excess cancer death for every 100,000 to 1,000,000 exposed individuals.

* raises serious proliferation concerns by requiring research and development of "promising technologies for the treatment, recycling and disposal" of nuclear waste, including reprocessing and recycling of plutonium. This would be a flagrant violation of U.S. non-proliferation policy, which does not support reprocessing and seeks to reduce stockpiles of separated plutonium.

S. 1287 is not responsible nuclear waste policy. To exercise your power and prevent this legislation from passing:

1) Write your Senator explaining why you oppose S. 1287.

2) Call your Senator and give him/her 3 quick reasons why he/she should vote against this bill.

Additional information on all these issues is posted on the Critical Mass Energy Project section of Public Citizen's home page on the World Wide Web, located at http://www.citizen.org/cmep

---------

Letter delivered by IEER to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), September 3, 1999.

IEER Letterhead

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For further information contact: Arjun Makhijani or Lisa Ledwidge: 301-270-5500

PRESS RELEASE

Washington, DC, Sept. 3, 1999. More than 70 organizations and individuals from around the world today called on a new National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel being set up to study the impacts of low-level radiation exposure to consider a wide range of potential health effects including birth defects and genetic damage in its deliberations. In a letter to the NAS Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), the signers said

"It is important that the BEIR VII process address the full range of risks that have not been conclusively evaluated so far. This should include risks that have come to light since the BEIR V report (such as the combined effects of radiation and hormonally-active agents, also called endocrine disrupters) as well as issues that could have been addressed in BEIR V, but were not."

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), handed the letter to the Committee for consideration on behalf of the signatories. "The issue of the health effects of radiation is far more complex than the range of effects evaluated in the last BEIR committee report," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani. "Moreover, some of the data, such as US worker dose data, used in radiation studies is suspect or seriously flawed. It is crucial that the committee consider data integrity and quality questions and not accept results of studies only because they have been published in peer-reviewed journals."

"We have compiled a list of some of the most crucial issues that we believe you should address, like radiation's effects on the development of ova, which are formed once per lifetime during females' fetal development," said Lisa Ledwidge, Outreach Coordinator of IEER. "We also are requesting that the committee publish and update frequently a list of the publications that it is reviewing so that the public may be able to follow the review and add to that list as needed."

The letter makes some highly specific suggestions for research. David Close, a professor of physics at East Tennessee State University who specializes in the effects of radiation on DNA, noted that when radioactive atoms, such as those of carbon-14, become part of the DNA, they change the chemical composition of that piece of DNA when they decay. "Carbon-14 becomes nitrogen-14 when it decays," said Dr. Close. "We need to know whether the genetic change that results from such a transmutation in the DNA can produce adverse health effects, and if so what these health effects are."

IEER requested that the committee treat the issues in the letter with the same seriousness had a member of the committee raised them.

---

September 3, 1999

Richard R. Monson M.D., Chair c/o Rick Jostes, Staff Officer Committee on the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Dr. Monson, We are writing in connection with your committee's work on assessing the effects of low-level radiation in the form of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII review.

We are pleased that the BEIR VII Committee has set out to "consider a large amount of published data … concerning the risks to humans of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation" (BEIR VII Project Scope). We expect that, as part of this work, the Committee will examine conflicting evidence and interpretations in the process of identifying biological effects and risk factors. We look forward to following closely the Committee's deliberations throughout this important process and to participating in them.

The work of past BEIR Committees has been influential in setting the tone and terms of the scientific debate on the issue and in the radiation standard-setting process. Therefore, we believe it is crucial that the full range of information and issues regarding the health effects of ionizing radiation be considered. The BEIR V report considered only risks of cancer, some aspects of genetic damage (though it did not estimate risks of "diseases of complex genetic origin, which are thought to comprise the largest category of genetically-related diseases," p. 4) and mental retardation arising from in-utero exposure.

