***************************************************************** N/02/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.258 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 CALL NOW & RE HR-2983, PRICE ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION 2 A Warning From an Official About an Increased Possibility of 3 Security costs take heavy toll 4 Anti-nuke group points to terrorist attacks 5 Bolton fears nuclear terrorism 6 Nuke powers meet on safety 7 FAA extends no-fly zone over Maine Yankee 8 No leaks found after N-plant fire 9 French antinuclear protesters visit Kepco 10 Stern FPL e-mail rids nuke-plant drawings from website 11 Fire at nuclear reactor facility north of Tokyo 12 Japan's TEPCO says reactor on automatic shutdown 13 Vajpayee to sign nuclear agreement during Russia visit 14 Ireland sues the Nuclear Kingdom 15 Nuke powers meet on safety 16 Austrian nuclear chief pleads for tighter security 17 Nuclear warning 18 Groups Seek Safer Storage of Spent Fuel 19 French protesters delay nuclear waste shipment 20 Study Examines Safety of Nuclear Power from Terrorism 21 Czech Temelin reactor N-plant shut down for 3 weeks 22 Letter: Nuclear-powered cars 23 German power stations are not protected against air attacks 24 Armenian nuclear plant not to resume work on schedule 25 Public Citizen Urges NRC, Congress to Take Hint From FAA 26 Russian nuclear industry had no emergencies in October 27 Kazakh scientists to get 1.2m dollars from international body 28 Experts Urge Nuclear Security 29 Group Calls Utah Lenient on N-Waste 30 Nuclear industry 'prepared for attacks' 31 Nuke waste for dummies 32 Guinn spotlights waste accident scenario 33 NRC probing possible leak of Yucca plan 34 Bolton fears nuclear terrorism 35 No leaks found after N-plant fire 36 THE crashing of a hijacked passenger jet into Sellafield nuclear 37 Tunnel fire cited as cause for nuke waste changes 38 Troops remain stationed at Wolf Creek power site 39 Agency Warns of Nuclear Terrorism 40 Russia To Participate In Construction Of Nuclear Power Station In 41 New calls to tighten air security 42 Sydney 'should be prepared for attack on nuclear plant' 43 Groups ask NRC to consider terrorist threat to nuclear plant 44 Action urged over nuclear threat - 45 Security costs take heavy toll 46 Review of 'weak' security at civil nuclear centres 47 King: No need to send troops to Maine Yankee 48 An unlikely target 49 Opinions:Alvarez: A nuclear disaster waiting to happen 50 Fed Govt called to define 'co-location' in nuclear waste dump 51 Yankee security costs a concern 52 Troops remain stationed at Wolf Creek power site 53 Mississippi River closed near Prairie Island nuclear plant NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Fighting terrorism - By invitation 2 India rules out nuclear arms race in sub-continent 3 US offers nuclear protection to Pakistan 4 Secretary Abraham: Don't delay vit plant 5 Bush Will Offer Nuclear Cuts to Sway Russia 6 FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Deal on N-weapons comes nearer 7 Progress on Cutting Nuclear Stockpiles 8 Energy secretary reschedules trip 9 New clues to Kursk sinking 10 Urgent Worries About Pakistani Nuclear Material 11 House Democrats lose effort to boost spending on securing Russian 12 The general and the bomb - Jane's Asia/Pacific News 13 No halt to raids in Ramazan: Rumsfeld holds talks with ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 CALL NOW & RE HR-2983, PRICE ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:49:16 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal ONGOING THREAT OF NUCLEAR WINTER IS THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR NUCLEAR ABOLITION: http://www.mothersalert.org/nuclearwinter.html MOTHERSALERT HOME PAGE: http://www.mothersalert.org & http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html USA SPACE COMMAND & "Vision 2020," THE US PLAN TO DOMINATE EARTH FROM SPACE: http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace From: "L.V. Citizen Alert" * * * apologies for cross-posting * * * please circulate * * * URGENT ACTION ALERT: OPPOSE "FAST TRACK" REAUTHORIZATION OF PRICE-ANDERSON! Contact your House Representative in Congress and urge him/her to oppose H.R. 2983 on the Suspension Calendar. Phone (202) 224-3121 (Capitol Switchboard) On October 31, the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up H.R. 2983, a bill to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. The Price-Anderson Act was originally enacted in 1957, as a temporary measure in support of the nascent nuclear industry. Nearly 50 years later, this legislation continues to subsidize the nuclear industry by artificially lowering insurance costs and limiting liability of nuclear operators in case of accidents. Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act would pave the way for the construction of new nuclear reactors. At the recent mark-up, Energy Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin announced he would request that the bill be placed on the Suspension Calendar. If Speaker Dennis Hastert agrees to put H.R. 2983 on the Suspension Calendar, no amendments will be allowed and a vote could be held as soon as Tuesday, November 6. 145 votes opposed would be necessary to remove H.R. 2983 from the Suspension Calendar and return it to the normal legislative process where amendments would be allowed. H.R. 2983 needs amending! - The bill does not adequately address heightened concerns about security problems at nuclear power plants. Congress should not promote the construction of additional vulnerable targets. -The bill grants special concessions to proposed new Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. If these reactors are "inherently safe," as the industry claims, why do they need subsidized insurance? This section should be removed. - The insurance coverage required under the H.R. 2983 grossly understates the calculated cost of a nuclear accident. Premium levels should be raised. - The bill reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act for 15 years. This period should be shortened. It is inappropriate to determine this significant aspect of nuclear energy policy through a restricted legislative process. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY! Sign an online petition opposing reauthorization of the Price-Anderson act at www.petitiononline.com/repealpa/petition.html For more information, see Public Citizen's Price-Anderson factsheet online at: www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear _power_plants/nuclear_revival/articles.cfm?ID=4912 ***************************************************************** 2 A Warning From an Official About an Increased Possibility of Nuclear Terror November 2, 2001 ATOMIC ANXIETY By JOHN TAGLIABUE HaMBURG, Germany, Nov. 1 — The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have increased the chances that terrorists might try to use nuclear weapons or materials, or attack nuclear power plants, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned today. He spoke after Pakistan said it had detained three of the country's leading nuclear scientists for questioning in connection with concerns in the United States that nuclear weapons technology could have found its way into the hands of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an order restricting airspace around nuclear power plants, saying that terrorists could attack them to cause public panic. The United States appeared to be following the example of France, which earlier had ordered the deployment of antiaircraft missiles around a major reprocessing plant for spent nuclear fuel at La Hague. Today's warning, by Muhammad el-Baradei, the director general of the agency, was issued on the eve of a conference in Vienna called to discuss nuclear safeguards and ways to combat nuclear terrorism. Since Sept. 11, experts in numerous countries have begun looking afresh at earlier studies largely ruling out the use or acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists. Mr. Baradei, an Egyptian citizen and a lawyer by training, said in a statement: "We are not just dealing with the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs. Now we have been alerted to the potential of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources to incite panic, contaminate property, and even cause injury or death among civilian populations." "The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before Sept. 11," Mr. Baradei said. His message was addressed not only to the five formally declared nuclear powers — China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States — but also to India, Pakistan and Israel, all of which are either known to possess nuclear weapons technology, or are believed to have them. Reports that some terrorist groups, particularly Mr. bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, had tried to acquire nuclear material was a "cause of great concern," he said. He said the agency's experts believed that the "primary risks" of a terrorist nuclear attack could involve the theft of fissionable material from reactors or an attack or act of sabotage intended to release large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. But he said the danger also existed that terrorists would either obtain the materials to build a nuclear weapon or would succeed in buying or stealing nuclear weapons. Given the difficulties involved in building or acquiring a nuclear bomb, he said, terrorists could also use radioactive materials from nuclear reactors, medical devices or other sources to construct a radiological bomb, sometimes called a dirty bomb, by putting the radioactive material around an ordinary explosive and detonating it. In a paper to be presented at the Friday conference, George Bunn, an expert on nuclear safety from Stanford University, said the September attacks, in which commercial aircraft were rammed into buildings, posed a "much larger threat than civilian nuclear security systems are generally designed to deal with." The mandate of the agency, which is the United Nations body for monitoring nuclear programs and is based in Vienna, does not extend to nuclear weaponry, and Mr. Baradei voiced concern about safeguards in India, Pakistan and Israel. "Although I understand there is a high level of security for nuclear weapons," he said, "I hope that all of these countries are urgently reviewing the safety and security of their nuclear weapons." Pakistan has been caught up in a nuclear arms race with its neighbor and archenemy, India. The Pakistani government, which leads the world's second most populous Islamic nation with 140 million people, has been struggling to contain public anger over government support for the American military strikes in Afghanistan. Mr. Baradei noted that Pakistani nuclear safeguards appeared to be sufficient, though he said: "If there were a breakdown in the civil order, of course, you have worries. But so far I think they are under proper control." He played down the likelihood of terrorists being able to produce a nuclear bomb. To do so, he said, would require obtaining 25 kilograms, or 55 pounds, of highly enriched uranium or eight kilograms of plutonium. "While we cannot exclude the possibility that terrorists could get hold of some nuclear material," he said, "it is highly unlikely they could use it to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb." But he quickly added, "No scenario is impossible." A significant danger, he said, was that terrorists could obtain nuclear materials or weapons from rogue scientists in places like Russia. With the end of the cold war, he noted, thousands of scientists and engineers involved in the nuclear programs of the former Soviet Union found themselves without work and with incomes drastically reduced. Moreover, he said, there were numerous reports, all unconfirmed so far, of the sale or theft of fissionable materials or nuclear weapons from the old Soviet arsenal. According to agency figures, since 1993 there have been 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material and 201 cases of trafficking in medical and industrial radioactive materials, he said. But only 18 of those cases involved small amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the fissionable material needed to produce a nuclear bomb. Some of the proposals to be heard Friday include plans to strengthen international conventions on the safeguarding of nuclear materials. But experts said nuclear countries would generally be reluctant to admit new means of control. Mr. Baradei said the agency would require an additional $30 million to $50 million annually to expand its surveillance programs to meet the terrorist threat. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 3 Security costs take heavy toll American News (Aberdeen) | Big bite chomped out of city, county budgets By Chelsea J. Carter Associated Press Writer All the extra airport patrols, security cameras and X-ray machines put in place since Sept. 11 may have eased security fears, but they're taking a huge bite out of city and county budgets. Governments across the country have racked up millions of dollars in unbudgeted expenses, and analysts say the final price tag could top several billion dollars. In California alone, the bill could top $500 million by the end of next year. In Michigan, local governments determined they would need $73 million in equipment and training just to meet preparedness goals. Cities and counties have begun seeking federal and state assistance to cope with the costs, and some are considering raising taxes. "We understand we're taking our marching orders on terrorism out of Washington, but there has to be some serious dialogue about how we are going to pay for this," said Scott King, the mayor of Gary, Ind. "A singular diet of tax credits and cuts isn't going to be the revenue that these cities and counties require," he said. Congress has earmarked billions of dollars in aid for New York, Washington and hard-hit airlines, but little so far has been targeted for local governments. Republicans support a House-passed $100 billion economic stimulus plan, which consists mostly of tax cuts for businesses and grants to help pay for laid-off workers' health insurance premiums. Senate Democrats want to tack on $20 billion for security upgrades at airports and nuclear plants, investments in state and local anti-terrorism law enforcement, improving food safety and improving U.S. border security. Under the federal legislation, however, the money would go to states, not directly to cities and counties. Many local governments are also being stung by the loss of millions in sales and hotel taxes because tourists are staying home. "There are going to be wrenching decisions that have to be made," said economist Steve Cochrane, who tracks state and local finances for Economy.com. "Local governments can cut back and raise taxes. But for some local governments, they are going to have to find some new ways to raise revenue to pay for this." A coalition that includes the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the International City-County Management Association has proposed a federal stimulus package that includes spending for local public works projects. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is seeking to recover $1.5 billion its 1,200 member cities have spent since the terrorist attacks, though Cochrane said a federal bailout was unlikely. "Police and firefighters will be at the head of the line for federal support," he said. "But beyond that, it's going to be up to local governments to get through it." In Fresno, Calif., city officials took the unorthodox step last month of declaring a state of emergency while paying an estimated $5,000 a week in overtime to police officers and firefighters. The order allowed the California Air National Guard to take over patrols around its base. Washington's King County, which includes Seattle, is considering a property tax to help pay for its security costs. Santa Fe, N.M., and its surrounding county created a joint task force to share security costs. California Gov. Gray Davis is considering whether to call a special legislative session to create an economic stimulus package. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn has started a task force to examine how the attacks have affected the city's budget and local economy. "All of it has an impact," Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook said. "The increased security around City Hall, the number of firefighters on the street, more police officers responding to suspicious reports." Beyond the current security, local governments are scrambling to determine whether they are ready for a terrorist attack. Last week, more than 100 mayors huddled in Washington to discuss preparations. San Jose, Calif., is one of the few cities with a plan in place. Establishing the program cost $1.4 million, mostly from federal grants, and the city spends about $300,000 a year to keep it running. Gary, Ind., population 110,000, is among many cities conducting risk assessments. "In addition to New York City and Washington," King said, "cities across the country are picking up unexpected costs." © 2001 Aberdeen American News. All rights reserved. Any copying, ***************************************************************** 4 Anti-nuke group points to terrorist attacks TheDay.com: By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 11/02/2001 An anti-nuclear group contends it is time for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider the potential for terrorist attacks before it allows more spent nuclear fuel to be stored at the nation's nuclear plants. The groups — STAR Foundation (Standing for Truth About Radiation) and the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone — raised the issue Thursday in a case involving a proposed increase in the amount of spent fuel that can be stored at the Millstone 3 plant. The unit is part of Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford. Millstone owner, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, wants to amend its operating license to double the amount of highly-radioactive spent fuel it can place in the plant's storage pool. Dominion needs the additional storage to house the fuel the plant can be expected to generate over the next 25 years. The case is now before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Dominion has argued that the increased capacity plans mirror operations used safely in spent fuel pools across the country, all approved by the NRC. The anti-nuclear groups, however, are contending the recent terrorist threat is new evidence the licensing board should consider. A successful terrorist attack on a spent fuel storage pool could result in a severe radioactive fire that would contaminate large areas of Connecticut Long Island, the groups contend. The water in the pool is needed to shield the radiation and cool the superheated fuel rods. The document filed by the organizations contends that the storage of the additional fuel in dry cask canisters would present a safer, if more expensive, alternative. Diane Curran, an attorney for the groups, said the threat of terrorist attacks on the storage pool is a legitimate concern that must be considered by the licensing board. The debates over the plans at Millstone 3 have dragged on for more than two years. The licensing board at one point approved the plan, but agreed to reopen the proceedings after it was discovered that former Millstone owner Northeast Utilities could not find two missing fuel rods from its closed Millstone 1 plant. Critics said that incident raised questions about the ability of the utility to manage the Millstone 3 spent fuel pool. The utility has since concluded that the fuel rods were probably transported inadvertently and buried at a low-level nuclear waste facility. Because of procedural improvements the same mistake could not happen at unit 3, Dominion claims. n © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 5 Bolton fears nuclear terrorism The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan Updated on 11/2/2001 10:35:08 AM WASHINGTON (Agencies): The September suicide attacks have increased concerns that extremists would use weapons of mass destruction, including possibly nuclear weapons, against the United States, under-secretary of State John Bolton said.Answering questions at a breakfast with defence writers, he predicted that if extremists possess weapons of mass destruction, a term that encompasses nuclear, biological and chemical arms, they will use them. “I’m concerned about weapons of mass destruction everywhere and my concern about weapons of mass destruction everywhere has gone up since the war began,” he said. John Bolton, the State Department’s top official dealing with arms control and international security affairs, said he was worried there will be use of a weapon of mass destruction. September 11 proved that anybody willing to fly a jet airplane into the World Trade Center is not going to be deterred by anything, he said. Had these people had ballistic missile technology, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have used it. If they could couple that with a weapon of mass destruction, nuclear or whatever, and dropped it on lower Manhattan, as tragic as the destruction of the World Trade Center was, the loss of lower Manhattan or any comparable place would obviously be a lot worse, he said. Referring to the US struggle with a spreading incidence of infection with the potent germ warfare agent anthrax, Bolton said “we’re having use by somebody of a weapon of mass destruction now, so it’s not a hypothetical concern.” He refused to say if the United States knew whether Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network of extremists, blamed by Washington for the September attacks that killed an estimated 5,000 people, were in possession of nuclear weapons. But he said one consequence of the US attacks was a heightened awareness of the interrelationship between non-proliferation and terrorists and that as a result, efforts to halt the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological arms will receive more attention in coming months. Essentially every state on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism is also an aspirant to obtain weapons of mass destruction or may already have them, he said. Iran, Iraq and North Korea have long been key states of U.S. concern in regard to both weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Some administration officials have urged including Iraq as a target in the war on terrorism but so far they have not prevailed. John Bolton said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had made courageous decisions in supporting the antiterrorism effort and the United States has taken steps, including financial assistance, to support his government. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 6 Nuke powers meet on safety Friday, November 2, 2001 VIENNA: Pakistan could become a source of hardware for terrorists planning to build a nuclear bomb, while impoverished scientists from the former Soviet Union could provide the required know-how, the UN’s atomic watchdog fears. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), due to discuss nuclear terrorism in Vienna today, has called on the world’s nuclear powers to urgently review the safety of nuclear material in their arsenals. The IAEA message was sent to the five formally declared nuclear powers — China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States — but also to India, Pakistan and Israel, all of which are either known to possess nuclear weapons technology, or believed to. HEIGHTENED SECURITY...two sheriff deputies guarding the entrance to the Crystal Rivers Energy Complex Nuclear Power Plant in Florida.--AFPpic. Pakistan, which staged tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests with its long-time foe India in 1998, is struggling to contain public discontent at its government’s support for US-led attacks on neighbouring Afghanistan. “Security is good as long as there is a government in control,” said IAEA head Mohamed El-Baradei. “Hopefully I think they are under proper control,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. But he added: “If there was a breakdown in the civil order of course you have worries. But so far I think they are under proper control.” While stressing that the IAEA’s mandate does not specifically cover atomic weapons, El-Baradei called openly on all states with nuclear capabilities to tighten security. “I hope that all of these countries are urgently reviewing the safety and security of their nuclear weapons,” he said. In a report prepared for today’s Vienna meeting, the IAEA said it was worried by reports that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, which has support in Pakistan, has sought to buy nuclear technology. El-Baradei added: “Any such materials in illicit commerce and conceivably accessible to terrorist groups is deeply troubling.” The IAEA added that, even if terrorists got their hands on Pakistani nuclear hardware, they would not necessarily be able to use it. “There are safety measures with weapons to be activated in case of theft and I’m sure the Pakistani programme is no different,” he said. In terms of expertise to put a bomb together, the former Soviet Union could provide a source, said an IAEA report. “When the Cold War ended, thousands of highly knowledgeable scientists and engineers previously involved in the Soviet Union’s weapons programme were laid off or found their incomes drastically reduced. Overall El-Baradei played down the chances of terrorists being able to produce a nuclear bomb, pointing out that it would require 25kg of high enriched uranium or eight kg of plutonium. “While we cannot exclude the possibility that terrorists could get hold of some nuclear material, it is highly unlikely they could use it to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb. But he added: “Still, no scenario is impossible.” “Another legacy of the Cold War is the disturbing reports, albeit unsubstantiated, of missing nuclear weapons,” the report said. — AFP © 1995-2001 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D) ***************************************************************** 7 FAA extends no-fly zone over Maine Yankee But Gov. Angus King says the terrorism risk is not high enough at the closed nuclear plant to justify a National Guard presence. [http://www.mainetoday.com] Friday, November 2, 2001 Copyright © 2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. Maine Yankee and other decommissioned nuclear power plants were added to the FAA's list of no-fly zones Thursday night. The plant, which stores spent nuclear fuel on the site, was added to the list after nearby residents raised concerns about the potential for the site to be a target of terrorist attacks. Also on Thursday, Gov. Angus King announced he would not call for National Guard troops to patrol the nuclear plant. U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday morning to ask that the decommissioned plants be added to the list of 86 operational plants. The FAA called on Tuesday night for an 11-mile no-fly zone around the active plants. The safeguard will expire Thursday. "(Snowe) felt it was important to err on the side of caution," said Dave Lackey, the senator's spokesman. "We want to make sure (Maine Yankee) is not selected as a target because of the lower precautions." Neither the FAA nor the NRC say there are any credible threats against nuclear plants. The no-fly zones were in response to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's new terrorism alert earlier this week, they said. Stanley Lane, selectman in Westport, adjacent to the nuclear plant, complained that the plant is still a danger even though its reactor core has been removed, and said it should be included in the no-fly areas. He and others say the 1,432 spent fuel rod assemblies still on site — more than 900 tons of radioactive fuel — could be terrorist targets. King said Thursday that posting National Guard troops at Maine Yankee would do little to bolster security at the closed nuclear power plant. The governor also said he is becoming increasingly concerned about the state being saddled with new defense responsibilities and costs related to terrorism and threats of attacks. The state has received little beyond ''vague reassurances'' from the federal government that it will cover the costs of what is traditionally a federal responsibility, King said A Maine Yankee spokesman declined to discuss security at the Wiscasset site. Without going into great detail, King said security has been beefed up with armed guards, concrete barriers and blocked-off roads near the site. He noted that the plant's level of risk is lower than that of operating plants. ''Based upon the risks, and the provisions that are in place, I do not believe it would significantly increase the security of that facility to add National Guard troops,'' King said. King said his decision not to send troops to Maine Yankee is not based on costs the state would incur. But he said the state has been absorbing increased expenses to provide defense from terrorist threats while getting no compensation from the federal government. King said there's a strong consensus among governors that states should receive funding for new defense costs. ''I am not being unpatriotic. I and all of the other governors are perfectly willing to do all that we can to assist,'' he said. But he said the list of facilities that need new protection or extra services, such as airports, nuclear plants and health labs, is growing longer. King said he had no figures for what the state's cost is so far, saying it is not a ''huge'' sum. But the city of Portland alone has spent $400,000 in added security-related expenses, he said. The governor acknowledged the federal government has promised Maine compensation for added security at airports in the state. ***************************************************************** 8 No leaks found after N-plant fire Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun No radiation leaks occurred after a