It is important that the BEIR VII process address the full range of risks that have not been conclusively evaluated so far. This should include risks that have come to light since the BEIR V report (such as the combined effects of radiation and hormonally-active agents, also called endocrine disrupters) as well as issues that could have been addressed in BEIR V, but were not. We have compiled a list of some of the most crucial issues that we believe you should address. These issues are as follows:

*Effects of radionuclides that cross the placenta: This should include consideration of the effects on the developing fetus itself (e.g. miscarriages, malformations, and developmental effects other than mental retardation) and the effects on relevant organs at critical periods of fetal development. This study of health effects on the developing fetus should specifically include effects on development of specific organs, and the indirect effects of harm to organs such as the thyroid. We are especially concerned about radionuclides such as iodine-131, carbon-14, and tritium that could become part of the fetus in ways that could profoundly affect its well being. For instance, tritium, being a form of hydrogen, combines with oxygen to form water. Tritiated water behaves chemically like ordinary water. If ingested, a fraction of it becomes incorporated into the cells of the body, including genetic material. Such radioactive water also crosses the placenta. The potential for the resultant in-utero exposure to cause miscarriages, birth defects, and other health problems needs to be examined. The BEIR VII committee's evaluation of the risks of low-level radiation should include all such radionuclides and effects. If there are gaps in present knowledge, these should be identified clearly and their implications should be spelled out.

*Effects of radiation on female fetuses: Considering that ova are formed once per lifetime during females' fetal development, the Committee should evaluate the effects of radiation on the reproductive system of female fetuses and the possible effect of such radiation on the children of females irradiated in this way.

*Effects of organically-bound radionuclides: Radionuclides such as tritium or carbon-14 can become part of the DNA. Upon radioactive decay, they transmute into other elements. (Tritium becomes helium-3 and carbon-14 becomes nitrogen-14.) Such transmutation events could adversely affect the DNA. The potential health effects of such transmutations need to be evaluated.

*Synergistic effects: Exposure to radiation is sometimes coupled with exposure to other hazardous substances. The Committee should consider health effects caused by combined exposure to radioactive and non-radioactive substances. Special attention should be given to substances such as hormonally active agents that affect the hormonal system and the possibility that such disruption might increase the risk of cancer and other diseases arising from radiation exposure. Conversely, radiation exposure might damage the endocrine system, thereby increasing vulnerability to other disease-producing agents in the environment. The possibility of variability of such risks depending on age of exposure (and whether exposure takes place in-utero) should also be considered.

*Data integrity and quality: Worker dose records of the U.S. Department of Energy, and its predecessor agencies, are deeply flawed. The environmental contamination records are similarly deeply flawed. We know these things about the United States because much of the raw data record has become public through lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act requests, etc. Use of studies that accept official US worker or offsite dose estimates without evaluation of the raw data is highly questionable to say the least. Since the raw data in other countries are still largely secret, there is even less reason to accept them at face value. For instance, there is evidence that the health data in the former Soviet Union are questionable. The Committee should review these and related fundamental questions of data integrity and address whether any of this record is suitable at all for assessing the risks of low-level radiation, and if so how it should be used. The Committee should also address what criteria of data quality it will apply to the information contained in the studies it reviews. In this context, we do not believe that it will be enough to simply accept peer-reviewed studies as correct if they have not evaluated the soundness of the underlying official dose and health data. Finally the impact of misclassification of radiation exposures and health outcomes and health-related selection factors, should be considered in interpreting all epidemiological studies, including studies of A-bomb survivors.

*Effects on various populations: The concept of "standard man" or "average" is often used to set radiation protection standards. Given the potential large variability of actual health effects of radiation in various populations, the Committee should assess the errors in risk estimates produced by the use of this concept. For instance, the age-dependence of the dose response relationship for various health effects should be explicitly spelled out, not only for children, but also for older age groups. Another example is the potential variation in sensitivity to low-level radiation among individuals who are otherwise of similar demographic make-up.

In many of these areas, it may be that there is simply not enough knowledge to come to reliable scientific conclusions. In such cases, the Committee should clearly and frankly say so and recommend a research agenda. If possible, this should be accompanied by qualitative discussions of the mechanisms of potential health effects. It is of crucial importance to us that all areas where risk cannot be reliably calculated are clearly identified. If the types of risk can be qualitatively ascertained, the risks should be spelled out. If even the qualitative risks cannot be assessed, that conclusion would also be very material.

We have not discussed cancer-related issues above because we are presuming that the Committee will address the full range of relevant literature in regard to carcinogenic effects. It would be helpful if the committee published and updated frequently a list of the publications that it is reviewing, so that we may be able to follow the review and add to that list, should we feel that to be necessary or desirable.

We look forward to providing scientific input throughout the BEIR VII process and expect that the Committee will fully address the issues we have raised as seriously as it might were those same issues raised by a member of the Committee.

We appreciate the opportunity for public comment and ask that it be expanded as needed to fully accommodate the issues and evidence that we want to put forth. We look forward to your response. Do let us know if you have any questions or need more information. Please address your questions or responses to Lisa Ledwidge or Arjun Makhijani. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Lisa Ledwidge Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Outreach Coordinator President ieer@ieer.org arjun@ieer.org

Other signatories: David E. Adelman, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C., USA Glenn Alcalay, Co-chair, National Committee for Radiation Victims, New York, New York, USA Jennifer Aldrich, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility/Oregon, Portland, Oregon, USA Dave Andrews, Vice Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Wales, UK Didier Anger, le CRILAN, Les Pieux, France Paulette Anger, le CRILAN, Les Pieux, France Caron Balkany, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety*, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA Dan Becker, Director, Global Warming and Energy Programs, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., USA Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH, President, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Patricia T. Birnie, Chair, GE Stockholders' Alliance, and Chair, Environment Committee, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Tucson, Arizona, USA Philippe Brousse, Secrétariat du Réseau "Sortir du nucléaire," Lyon, France Elizabeth Brown, East Bay Peace Action, Albany, California, USA Kateri Caron, Spokane, Washington, USA Vina Colley, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, McDermott, Ohio, USA David Close, Professor, Department of Physics, East Tennessee State University, USA Mary Byrd Davis, Uranium Enrichment Project of Earth Island Institute, Georgetown, Kentucky, USA Cyndy deBruler Executive Director, Columbia River United, Hood River, Oregon, USA Greg deBruler, White Salmon, Washington, USA Anushka Drescher, Ph.D., Berkeley, California, USA Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Nader Entessar, Professor of Political Science & International Studies, Spring Hill College*, Mobile, Alabama, USA Cathey E. Falvo, M.D., M.P.H., Program Director, International & Public Health Graduate School of Health Sciences, New York Medical College*, Valhalla, New York, New York, USA Ansar Fayyazuddin, Assistant Professor of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Martin Forwood and Janine Allis-Smith, CORE (Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment), Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK Michel Fremont, le CRILAN, Courcy, France Surendra Gadekar, ANUMUKTI, Vedchhi, India Sanghamitra Gadekar, ANUMUKTI, Vedchhi, India Ann Harris, Director, We The People, Inc., of Tennessee, and Executive Director, Alliance for Public Health & Safety, Ten Mile, Tennessee, USA Ruth M. Heifetz, M.D., M.P.H., Senior Lecturer, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California-San Diego*, San Diego, California, USA Ira Helfand, M.D., Co-Founder and Past President, Physicians for Social Responsibility, USA Felicity Hill, Director, U.N. Office for Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, New York, USA Laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego, California, USA Joe Jaffe, retired physicist, San Diego, California, USA Carol Jahnkow, Executive Director, Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA Chuck Johnson, Director, Center for Energy Research, Salem, Oregon, USA Judith Johnsrud, Director, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, State College, Pennsylvania, USA Deb Katz, Citizens Awareness Network, Shelbourne Falls, Massachusetts, USA Robin Klein, President, Hanford Action of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, USA Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Koehnlein, President, German Society for Radiation Protection, and Institut fuer Strahlenbiologie, Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet, Muenster, Germany Cathy Lemar, Military Toxics Project, Lewiston, Maine, USA Bernard Lindberg, Chairperson, Mankato Area Environmentalists, Mankato, Minnesota, USA John Loretz, Executive Editor, Medicine and Global Survival*, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Michael J. Manetas, Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA Robert A. McFarlane, M.D., Clinical Professor Emeritus of Surgery, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA Janot Mendler, Director for Operations, GEF/UNDP International Waters:LEARN*, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Robin Mills, Director, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Giorgio Nebbia, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Economics, University of Bari*, Italy Dale D. Nesbitt, Staff scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Retired, California, USA Andi Nidecker, Associate Professor, University of Basel, and Executive Council, Swiss Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Switzerland Baku Nishio and Hideyuki Ban, Co-directors, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo, Japan Rudi H. Nussbaum, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Portland State University, for Northwest Radiation Health Alliance, Portland, Oregon, USA Sonya Ostrom, Metro New York Peace Action Council, Brooklyn Heights Peace Action, Eastside Peace Action, Flatbush Peace Action, Greenwich Village Coalition for Peaceful Priorities, NOBSAC (North Bronx Social Action Committee), Shorefront Peace Committee, SNAP (Stop Nuclear Arms Proliferation), and Westside Peace Action, New York, New York, USA David Ozonoff, M.D., M.P.H., Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Perline, Ph.D., engineer and physicist, Paris, France Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network, Windsor, North Dakota, USA Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, San Diego BayKeeper, San Diego, California, USA Norman Rubin, Director of Nuclear Research and Senior Policy Analyst, Energy Probe, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Gladys Schmitz, Vice-chairperson, Mankato Area Environmentalists, Mankato, Minnesota, USA Betty Schroeder, Co-Chair, Arizona Safe Energy Coalition, Tucson, Arizona, USA Monique Sené, GSIEN, Orsay, France Victor W. Sidel, M.D., Professor of Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA Pamela Sihvola, Co-chair, Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste, California, USA Norma Sullivan, retired college English professor, San Diego, California, USA Dr. Jinzaburo Takagi, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo, Japan Tim Takaro, M.D., Chair, Hanford Task Force, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Seattle, Washington, USA Alyn Ware, Consultant at Large, Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, New York, New York, USA Harvey Wasserman, Citizens Protecting Ohio, Bexley, Ohio, USA Carroll Webber, Ph.D., Greenville, North Carolina, USA David Crockett Williams, Coordinator, Global Peace Walk Project, and Initiator, Global Emergency Alert Response, Tehachapi, California, USA Steve Wing, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina*, Chapel Hill, USA Alexei Yablokov, Center for Russian Environmental Policy and Program for Radioactive and Nuclear Safety by International Socio-Ecological Union, Moscow, Russia Alla Yaroshinskaya, Yaroshinskaya Ecological Charity Fund, Moscow, Russia

*Affiliation provided for identification purposes only

Cc: Members of BEIR VII Committee Dr. Evan B. Douple, Director, Board on Radiation Effects Research Dr. Stephen L. Simon, Board on Radiation Effects Research Dr. E. William Colglazier, Executive Officer, National Academy of Sciences Dr. Jerome Puskin, Radiation Studies Branch, Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Richard B. Setlow, Chair, BEIR VII Phase I Committee Mr. Charles Meinhold, President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Professor R.H. Clarke, Chairman, International Commission on Radiological Protection

Hisham Zerriffi Project Scientist Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD 20912 Phone: (301) 270-5500 Fax: (301) 270-3029 E-mail: hisham@ieer.org Web: http://www.ieer.org