fire that lasted through Thursday morning broke out inside a building where radioactive materials are handled at the Joyo nuclear reactor site in Oaraimachi, Ibaraki Prefecture, on Wednesday, according to investigators. No one was injured in the blaze that started at 8:40 p.m. Wednesday and burned flammable objects on the ground floor before being extinguished at about 11:30 a.m Thursday, the investigators said. The building belongs to Oarai Engineering Center of the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute and was unmanned when the fire began. The ferroconcrete structure, which has a ground level and two basement levels, is used for removing sodium from components of the the experimental Joyo reactor fast breeder-reactor, dismantling contaminated machinery and temporarily storing them. It is located about 30 meters west of the reactor and designated by the government as a controlled area for the handling of radioactive materials. The institute, which owns Joyo, and Ibaraki prefectural police and firefighters donned protective masks and helmets to inspect radiation monitors. They determined no radiation leak or other serious problem had occurred. The officials agreed the fire probably started in a tank used to wash sodium from components. Radioactive sodium catches fire and discharges radioactive substances if it comes into contact with air or water. But the institute said there was no possibility the fire had been sparked by sodium. An institute official said the fire could not have started naturally as sodium-covered components are sealed with nitrogen gas to prevent them from catching fire. The institute reported that institute staff and 12 contract workers had cut metal pipes used to circulate sodium and cleaned them in the tank in a machinery room on the building's ground floor between 9 a.m. and 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday. The building, which has a total floor space of 1,400 square meters, was locked when the workers left, the institute said. The Oarai Engineering Center closes its main gate at night and guards are stationed at the entrance, according to the institute. The director of the Oarai Engineering Center, Tsutomu Yanagisawa, apologized at a press conference Thursday morning. "We caused great trouble and concern to all those concerned.We find it especially serious that the fire broke out in a facility that handles sodium," he said. === Emergency stop in Fukushima A nuclear reactor in Narahamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, automatically stopped operating when its monitors detected abnormally high levels of neutrons just one hour after the plant was restarted following a maintenance check on Thursday. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) reported the No. 2 reactor at its Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant stopped automatically about 1 a.m. TEPCO officials said there was no risk of radioactive leakage and the company was investigating the cause of the problem. The officials said the reactor's operations were suspended on Oct. 18 to allow maintenance on connected electricity lines. The reactor was restarted just after midnight Thursday. Abnormally high levels of neutrons were detected and the reactor automatically stopped, the officials said. Copyright 2001 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 9 French antinuclear protesters visit Kepco Friday, November 2, 2001 OSAKA -- Representatives from a French group opposed to a nuclear waste reprocessing plant in the port city of Le Havre visited Kansai Electric Power Co. Thursday to protest the firm's business with the French plant. They said the Le Havre plant is the cause of recent outbreaks of cancer and leukemia in the surrounding area. Claire Boussahba and Claudine LeBoisselier, representing a group of mothers whose children have contracted leukemia and cancer, were joined by Japanese antinuclear activists. The group called on Kepco to halt its contacts with the French firm COGEMA, which operates the La Havre reprocessing plant. "Since 1997, 24 children have become ill with leukemia, a very large number in such a very short time. It appears that the COGEMA plant is responsible," said Boussahba. Osaka was the latest stop on a nationwide tour for Boussahba and LeBoisselier that began Oct. 20 and runs until Tuesday. Earlier this week, the two women met the mayors of Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, and Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, sites of key nuclear facilities, to express their concerns. "While polite, both mayors said that decisions to continue with reprocessing had already been taken. They were interested in our concerns, and the mayor of Rokkasho gave us more time than we had asked for" said Boussahba. Kepco officials, however, refused to allow the two women to enter their headquarters. A Kepco spokesman, meeting the women in front of the building, said Kepco was certain that strict safety standards for the Le Havre plant were being followed, and the meeting, originally scheduled for 1 hour, broke up after 20 minutes. Kepco is La Havre's largest Japanese customer for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Since 1970, Kepco has sent 1,350 tons of fuel to Le Havre for reprocessing, nearly half of the French company's total output in the same period. The Japan Times: Nov. 2, 2001 ***************************************************************** 10 Stern FPL e-mail rids nuke-plant drawings from website Miami Herald: Published Friday, November 2, 2001 BY MEG LAUGHLIN mlaughlin@herald.com [mlaughlin@herald.com] FPL got its way Thursday after threatening by e-mail to sue the creator of a website for nuclear power-plant workers unless he removed drawings of its two nuclear plants by 5 p.m., Oct. 31. ``I complied. Who wouldn't, with a letter like that?'' said Michael Rennhack of St. Paul, Minn., whose website provides a number of services to nuclear power plant workers. Among chatty comments, resumes and job postings on the message board of Nukeworker.com, Rennhack was surprised to find this sternly worded ultimatum: ``FPL demands that you immediately and permanently remove all FPL drawings of the St. Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear plants from your website. . . . If such materials have not been removed [by 5 p.m. EST, Oct. 31] . . . FPL will immediately initiate litigation. . . . FPL will also seek damages and attorneys fees and costs.'' Rennhack first commented on the e-mail to his Nukeworker.com readers: ``They say you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. I guess you can't teach that to a lawyer.'' Then he responded to FPL attorney Mitchell Ross, telling him that he had removed all satellite photos, directions to the facilities and photos inside the plants -- something he has also done for 12 other nuclear plants on the website. ``But all the others asked me in a pleasant, positive way. Only the Florida people demanded immediate action, threatening to sue and charge me the costs,'' he said. FPL external affairs manager Rachel Scott said she agreed the attorney's letter was stern, but that the tone was unavoidable given these scary times. ``We can't mess around with the possibility that terrorists could misuse the information. So, we made our point strongly and clearly to get the job done,'' said Scott. FPL's concern about terrorist misuse of the information mirrors that expressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Not only has the NRC closed down much of its own website, which included nuclear power plant locations and outage and fuel consumption information, it has issued directives to nuclear power plants in 40 states to take information off their websites. This removal of what was previously considered public information has triggered a reaction among freedom of information advocates as well as those who depend on the NRC website for information to do business. ``You can limit access to information, but this doesn't remove the actual danger,'' said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a watchdog nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., that keeps tabs on the federal Office of Management and Budget and the removing of government information from websites. Bass says he worries that withholding information only gives the perception that things are safer. The Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) organization in Columbia, Mo., which keeps databases of public information for journalists, is expressing similar concerns: ``We can understand erring on the side of caution since Sept. 11 and taking information off the web, but the national priority should be to reduce the actual dangers at nuclear and chemical plants, not the information. We're concerned that information will be removed, while flaws in public safety won't be addressed,'' said IRE executive director Brant Houston. It is this very issue that U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, addressed Wednesday in an amendment to the NRC security bill: ``Today, the current [plan] . . . that is supposed to be used to design safeguard systems fails to adequately reflect the true nature of the terrorist threat to our nuclear plants,'' Markey wrote in the amendment, taking issue with what the NRC plan does not guard against. ``What about waterborne threats. . . and what about airborne threats -- like a commercial airliner filled with jet fuel? The [plan] says nothing about air- or water-based threats and the NRC has told me that none of the current reactors are capable of withstanding a hit from a large commercial airliner.'' NRC spokesman Sue Gagner says that the regulatory agency is reviewing the plan to protect nuclear power plants, as well as reviewing what to put back on the NRC website. But Mike Rennhack says that, regardless of the security changes and restoration of the NRC website, he's in no hurry to get the Turkey Point and St. Lucie power plant information back on his own site. ``After that letter from Florida, I'll never put their stuff back up again,'' he said. Copyright 2001 Miami Herald ***************************************************************** 11 Fire at nuclear reactor facility north of Tokyo Planet Ark Environmental News: UPDATE - JAPAN: November 1, 2001 TOKYO - A fire broke out at the site of an experimental fast-breeder nuclear reactor northeast of Tokyo last night, but the incident did not pose a threat to the reactor itself and there was no radiation leak, police said. A police spokesman in the town of Mito told Reuters that the fire broke out on the first floor of a maintenance facility that is about 50 metres from the experimental reactor, which is currently undergoing maintenance. The spokesman said the fire broke out around 8:40 p.m. (1140 GMT) and was under control about two hours later. There were no injuries and authorities ruled out the possibility of a radioactive leak, he said. The Joyo facility is located in Ibaraki Prefecture, northeast of Tokyo. The facility was the site of a controlling rod malfunction in the spring of 2000, forcing the reactor to shut down. The facility is operated by the state-run Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute. Japan is heavily reliant on nuclear power although there have been a number of accidents over the past decade that have undermined public support for the programmes. In September 1999, one uranium plant worker was killed in a uncontrolled nuclear fission reaction at a reprocessing facility. The accident, attributed to poor management controls over the reprocessing, was the worst ever in Japan. Japan has 51 reactors supplying about one third of the country's electricity needs. Another JNC reactor, the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor, remains shut since a December 8, 1995, accident in which it suffered a massive sodium coolant leak. State-run JNC was launched in October 1, 1998, taking control of the three core fields of research and development that were previously run by the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp (PNC), which came under fire for mismanagement. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 12 Japan's TEPCO says reactor on automatic shutdown Planet Ark Environmental News: JAPAN: November 2, 2001 TOKYO - Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc said a 1.1 gigawatt (gW) nuclear reactor, which was in the process of resuming operation after a regular maintenance shutdown, halted operations automatically early yesterday. TEPCO said there was no radiation leak as a result of the incident at the Fukushima No. 2 power plant's No. 2 reactor in Fukushima prefecture. The company said had been in the process of restarting the facility when operations were halted automatically by equipment monitoring neutrons. The cause of the shutdown, which took place at 1:05 a.m. (1605 GMT Wednesday), was under investigation, the company said. TEPCO, Japan's largest power company, supplies electricity to Tokyo and the surrounding region. Nuclear power accounts for about one-third of Japan's electricity needs. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 13 Vajpayee to sign nuclear agreement during Russia visit Expressindia.com PTI/AFP Moscow, November 2: Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will sign a framework agreement on a three-day visit in Moscow starting Sunday that paves the way for Russia's construction of a nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu, officials said on Friday. The agreement will determine how many reactors will beset up at the Kudankulum plant, in Tamil Nadu, Nuclear Power Minister Alexander Rumyantsev told Interfax. The price of the plant will depend on how many nuclear reactors India decides to set up, each VVER-1000 unit costing 600 million dollars, said Rumyantsev. Moscow and New Delhi initially agreed on the plant's construction some 13 years ago, but the project was abandoned following the Soviet Union's collapse. The deal was resurrected when former Russian president Boris Yeltsin visited India in 1998. Officials in India earlier said that Russia would supply the design and 90 per cent of the equipment for the plant and also provide 54 per cent of the credit at four per cent interest. India will have to repay the credit in 14 equal instalment, one year after the commissioning of the plant. The first unit of the plant is expected to be commissioned by December 2007 and the second by December 2008. The plant will supply power to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. ***************************************************************** 14 Ireland sues the Nuclear Kingdom While Norway considers filing an international lawsuit regarding the discharges from Sellafield, the Irish Republic has already moved against the Britons. Jon Gauslaa, 2001-11-02 12:00 The Irish lawsuit is a result of the recent UK decision to authorise the MOX (mixed oxide) nuclear fuel production plant at Sellafield. MOX-fuel is based on plutonium and uranium and is designed for use in civil nuclear power plants. Anger in Dublin The Irish Government have for a long time raised concerns regarding the operation of Sellafield, which is located just 60 miles from Dublin, but has previously been reluctant to take up legal actions. The fact that the British plans are based on a considerable import of uranium and plutonium and regular transports of dangerous nuclear substances through the Irish Sea has however created an "intense anger" in Dublin, reports the Irish Times. Besides, the MOX-production plant is a potential target for terrorist-attacks. Thus, also the heightened terrorist threat since September 11 has been a factor in tipping the scales. Numerous violations The Irish Government served its legal documents on the UK Government last week. Simultaneously the Irish Minister of State, Joe Jacob accused the UK for having violated "numerous provisions" of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). -- The UK has not carried out a full assessment of the plant's impact on the environment and violated its obligations under the Convention to protect the marine environment, Jacob said. It has failed to take adequate measures to prevent pollution from the plant; violated its obligations to co-operate and share information with Ireland; and not assessed the risk of terrorist attacks or prepared a proper plan to respond to such attacks. The case will be heard at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. On November 9, 2001 the Tribunal will evaluate whether or not it shall issue an injunction preventing the MOX-plant from starting operations until a full hearing of the case is carried out. The full hearing is expected to go on for at lest a full year. Britons in the crossfire Hamburg is not the only venue where British authorities have to defend the Sellafield plant these days. The lawsuit there will proceed parallel with an arbitrary hearing, which the Irish Government filed in June 2001 under the OSPAR-Convention in order to get access to various items of information on the MOX-plant that the UK so far has refused to provide. Another possible fixture may be held at the European Court, where Ireland considers taking legal actions against the UK for violations of the Euratom Treaty. In the October 30-editions of the Norwegian dailies 'Dagbladet' and 'Aftenposten' Norway's Minister of Environment, Børge Brende from the Conservative Party gives his full moral and political support to the actions of the Irish Republic. Mr. Brende has asked the Norwegian Foreign Ministry and the 'Regjeringsadvokat' (attorney general) to examine the legal foundation for a possible Norwegian suit against the UK. -- We will, however, have to make an independent evaluation before any conclusion can be made, Brende said to Dagbladet. Technetium-99 This is a sensible attitude. Although MOX-production at Sellafield may lead to hazardous transports of nuclear substances through Norwegian waters, the MOX-plant would still represent a larger threat to Irish than to Norwegian interests. Thus, the primary factual foundation for a Norwegian lawsuit would most likely be the potential damage to Norwegian interests caused by the increased discharges of Technetium-99 from Sellafield since 1994. The MOX-case is however, far from irrelevant for Norway. The Government should also note that Ireland has based its case on the UNCLOS- provisions regarding the protection of the marine environment, rather than on the somewhat indistinct principles on environmental protection, which is developed through international customary law. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 15 Nuke powers meet on safety The Star Online > News > World Friday, November 2, 2001 VIENNA: Pakistan could become a source of hardware for terrorists planning to build a nuclear bomb, while impoverished scientists from the former Soviet Union could provide the required know-how, the UN’s atomic watchdog fears. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), due to discuss nuclear terrorism in Vienna today, has called on the world’s nuclear powers to urgently review the safety of nuclear material in their arsenals. The IAEA message was sent to the five formally declared nuclear powers — China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States — but also to India, Pakistan and Israel, all of which are either known to possess nuclear weapons technology, or believed to. HEIGHTENED SECURITY...two sheriff deputies guarding the entrance to the Crystal Rivers Energy Complex Nuclear Power Plant in Florida.--AFPpic. Pakistan, which staged tit-for-tat nuclear weapons tests with its long-time foe India in 1998, is struggling to contain public discontent at its government’s support for US-led attacks on neighbouring Afghanistan. “Security is good as long as there is a government in control,” said IAEA head Mohamed El-Baradei. “Hopefully I think they are under proper control,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. But he added: “If there was a breakdown in the civil order of course you have worries. But so far I think they are under proper control.” While stressing that the IAEA’s mandate does not specifically cover atomic weapons, El-Baradei called openly on all states with nuclear capabilities to tighten security. “I hope that all of these countries are urgently reviewing the safety and security of their nuclear weapons,” he said. In a report prepared for today’s Vienna meeting, the IAEA said it was worried by reports that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, which has support in Pakistan, has sought to buy nuclear technology. El-Baradei added: “Any such materials in illicit commerce and conceivably accessible to terrorist groups is deeply troubling.” The IAEA added that, even if terrorists got their hands on Pakistani nuclear hardware, they would not necessarily be able to use it. “There are safety measures with weapons to be activated in case of theft and I’m sure the Pakistani programme is no different,” he said. In terms of expertise to put a bomb together, the former Soviet Union could provide a source, said an IAEA report. “When the Cold War ended, thousands of highly knowledgeable scientists and engineers previously involved in the Soviet Union’s weapons programme were laid off or found their incomes drastically reduced. Overall El-Baradei played down the chances of terrorists being able to produce a nuclear bomb, pointing out that it would require 25kg of high enriched uranium or eight kg of plutonium. “While we cannot exclude the possibility that terrorists could get hold of some nuclear material, it is highly unlikely they could use it to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb. But he added: “Still, no scenario is impossible.” “Another legacy of the Cold War is the disturbing reports, albeit unsubstantiated, of missing nuclear weapons,” the report said. — AFP © 1995-2001 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D) ***************************************************************** 16 Austrian nuclear chief pleads for tighter security online.ie 02 Nov 2001 The UN atomic agency's chief today urged world leaders to act quickly to safeguard radioactive materials, pleading for governments to impose stringent new controls to avert nuclear catastrophe. Citing new fears of nuclear terrorism in wake of the September 11 attacks, Mohamed El Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said at a special safety conference that nations must secure radioactive materials before terrorist networks obtain them. El Baradei said the willingness of terrorists to commit suicide and inflict massive damage makes the possibility of a nuclear-related attack much more likely now than before September 11. "We need to act quickly to protect ourselves," he said. Seeking to minimize the risk of nuclear terrorism, delegates from most of the IAEA's 132 member states are discussing in Vienna, the Austrian capital, what can be done to secure the world's radioactive materials. The agency sets world standards for atomic safety and provides help to countries in case of a radiological disaster. Pleading for international unity in creating universal and stringent controls on nuclear materials, El Baradei said some governments - especially in poor countries need to do more to prevent nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. He said it is unclear whether terrorist groups have the capability of building a nuclear bomb but warned that governments must act quickly to prevent that from happening. "We don't have any information that al-Qaida or any other terrorist organisation has nuclear material," he said. "We are not directing our attention against any particular terrorist group, just protecting against any possible attack." Before September 11, the agency was worried most about the risk of governments "diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programmes," El Baradei said. Now, however, experts are more concerned about terrorists attacking nuclear plants directly or releasing radioactive material into the environment. With terrorists now willing to inflict unprecedented destruction, experts worry that terrorists could now resort to a so-called "dirty bomb." Unlike more sophisticated nuclear weapons, a "dirty bomb" is a crude device using radioactive material taken from industrial sites or hospitals and detonated by conventional explosives. When a "dirty bomb" explodes, radioactive material is dispersed. Such a crude weapon may not kill many people, but would touch off panic, El Baradei said. Government regulation of some sources of radiation such as that used for radiotherapy in hospitals is very weak. Some governments - such as those in the former Soviet Union must do more to regulate nuclear materials, El Baradei said. El Baradei also stressed that all nuclear sites are vulnerable particularly if a fuel-filled jumbo jet slams into a nuclear reactor. Nuclear facilities were not built with this threat in mind, he said. He said he welcomes the US and French decisions to place anti-aircraft batteries near some nuclear facilities. "We can't wait until something happens," he said. "We must take preventive measures now." ***************************************************************** 17 Nuclear warning The Scotsman Online - John Innes A NUCLEAR attack by terrorists is "far more likely" now than it was before the 11 September outrage, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned yesterday. IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei said it would most probably come in the form of radioactive contamination, or the targeting of nuclear facilities to cause a Chernobyl-style disaster. He said the organisation needed at least £36 million a year to combat the threat. The IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, carries out verification inspections and sets world safety and security standards. Mr El Baradei said: "The willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims creates a new dimension in the fight against terrorism. "We are not just dealing with the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programmes. An unconventional threat requires an unconventional response, and the whole world needs to join together and take responsibility for the security of nuclear material." ***************************************************************** 18 Groups Seek Safer Storage of Spent Fuel November 2, 2001 THE ENVIRONMENT By ELISSA GOOTMAN INEOLA, N.Y., Nov. 1 — For years, opponents of nuclear power have raised questions about the safety of spent radioactive fuel rods stored at plants around the country. And for years the response from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been the same: the threat of terrorism on American soil is too remote to make it a significant worry. Now, a Long Island environmental group is raising the issue anew, arguing that the regulatory commission should reconsider the dangers posed by spent nuclear fuel in light of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The group says an attack on the spent fuel, which is less protected than the reactors themselves, could lead to a catastrophic fire that would release radioactive material — and that the possibility of such an attack is no longer remote. The group, the STAR Foundation, joined with a coalition of Connecticut environmental groups today in filing a petition asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to re-evaluate the way used fuel is stored at the Millstone nuclear power station in Waterford, Conn., on Long Island Sound. "The threat of another terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is neither idle nor speculative, and the entire U.S. nuclear fleet has been advised to maintain a continuous state of high alert," the petition states. "The spent fuel pool at Millstone 3 is vulnerable to acts of malice or insanity." An attack, it said, could start a fire in the pool that "could contaminate thousands of square kilometers of land." Even today, the authorities were given a scare when, shortly before 5 p.m., the Federal Aviation Administration noticed that a private plane was flying within the restricted-fly zone established Tuesday above the Millstone plant and others. The North American Air Defense dispatched two F-16's, which escorted the plane to Hartford-Brainard Airport, said Dana A. Conover, chief of operations for Connecticut's Office of Emergency Management. "Indications are that he was unaware that he was violating air space that was restricted," Mr. Conover said. While the STAR Foundation's petition deals only with the Millstone plant, the issue affects most of the country's 103 active nuclear reactors and roughly 20 decommissioned ones. These reactors store their used fuel rods in what are known as spent fuel pools. The pools, filled with borated water, are surrounded by several feet of steel and concrete, inside buildings engineered to withstand an earthquake — but not a terrorist flying a large airplane, a fact that the commission has acknowledged. "These plants really weren't designed to withstand acts of war, but in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, the chairman of the agency has ordered a top-to-bottom review of nuclear plant security measures," said Neil A. Sheehan, a spokesman for the commission. "Certainly the protection of spent fuel pools will be a part of that." But representatives of the foundation said they were not comforted. "The National Regulatory Commission doesn't always act in the best interests of the public — it more often acts in the best interests of the industry," said Scott M. Cullen, counsel to the group, which is based in East Hampton, N.Y. The foundation maintains that the spent fuel pools may pose an even greater danger than the nuclear reactors, because a fire could start as soon as the water inside the pools, which must be kept cool, is heated. The group advocates storing spent fuel rods inside concrete boxes known as dry casks, a significantly more expensive alternative. It is also urging the government to deploy anti-aircraft artillery near nuclear plants and pools. While other anti-nuclear organizations have voiced concern over the safety of spent fuel pools since the Sept. 11 attacks, the STAR Foundation was able to file an official petition with the N.R.C. because the Millstone plant has an application before the commission to change the terms of its license. Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, which operates the plant, said the handling of the private-plane incident today showed that stricter safety measures were already being taken. "This shows that we are vigilant," he said. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 19 French protesters delay nuclear waste shipment Planet Ark Environmental News: FRANCE: November 1, 2001 SCHILTIGHEIM, France - Anti-nuclear activists set off rockets and chained themselves to rail tracks this week in a bid to stop a German train carrying nuclear waste from crossing France. A Reuters reporter in the town of Schiltigheim in eastern France, close to the German border, said several protesters managed to halt the train briefly at about 1900 GMT before police quickly stepped in and cut them free from the tracks. Two people were arrested. The train, which is bound for a nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield in northwestern England, continued on its journey across northern France after a 15-minute delay. It is carrying two containers of nuclear waste from the northern German plant of Kleinensiel. Earlier, German police detained about 50 anti-nuclear protesters who forced the train to stop several times by sitting on railway tracks. Convoys transporting nuclear waste for reprocessing or back to its country of origin afterwards are frequently targeted by anti-nuclear protesters. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 20 Study Examines Safety of Nuclear Power from Terrorism U.S. Newswire 1 Nov 16:22 Can Nuclear Power Be Protected From Terrorists?; Study Says Technology Alone Can Not Solve The Problem, Security is Essential To: National Desk Contact: Dr. Hal Feiveson, 609-258-4676, or Mike Levi of the Federation of American Scientists, 202-546-3300, E-mail: mlevi@fas.org, WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In "The Search for Proliferation-Resistant Nuclear Power," Princeton University Senior Research Scientist Hal Feiveson just published by the Federation of American Scientists concludes that new nuclear reactor designs can make it more difficult for a terrorist to steal materials that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon, but they can not eliminate the problem. Even with new technologies, the danger of nuclear theft could increase if use of nuclear power increases rapidly worldwide. Expanded research on advanced nuclear power cycles are still needed to reduce the danger of terrorism and to cut costs and improve the safety of nuclear power plants. Feiveson cautions that "no fuel cycle can be completely proliferation proof." Instead, he suggests that the security of nuclear power worldwide could require restricting nuclear power to large, secure, international energy parks that would then export electricity, hydrogen, or possibly sealed reactor cores to individual countries. He acknowledges that this could be politically difficult since "countries will be loathe to rely on reactor technologies that they have little capacity to monitor independently." "Before pinning too many hopes on nuclear power to solve global energy and environmental problems," said Henry Kelly, president of the FAS, "we must convince ourselves that we have a technical and a political strategy that can ensure that these plants will not supply materials for terrorist weapons. Feiveson's careful analysis suggests that this will not be an easy task." A copy of the report is available at www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n5/index.html [http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n5/index.html] Scientists who built the first atomic bomb founded the Federation of American Scientists in 1945. More than half of the current American Nobel Laureates today serve on the FAS Board of Sponsors. FAS conduct research, analysis, and advocacy on public policy issues created by advances in science and technology (see www.fas.org [http://www.fas.org] ). ***************************************************************** 21 Czech Temelin reactor N-plant shut down for 3 weeks Planet Ark Environmental News: CZECH REPUBLIC: November 1, 2001 PRAGUE - The Czech Republic's controversial Temelin nuclear power plant shut down its first reactor yesterday after a leak was discovered in a pump, the CTK news agency reported. CTK quoted the plant's spokesman, Milan Nebesar, as saying the problem would force the plant to go off line for about three weeks. Nebesar was not immediately available to confirm the report. He did not say whether there had been any radioactive fluid associated with the leak. One week ago Temelin boosted output in the reactor to 75 percent, its highest level ever, as it nears completion of its testing phase. Temelin, 60 km (37 miles) from the border, has been plagued by Austrian objections. Vienna says that despite the introduction of western safety systems to the Communist-era design, the plant is unsafe and should be shut down. The Czechs say the plant is safe. The plant's owner CEZ has said it hopes to have the reactor in full operation by the end of the year, more than 18 months behind schedule. Temelin was allowed last week to conduct final tests on the second block before nuclear fuel loading later this year. The second reactor is expected to be operational next year. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 22 Letter: Nuclear-powered cars The Independent - United Kingdom; Nov 2, 2001 BY KEITH BURNS Sir: We should remind Ian McAllister, the chairman of the Carbon Trust, that hydrogen is not a primary fuel ("UK `can cut carbon emissions without nuclear power' ", 30 October). It has to be extracted from natural gas by quite an energy-intensive cracking process, or from water by electrolysing it. Both methods of extracting hydrogen can use a variety of primary fuels. Hydrogen is a very promising method of storing and transporting energy. We should exploit it. One of the most efficient ways to do this is by the direct use of nuclear heat from a nuclear power station to extract hydrogen from water without the unnecessary intermediate stage of making electricity. There's a handy by-product - oxygen - as well. Such a strategy would extend the enormous flexibility of safely engineered nuclear power, which does not create carbon dioxide. For example, it would facilitate non-polluting nuclear-powered road vehicles. KEITH BURNS East Linton, East Lothian ***************************************************************** 23 German power stations are not protected against air attacks (Deutsche Kraftwerke sind schutzlos gegenuber Flugzeugangriffen) Die Welt - Germany; Nov 1, 2001 Martin Waldhausen, a spokesman for the German environment and nuclear safety ministry (BMU), says that the danger of an air attack on a nuclear power station is 'not nearly so dramatic' in Germany as in the US. However, it is acknowledged that the situation in Germany has altered since the US terrorist attacks in September. The BMU instructed regional supervisory authorities to improve protection of nuclear power stations against terrorist attacks, but the measures have not included protection against strikes from the air, as there is not thought currently to be any threat of such attacks. The BMU says that it would take the necessary precautions if instructed to do so by the interior ministry, but it is unclear what steps would be taken. Following an analysis of the safety of nuclear power stations, taken after the US attacks, it appears that German power stations are not protected against air attacks, although newer stations are safer than older installations owing to thicker concrete casing. Abstracted from Die Welt All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 24 Armenian nuclear plant not to resume work on schedule BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 1, 2001 Text of report by Armenian news agency Arminfo Yerevan, 1 November: The Armenian Nuclear Power Station will not be put back into operation on 5 November, as originally planned, due to financial and technical problems, employees of the station's repair and exploitation departments have told Arminfo. The station's employees noted that the last time they had received their wages was in June this year. Arrears for four months amount to around 1.5m dollars. Nevertheless, the Armenian government has not taken steps to repay the wage arrears and continues to make promises. Apart from the financial side, there are also purely technical problems causing the delay. The employees said that although nuclear fuel had been brought and the station topped-up, there is a shortage of bolts, pipes, alkali, acid and other materials. Source: Arminfo, Yerevan, in Russian 0812 gmt 1 Nov 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 25 Public Citizen Urges NRC, Congress to Take Hint From FAA Public Citizen Nov. 1, 2001 Flight Ban Underscores Dangers of Nuclear Power Plants WASHINGTON, D.C. — Flight restrictions around nuclear power plants imposed this week by the federal government underscore how dangerous the plants are and serve as further proof that nuclear power plants should not be relicensed and new plants should not be built, Public Citizen said today. On Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prohibited all general aviation flights within 10 miles of, and lower than 18,000 feet above, the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, for reasons of national security. Such concern is not unwarranted; a disciple of Osama bin Laden being held in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance was quoted in The Washington Post this week as saying that the terrorists who struck America on Sept. 11 should have targeted a nuclear plant. But while the FAA apparently recognizes the threat posed by nuclear plants, others in government are continuing efforts to expand and subsidize the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is still working toward relicensing nuclear plants, and congressional lawmakers are continuing to push a measure that would require taxpayers pay the majority of the costs in the event of a nuclear accident. "Since Sept. 11, the public has been seeking assurances that nuclear power plants will not be the next, and incredibly devastating, targets of terrorist attacks," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Yet astonishingly, even in the midst of a seemingly interminable series of heightened alerts, federal policymakers are acting to enrich the target environment for terrorists by taking steps to build new nuclear plants and extend the lives of old ones." Nuclear power plants were originally licensed to operate for 40 years. Relicensing allows them to operate for another 20. In the weeks since Sept. 11, the NRC has forged ahead with the process of renewing licenses for reactors at several nuclear power plants. (The plants are Edwin E. Hatch, located northwest of Savannah, Ga.; Turkey Point, located northeast of Miami, Fla.; Surry, located near Williamsburg, Va.; North Anna, located northwest of Richmond, Va.; Catawba, in South Carolina, just south of Charlotte, N.C.; McGuire, located west of Charlotte, N.C.; and Peach Bottom, located west of Philadelphia.) Ultimately, perhaps as many as two-thirds of the nation’s 103 operating reactors could be granted extensions through the NRC’s pro forma relicensing procedure. "It’s often said that September 11 changed everything," Hauter said. "But not for the NRC, which is continuing business as usual. For the agency to just keep moving along on these license renewal applications is irresponsible and bizarre." Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 2983, which reauthorizes the Price-Anderson Act. That act provides government-backed indemnification for the nuclear power industry in the event of any nuclear power accident. This will ensure that most of the cost of a nuclear plant accident would be paid for by taxpayers, not the nuclear power industry. The bill’s supporters say it is crucial for the construction of new nuclear power plants – evidence that the government wants to shield the industry from competitive market forces and effectively pave the way for the construction of new plants. "The construction of new nuclear power plants is out of step with public sentiment, particularly now," Hauter said. "It’s also unnecessary and incomprehensible. Really, what are these people thinking?" ***************************************************************** 26 Russian nuclear industry had no emergencies in October BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 1, 2001 Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax Moscow, 1 November: Russia's nuclear and radiation centres did not have any emergencies that could lessen nuclear and radiation safety in October, reads a report of the State Committee for Nuclear and Radiation Safety Oversight (Gosatomnadzor). The automatic safety systems were triggered twice, at the Kola and Leningrad nuclear power plants. "There was no violation of the conditions and limits of safe operation. The radiation was normal," the report says. The automatic safety systems of research reactors were also triggered twice, in Obninsk and Gatchina. "There was no radiation aftermath there either," the Committee said. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 0858 gmt 1 Nov 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 27 Kazakh scientists to get 1.2m dollars from international body BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 1, 2001 Astana, 1 November: The Council of Managers of the International Scientific and Technical Centre [ISTC] has approved, at a sitting, the financing of Kazakh scientists' projects worth a total of 1.2m dollars, the press service of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources reported today. Specifically, the ISTC approved the financing of a project on assessing the aftermath of environmental disasters involving chemicals and radiation on the health of children in Aral Sea areas (southern Kyzyl-Orda Region) and on working out a strategy for rehabilitating the region. In addition, the ISTC will finance the implementation of Kazakh projects on studying children's deaths as a result of the tests at the [former] Semipalatinsk nuclear testing ground and other pollutions; on radiation tests of lithium ceramics for blanketing a thermonuclear reactor and on developing a biological technology for extracting associated rhenium through underground leaching. The sitting approved a total of 76 projects worth 16.5m dollars, the press service said. [Passage to end omitted: the centre was set up in 1992; the centre's major aim is to support projects related with researches, technologies] Source: Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency, Almaty, in Russian 1233 gmt 1 Nov 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material ***************************************************************** 28 Experts Urge Nuclear Security Las Vegas SUN November 02, 2001 VIENNA, Austria- Nuclear experts pleaded with the world's richer countries to spend millions of dollars more on security for radioactive materials, warning that only stringent controls will stop terrorists and avert a nuclear catastrophe. Appealing for international unity in creating universal and stringent controls on nuclear materials, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said poor countries need help to fund security programs aimed at preventing nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. "This is in everyone's interest," said ElBaradei, who leads the U.N. agency that sets world standards for atomic safety and provides help to countries in case of a radiological disaster. He said wealthier nations need to donate $30 million to $50 million annually to beef up security at nuclear facilities where theft or sabotage is most likely to occur. Given what is at stake, he said the amount is "peanuts." Hundreds of experts gathered in Vienna on Friday to explore steps nations can take to secure radiological material - moves made more urgent by the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. He said it is unclear whether terrorist groups have the capability of building a nuclear bomb, but warned that governments must act quickly to prevent that from happening. "We don't have any information that al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization has nuclear material," he said. Before the attacks on New York and Washington, the agency was worried most about the risk of governments "diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs," ElBaradei said. Now, however, experts are concerned about using radiological materials to make a weapon unlike traditional nuclear devices meant to be used by governments at war. Experts particularly worry that terrorists could construct a so-called "dirty bomb." Unlike more sophisticated nuclear weapons, a "dirty bomb" is a crude device using radioactive material taken from industrial sites or hospitals and detonated by conventional explosives. When a "dirty bomb" explodes, radioactive material is dispersed. Such a crude weapon may not kill many people, but would touch off panic, ElBaradei said. The ability to create a "dirty bomb" makes it critical to cut off terrorist access to nuclear supplies everywhere. While the agency said there is a need to beef up security at sites where safeguards are at their weakest, it declined to specify which sites or countries were at issue, citing safety concerns. "There have been two nuclear shocks to the world already - the Chernobyl accident and the IAEA's discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program," ElBaradei said. "We (will) do all in our power to prevent a third." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Group Calls Utah Lenient on N-Waste The Salt Lake Tribune -- Friday, November 2, 2001 BY JUDY FAHYS A waste-industry group insists the state has shoddy standards for regulating low-level radioactive waste; the National Low-Level Rad Waste Association is debating whether to make its objections official. Meanwhile, the state Division of Radiation Control granted permission to Envirocare of Utah on Oct. 19 to put exactly the sort of waste that prompted the industry group's warning in landfills. Envirocare has already begun accepting "containerized A" waste, much hotter, or more radioactive, material than the company has been accepting for a dozen years at its facility about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Joseph G. DiCamillo, a Chicago lawyer for the National Low-Level Rad Waste Association, said Thursday his group is considering challenging the division's decision by appealing to the quasijudicial Radiation Control Board. "The state needs to step up and regulate this accordingly -- that's the bottom line here," said DiCamillo. Envirocare spokeswoman Betty Arial noted that the radiation division merely amended the company's existing permit that allowed it to accept low-level waste. "It will be good for Utah," she said, declining to comment further. State radiation director Bill Sinclair said his office granted the company's request after careful attention to making sure the public health and environment are protected. In contrast, the industry association, which is made up of companies and individuals in the low-level waste handling and reprocessing business, maintains the impact of Envirocare's added waste disposal could be profound for Utah. Envirocare is allowed to accept "dirty dirt," typically nuclear power-plant rubbish that is mixed with innocuous dirt. With the amendment, the company now can accept material that remains dangerously radioactive for four times as long as the dirty dirt. The hotter waste also goes into the cell, although it is sealed in high-integrity barrels. Legislators, who in the winter approved a new tax on some waste received at Envirocare, also directed the state Department of Environmental Quality to hire staff to oversee the company's new, hotter business line. But the industry group has insisted that is not enough. The association "believes that unless and until the important questions raised herein are fully addressed, the possibility for extremely adverse consequences are very real," said DiCamillo in a June 14 letter to the radiation-control division. Among the criticisms raised by the group were the following: The state's safety standards are outdated; The financial assurances are inadequate; The storage containers are not strong enough; The potential exposure to the public is unexplored; Groundwater is insufficiently protected; and It may have been improper for an engineering firm to have performed work on the amendment for both the state and Envirocare. The association suggested these issues become even more troubling in light of the fact that radioactive waste disposers will grow more dependent on Envirocare's facility as a similar facility in Barnwell, S.C., phases out of business over the next seven years. "The association recognizes that unless all possible engineering and operational precautions are taken at [Envirocare's] site, extremely adverse results are possible," the letter says. The Radiation Control Board is expected to discuss Envirocare's new waste-handling authority at its meeting today. Anyone wishing to appeal the amendment must do so by Nov. 19. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 30 Nuclear industry 'prepared for attacks' BBC News | SCI/TECH | 1 November, 2001, [La Hague, AFP] La Hague in France is protected by surface-to-air missiles The nuclear industry believes the fears about terrorist strikes on power stations and their ability to withstand such assaults have been overstated. They say the level of over-engineering that has gone into the construction of western power stations means their reactor cores are unlikely to be exposed, even if the buildings in which they are housed take a direct hit from a plane. The robustness of such engineering was demonstrated in 1989 when, in a joint US-Japanese crash test, a F-4 Phantom jet was flown at 800 km/h, straight at a concrete block. The plane, which completely disintegrated, penetrated just a few centimetres into the four-metre-thick block. Critics, however, have pointed out that the energy imparted by a passenger jet fully laden with fuel would be considerably greater than that from the impact of a fighter-bomber. One calculation in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks suggested the kinetic energy of the planes that hit the World Trade Center totalled about two billion joules (one joule is roughly the energy it takes to lift an apple from the floor to table height). The energy released by the burning aviation fuel was 10 times as great again. Nevertheless, the industry is confident - publicly at least - that the reactor buildings themselves would stand up well. Defence in depth Clearly, some power stations would fair better than others; not all plants are built to the same design. US reactors are typically protected by an outer shell, or containment building, made of steel-reinforced concrete more than a metre thick. This shell will also have a steel lining about 10 centimetres thick. The reactor itself will be inside a pressure vessel made from steel perhaps up 30 centimetres thick. The fuel at the heart of the power station will be encased in zirconium alloy rods. [Sizewell, BBC] Containment buildings are built to withstand tremendous forces US nuclear power plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes and flying debris from hurricanes, the Nuclear Control Institute, the policy organisation of the American nuclear industry, says. This is the so-called defence-in-depth safety strategy. It also means nuclear plants must be able to protect themselves from direct assault by armed groups who might want to force their way into a power station and set off a bomb. In Europe, governments have been very reluctant to divulge the details of extra security measures implemented at nuclear facilities after the 11 September attacks. France, which has the largest nuclear programme in the EU, made the high-profile statement of placing ground-to-air missiles near the plant at La Hague. France said it was prepared to use warplanes to shoot down hijacked aircraft. In the UK, last weekend, two Tornado fighter jets were reported to have been scrambled to patrol the sky above the Sellafield plant in northwest England for several hours in response to a telephone threat. Contingency plans La Hague and Sellafield could be prime targets for terror groups because they store waste fuel, which has more concentrated, higher levels of radioactivity. British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), which operates Sellafield, declined to comment on its security arrangements on Thursday but said it had put in place whatever measures were required by the nuclear watchdog, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). "We do what we're told by our regulator. For security reasons, we cannot give details of measures taken," said a BNFL spokesman. Last month, when it was asked to comment directly by New Scientist Magazine on the possibility of a plane strike on the Sellafield complex, BNFL said: "Major nuclear facilities, including for example reactors and highly active waste stores, are constructed to extremely robust engineering standards and incorporate large quantities of reinforced concrete as an integral part of the construction." It added: "These facilities are resistant to many terrorist threats including aircraft impact. Safety cases and contingency plans take these events into account." But John Large, an independent nuclear consultant in the UK, believes the nuclear industry is making claims about the integrity of its buildings it cannot possibly support. "Some of the British plants are now 40 to 50 years old. Back then a direct terrorist attack with an aircraft would have been inconceivable. And even in the 50s and 60s when [the plants] were designed and built, aircraft were much smaller, the fuel loads were much smaller, so they do not have built-in features that are resistant to aircraft crashes." 'Dirty bombs' However, Mr Large said a would-be suicide pilot would still need information about the most vulnerable parts of a power station to hit, and he suggested that it would be prudent if public access was temporarily denied to detailed plans on nuclear installations until a thorough security review had been carried out. [Hospital, BBC] The IAEA is most concerned about the dispersal or low-level radioactive materials Whilst most commentators have concentrated on the possibility of an airliner being flown into a nuclear facility, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has identified the dispersal of low-level radioactive material as the weak point in nuclear security. The IAEA said there should be better control over radionucleotides used in medical, industrial, and food processing equipment. The concern is that this material could be used to make so-called "dirty bombs", in which radioactive isotopes are mixed with conventional explosives. These bombs would not cause nuclear explosions, but could distribute radioactive debris over a wide area. "The effects of a dirty bomb would not be devastating in terms of human life. But contamination in even small quantities could have major psychological and economic effects," said IAEA official Abel Gonzalez. ***************************************************************** 31 Nuke waste for dummies Las Vegas Mercury: Friday, October 26, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury Everything you didn't necessarily want to know about Nevada's nuclear dilemma BY GEOFF SCHUMACHER MERCURY The U.S. Department of Energy's Sept. 5 public hearing on Yucca Mountain was a highly charged event. Impassioned demonstrations were held outside the DOE's North Las Vegas compound, while angry, forceful rhetoric poured forth for more than eight hours inside. Nevada's top politicos were there, including Gov. Kenny Guinn, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera, while prominent media types such as Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell and Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun took in the marathon proceedings. Last week, UNLV held a town hall meeting featuring retired U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan. More than 50 people, half of them students, showed up on a Friday evening and listened attentively to Bryan discuss the history of Yucca Mountain. Aside from the since-commenced war on terrorism, probably the only issue capable of generating this level of interest in apathetic Southern Nevada is Yucca Mountain. The federal government's plan to store the nation's most dangerous nuclear waste in the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is one of the few statewide issues of which 99 percent of Nevadans are well aware. Yucca Mountain is always in the news here. The local papers have stories almost daily on myriad political and scientific aspects of the controversy. But the press reports often deal in minutiae--intense debates over narrow points. And when the big picture is discussed, it's usually dominated by bombastic sound bites from Nevada's political leaders, who more often than not offer sound and fury signifying very little. For many, then, a clear, concise overview of Yucca Mountain--a 101 class of sorts--would be helpful to better understand where the issue has been and where it may be going. I won't pretend to be unbiased on nuclear waste disposal, but there are two sides to this story, and both will be presented here. History After World War II, at the dawn of the Atomic Age, government scientists went to work figuring out how to use nuclear fission for civilian purposes. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act made it a national goal to encourage the widespread use of atomic energy, and the first nuclear power plants came on line in the late 1950s. Soon, there were dozens of them all over the United States. From the beginning of commercial nuclear power, scientists believed deep underground salt beds were the best places to store highly radioactive waste. The National Academy of Sciences recommended underground storage as early as 1957. But nothing was done to address the issue. In 1970, in response to increasing concerns about the lack of a policy for waste disposal, the Atomic Energy Commission said it would develop a permanent repository in an abandoned salt mine near Lyons, Kan. "It aired its plans without conducting thorough geologic and hydrologic investigations, and the suitability of the site was soon challenged by the state geologist of Kansas and other scientists," according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website. "The uncertainties about the site generated a bitter dispute between the AEC on the one side and members of Congress and state officials from Kansas on the other. It ended in 1972 in great embarrassment for the AEC when the reservations of those who opposed the Lyons location proved to be well-founded." Needless to say, history has repeated itself with the Atomic Energy Commission's successor, the Department of Energy, and its efforts to put nuclear waste in Nevada. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, passed by Congress in 1982 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, called for a nationwide search for geologic formations capable of containing high-level nuclear waste for 10,000 years. The law said three sites would be considered in separate geographic regions--the Northeast, Southeast and West--and they would be studied and presented to the president, who would choose the best location. But after influential Northeastern lawmakers objected to the prospect of building a nuclear dump in their area, the DOE unilaterally took the Northeast out of consideration. And when Reagan needed Southern votes in his 1984 re-election bid, the Southeast was withdrawn, leaving only the West under consideration. In 1987, Congress modified the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, making Yucca Mountain the sole site to be studied. This legislation has since become known locally as the "Screw Nevada bill." Since then, the DOE has been studying the site, digging tunnels and conducting experiments, while state-funded scientists have tracked evidence showing Yucca Mountain to be a questionable location for a nuclear waste dump storing 77,000 tons of spent fuel pellets. Frustrated by slow progress on Yucca Mountain, the nuclear power industry and its congressional allies tried during the 1990s to designate the Nevada Test Site, adjacent to Yucca Mountain, as a "temporary" or "interim" waste storage site--a maneuver aimed at sidestepping the research into whether Yucca is a safe option. But Nevada officials were able to block Congress from moving forward with the scheme, largely because of President Bill Clinton's ties to state leaders. In addition, Nevada's clout in the Senate has grown dramatically in recent years, culminating earlier this year with the ascent of Democratic Sen. Harry Reid to the position of majority whip. Science The DOE is studying Yucca Mountain on the premise that it is a good place to store high-level nuclear waste for 10,000 years--the estimated amount of time it takes for the waste's deadly radioactivity to dissipate. The hard volcanic nature of the mountain and its dry, remote location, the thinking goes, reduce the likelihood that the waste would be exposed to the environment. But research shows that Yucca Mountain is not as solid and stable--or as dry--as previously thought. It is in an active earthquake zone, for one thing. Nevada ranks third in seismic activity behind California and Alaska, and several faults run through or near Yucca Mountain. The mountain's volcanic origins suggest that over a period as long as 10,000 years, it could erupt again. Studies also show that a leak of nuclear waste stored in Yucca Mountain--perhaps caused by an earthquake--could infiltrate nearby groundwater supplies, eventually exposing thousands of people to radioactivity. State scientists argue that in the past thermal water has risen within the mountain and could do so again. The concern is that a future upwelling of water, triggered by an earthquake or volcanic eruption, could flood the repository and corrode the metal waste canisters, allowing deadly radioactivity to be carried off into the groundwater used by nearby communities such as the Amargosa Valley. Meanwhile, there's the cask issue. The waste would be transported to Yucca Mountain in steel casks and stored there. The DOE touts its cask models as being very strong and unlikely to leak or corrode. But state scientists say their studies show the casks could indeed corrode and leak in a matter of hundreds of years. The DOE scientists have an attitude that they can make Yucca Mountain work. They have been presented with a challenge and intend to solve it. Originally, Yucca Mountain was preferred because it would provide natural or geologic barriers to keep radioactivity out of the environment. But today, in light of many studies showing Yucca Mountain's shortcomings, the DOE's efforts are focused on creating engineering barriers to prevent leakage. Environmentalists and Nevada officials are coming from the perspective that there's no way to adequately solve the nuclear waste problem with current technology. In addition, environmentalists and Nevada officials don't have much confidence in the DOE's abilities to do the job right. Transportation The safety of transporting the high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain is an issue that Nevada hopes to exploit to its advantage. And it has plenty of ammunition. The DOE contends it can transport the waste to Nevada with minimal risk of accident and almost no chance of the waste canisters cracking open and contaminating Ohio or Nebraska or whatever. DOE officials exhibit a good transportation safety record for the low- and mid-level radioactive waste that the agency has been carting around the continent in recent decades. But state officials say the high-level waste, to be transported by truck and train, would travel through parts of 43 states to get to Yucca Mountain, and common sense and statistical probability tell you there will be accidents. Bryan, the retired senator, likes to say that most pencils are still sold with an eraser (because humans make mistakes). Nevada scientists say the possibility of an accident in which nuclear waste canisters are breached should be a wake-up call for citizens and their congressional representatives across the country who are otherwise uninterested in the repository issue. The Nevada Legislature and Clark County Commission allocated a combined $5 million earlier this year for a national advertising campaign highlighting the dangers of nuclear waste transportation. Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, calls transportation the project's "Achilles' heel." He notes that the DOE still has not formally released its transportation plans, because publicity of the routes and accident risks could "help level the playing field, making some congressmen a little less enthusiastic about moving along this legislation." A series of recent high-profile accidents involving trains and trucks carrying hazardous cargo has given new ammunition to nuclear waste opponents. The accident that received the most attention from anti-nuclear forces was the July 18 derailment of a freight train in a tunnel beneath Baltimore. The train carrying hazardous chemicals burned for several days at temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees. If the train had been carrying nuclear waste, opponents suggest, the steel casks designed to protect radioactive waste could have been breached. "I hope everyone recognizes the tremendous tragedy that was just barely averted in Baltimore," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters after the derailment. "Hydrochloric acid is bad, but not as bad as nuclear waste. A speck the size of a pinpoint would kill a person." Then, on Aug. 5, a train derailed outside Houston, spilling thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals and forcing the evacuation of 100 homes. Three days later, a tanker truck carrying hazardous chemicals overturned on a busy freeway in Chicago, shutting down area roads and forcing the evacuation of nearby housing complexes. "While these incidents were extremely serious and dangerous," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., "one could only imagine the ramifications if any one of these trains contained nuclear waste." After Berkley made that statement, a truck transporting low-level nuclear waste from New York to Nevada was discovered to be carrying a cracked container. The driver noticed white foam on the truck bed and called authorities, who found an inch-long crack in one of the containers. DOE inspectors said they did not detect radiation around the truck, but the incident nevertheless fueled renewed concerns. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, combined with fears of more terrorist attacks in the United States, have reinforced concerns about the risks of nuclear waste transportation. Yucca Mountain opponents maintain that it is safer to simply keep the waste where it is--in concrete vaults at the nation's 103 reactor sites. Politics in Nevada Polls show a large majority of Nevadans strongly oppose the federal government's plan to dump nuclear waste in Nevada. But the sentiment is not unanimous. The predominant view in Nevada is that we should fight to the very end, never give up the battle against Yucca Mountain. This position holds that a nuclear waste dump would be disastrous for Nevada. It would be an environmental abomination, putting Nevadans at risk, and it would have a devastating effect on Las Vegas tourism. Many tourists surely would be frightened away by the thought of a deadly radioactive waste dump just 90 miles from the Strip. This view also is founded on the belief that Nevada can win its war with the pro-nuclear forces with strong scientific arguments and political clout. A small but growing contingent in Nevada is ready to make a deal. Led by the likes of state Sens. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, and Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, as well as county commissioners in Lincoln and Nye counties, this group believes the state cannot win the fight politically. Yucca Mountain is the only site being studied, they note, and the waste is coming eventually. Knowing that, this group believes Nevada should try to get something for its agreement to accept the waste. In the past, pro-Yucca forces have suggested Nevada could receive hundreds of millions of dollars for highways and schools and other public services in exchange for accepting the dump. The windfall could be a huge boon to cash-strapped Nevada, they say. Labor officials also tout the high-paying jobs that would come with the construction of a high-level nuclear waste dump. The anti-to-the-end types respond that if Nevada shows any willingness to compromise on the dump at this point, or considers taking any blood money, the fight is lost. The DOE still has several hurdles to get over--including the likelihood of a Nevada lawsuit--before it starts transporting waste to the Nevada desert, so there's no reason to get antsy yet. Bryan said at Friday's town hall meeting that if Yucca Mountain is a done deal, why have the pro-dump forces felt the need to recently hire former Nevada Gov. Bob List to campaign for their cause? Politics in Washington In the nation's capital, the long-running Yucca Mountain battle must seem bizarre to some observers. It's a case of one of the most powerful lobbies in Congress--the nuclear utilities--being beaten back time and again by environmental groups and little ol' Nevada. This doesn't happen very often. Nevada could have lost big time in the '90s when there was a push in Congress to store nuclear waste "temporarily" at the Nevada Test Site. Pro-nuclear members of Congress, pressured by nuclear utilities in their home states, introduced a bill to store the waste in Nevada right away and then shift it to Yucca Mountain once the larger issues were settled. Credit President Clinton with putting that idea on ice. It was never clear how strongly Clinton felt on the nuclear waste issue. Probably not very. But he had some very good friends in Nevada who lobbied him hard, and it worked. Clinton went to college with Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun, and stayed at Greenspun's Henderson house a few times during his years in office. Greenspun contributed heavily to Clinton's campaigns and once stayed in the White House's Lincoln Bedroom. Last month, Clinton made a trip to Las Vegas, during which he sat down for an exclusive interview with Sun reporters and toured the Greenspun media offices, shaking hands and taking pictures with staffers. Clinton also is close with former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller and casino mogul Steve Wynn. Nevadans supporting Vice President Al Gore for president expected him to continue Clinton's policy of skepticism toward Yucca Mountain, if not downright opposition to the project. But when George W. Bush was elected, the anti-nuclear forces briefly thought the battle might be over. Adding to the concern was Bush's call for the fast-tracking of new nuclear power plants as part of his plan to solve what he called an energy crisis rivaling the shortages of the 1970s. A bevy of new plants would increase the pressure to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Bush's DOE, under Secretary Spencer Abraham, has accelerated studies of Yucca Mountain's suitability. "The new administration is a very strong advocate for nuclear power and a central repository," says Michael O'Donovan, press secretary for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "Vice President Cheney, in particular, has been a very outspoken advocate." What Bush and friends didn't count on was a Republican member of the narrowly divided Senate to change his party affiliation. When Vermont's James Jeffords did just that, in part at the urging of Nevada's Reid, the Democrats took control of the upper chamber. And that made Reid the majority whip--the second most powerful person in the Senate. Reid confidently announced that any talk of a nuclear waste dump was dead for this year. In addition to his party seniority, Reid has two committee assignments that give him tremendous oversight of Yucca Mountain. First, he's chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, where he plays a significant role in determining the budget for Yucca Mountain studies. Cutting the DOE's budget for Yucca Mountain research could, at the very least, delay the project. Second, he's chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety, which oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is the body that will determine whether Yucca Mountain should be licensed. So, despite the Bush administration's clear intention to press ahead on Yucca Mountain, the future of the repository is anything but decided. "I think we can stop the dump, although I'm not sure we can truly prevent Bush from signing a bill authorizing the project," says Hal Rothman, a UNLV history professor. "A signed bill is only the first step in a 10-year process of trying to permanently site waste in Nevada. It's a long way from a piece of paper to the first carload of waste, and I suspect that the road will be fraught with lawsuits of all kinds." The future Local pessimists say nuclear waste will come to Nevada eventually, it's only a matter of time. Local optimists believe that Nevada, with its growing political clout and with mounting scientific evidence that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable, can successfully fend off the pro-nuclear hordes. As that debate rages locally, part of the nuclear waste battle has shifted to Utah, where a plan is in the works to store high-level waste "temporarily" on an Indian reservation near Salt Lake City. Most Utah political leaders oppose the plan (although, historically, they have voted in support of Yucca Mountain), but the sovereignty of Indian lands may preclude them from stopping it. In Washington, the process of licensing Yucca Mountain is expected to get under way next year, when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham formally recommends the site. At that point, Nevada will veto the plan, as is spelled out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but then Congress will overturn the state's veto. That will set in motion the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's lengthy licensing procedure. If the commission licenses Yucca Mountain, Nevada will sue, an eventuality that state-financed lawyers are already hard at work on. But the real solution to the nuclear waste dilemma may lie beyond the debate over storage in a dusty hill north of Las Vegas or an Indian reservation in Utah. Scientific advances suggest that in the future the waste could be transformed through chemical processes into a less-deadly substance. Transmutation is the new alchemy in science circles, and federal and state officials are starting to take a keen interest. Transmutation reduces the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste by bombarding it with neutrons. As a result, the storage time would be reduced from 10,000 years to about 300 years. Congress has been increasing funding for transmutation research, from $5 million in 1999 to $34 million this year to possibly $50 million next year. UNLV scientists are involved in transmutation research. But as envisioned now, transmutation is not a panacea. First of all, the waste still would have to be stored safety for hundreds of years, although maybe not in a central repository such as Yucca Mountain, but a series of regional sites that would not have to meet the same safety standards. Second, transmutation would be billions of dollars more expensive--far more costly than simply sliding steel canisters into underground tunnels in the desert. On the other hand, transmutation could offset some or all of the costs by producing energy in the process. The strongest critics right now are environmentalists who say transmutation would be used as an argument for the construction of more nuclear power plants. Unlike Nevada political leaders, many environmentalists not only oppose nuclear waste disposal, they oppose nuclear power generally. What to do with high-level nuclear waste has been debated and studied for 45 years, but it seems we're not much closer to a solution everyone can live with. We may never be. ***************************************************************** 32 Guinn spotlights waste accident scenario [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, November 02, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Letter cites analysis of train tunnel fire, nuclear casks By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Gov. Kenny Guinn this week sent to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid a letter stressing the importance of a new study into potential effects from a fire in a train tunnel involving nuclear waste shipments headed to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. The study, based on summer's Baltimore tunnel fire, analyzed the consequences from a similar fire involving a steel cask containing about a ton of spent nuclear fuel. "Due to the duration of the fire and the extremely high temperatures, the accident would have resulted in a significant release of radiation from the transportation container," Guinn said in his letter to Reid, D-Nev., on Wednesday. The July 18 rail accident in Baltimore's Howard Street tunnel caused a fire that burned for five days and was hot enough -- up to 1,500 degrees -- to breach a large rail cask of spent nuclear fuel. If such an accident happened, clouds of radioactive particles, including cesium isotopes, would be released out of the ends of the tunnel and carried by winds, according to the recently completed study by Radioactive Waste Management Associates. The New York consulting firm was hired by Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency. The study, written by Matthew Lamb and Marvin Resnikoff, used data from the July 18 accident, including the fire's temperature, its duration, weather conditions, surrounding population figures and land-use patterns. Yucca Mountain Project officials said they had not seen the study and could not comment on it. Lamb and Resnikoff estimated that some 390,388 residents in the Baltimore area would be exposed and that between 4,972 and 31,824 related cancer deaths would occur in 50 years. Cleanup costs would be $13.7 billion if varying levels of contamination spread over some 33 square miles, including four square miles of heavy contamination, if a nuclear waste cask had been engulfed in the fire, they concluded. In the Baltimore tunnel fire, rail cars glowed because temperatures were so hot. One firefighter described the cars as "a deep orange, like a horseshoe just pulled out of the oven," the study said, citing a story in the Baltimore Sun. The study assumed that half of all radioactive particles released would attach to nearby surfaces "and are therefore not part of the airborne release estimate." Shortly after the Baltimore tunnel fire, Reid added to an appropriation bill an amendment that requires the Department of Transportation to analyze the risks of moving hazardous materials on bridges, tunnels and highways; make recommendations for safety improvements; and ensure that emergency response teams are prepared. The measure passed 96-0, but Congress has not finalized it. "We need to know the risks of haz-mat (hazardous material) accidents before, not after, they happen," Reid said in introducing the measure in July. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-02-Fri-2001/news/17359334.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-02-Fri-2001/news/17359334.html] ***************************************************************** 33 NRC probing possible leak of Yucca plan [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, November 02, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada officials allege document given to DOE By STEVE TETREAULT DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is investigating whether an internal document was leaked to Energy Department officials to help them prepare a license application to bury nuclear waste in Nevada. The NRC is sending two members of its inspector general's staff to Nevada to begin checking the allegations, agency spokeswoman Sue Gagner said Thursday. Gagner said the NRC launched its probe last week after receiving information about the matter. She would not disclose the nature or source of the information. "This is a high-priority investigation," Gagner said. The agency is pursuing allegations, aired publicly this week by Nevada officials, that a draft of the NRC's license review plan was given by someone within the agency to a lawyer for Winston &Strawn, a firm given a $16.5 million contract in 1999 to perform legal work on the Energy Department's anticipated license application to build and run a repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The license review plan subsequently was given to officials within the Yucca Mountain Project, Nevada officials allege. Bob Loux, head of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Office, said two sources within the Energy Department told him late last week the NRC document has turned up within the Yucca Mountain program within the past two weeks. Joe Egan, an attorney working for the state of Nevada, said he tried to get a copy of the document from the NRC this week and was told it was not public. He said officials he spoke with did not seem aware that copies may be in circulation outside the agency. NRC staff form review plans to set procedures the agency will use to judge license applications. When the plans are finalized, the five NRC commissioners make them available to all interested parties. "If one side gets advance warning about procedures, it really affords that party the opportunity to lobby the commission and lobby the agency staff," Egan said. Loux said if the allegations are true, it would indicate an improperly close relationship between the NRC as a regulator and the Energy Department as a license applicant. Yucca Mountain Project spokesman Allen Benson said he could not comment on a matter being investigated by the NRC. He would not say whether the Energy Department is conducting its own review. On Wednesday, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sent a letter to NRC Inspector General Hubert T. Bell, asking him to pursue the allegations. Reid's staff received a call Thursday letting them know an investigation already was under way, aides said. Reid said a premature release of the license review plan "would seriously undermine the credibility of both the NRC and the DOE, and likely is in violation of NRC and DOE rules and applicable laws." Egan said NRC leaks could amount to violations of the agency's rules of practice as well as professional codes that govern the affairs of attorneys. "At the very least, this contributes to a loss of public confidence," Egan said. There was no indication Thursday whether an investigation would cause delays in the repository program. Managers have said they expect Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to decide late this year whether to recommend Yucca Mountain as a repository site. It is the only location being studied for placement of the repository. Winston &Strawn had no immediate comment on the allegations. The Energy Department already is investigating conflict of interest allegations involving the Chicago-based firm, which was registered as a lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-repository trade group, at the same time it was working for the department on Yucca Mountain matters. The law firm ended its relationship with the NEI in July. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-02-Fri-2001/news/17363628.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-02-Fri-2001/news/17363628.html] ***************************************************************** 34 Bolton fears nuclear terrorism The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan Updated on 11/2/2001 10:35:08 AM WASHINGTON (Agencies): The September suicide attacks have increased concerns that extremists would use weapons of mass destruction, including possibly nuclear weapons, against the United States, under-secretary of State John Bolton said.Answering questions at a breakfast with defence writers, he predicted that if extremists possess weapons of mass destruction, a term that encompasses nuclear, biological and chemical arms, they will use them. “I’m concerned about weapons of mass destruction everywhere and my concern about weapons of mass destruction everywhere has gone up since the war began,” he said. John Bolton, the State Department’s top official dealing with arms control and international security affairs, said he was worried there will be use of a weapon of mass destruction. September 11 proved that anybody willing to fly a jet airplane into the World Trade Center is not going to be deterred by anything, he said. Had these people had ballistic missile technology, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have used it. If they could couple that with a weapon of mass destruction, nuclear or whatever, and dropped it on lower Manhattan, as tragic as the destruction of the World Trade Center was, the loss of lower Manhattan or any comparable place would obviously be a lot worse, he said. Referring to the US struggle with a spreading incidence of infection with the potent germ warfare agent anthrax, Bolton said “we’re having use by somebody of a weapon of mass destruction now, so it’s not a hypothetical concern.” He refused to say if the United States knew whether Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network of extremists, blamed by Washington for the September attacks that killed an estimated 5,000 people, were in possession of nuclear weapons. But he said one consequence of the US attacks was a heightened awareness of the interrelationship between non-proliferation and terrorists and that as a result, efforts to halt the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological arms will receive more attention in coming months. Essentially every state on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism is also an aspirant to obtain weapons of mass destruction or may already have them, he said. Iran, Iraq and North Korea have long been key states of U.S. concern in regard to both weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Some administration officials have urged including Iraq as a target in the war on terrorism but so far they have not prevailed. John Bolton said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had made courageous decisions in supporting the antiterrorism effort and the United States has taken steps, including financial assistance, to support his government. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 35 No leaks found after N-plant fire Daily Yomiuri On-Line [CRIME-ACCIDENT] Yomiuri Shimbun No radiation leaks occurred after a fire that lasted through Thursday morning broke out inside a building where radioactive materials are handled at the Joyo nuclear reactor site in Oaraimachi, Ibaraki Prefecture, on Wednesday, according to investigators. No one was injured in the blaze that started at 8:40 p.m. Wednesday and burned flammable objects on the ground floor before being extinguished at about 11:30 a.m Thursday, the investigators said. The building belongs to Oarai Engineering Center of the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute and was unmanned when the fire began. The ferroconcrete structure, which has a ground level and two basement levels, is used for removing sodium from components of the the experimental Joyo reactor fast breeder-reactor, dismantling contaminated machinery and temporarily storing them. It is located about 30 meters west of the reactor and designated by the government as a controlled area for the handling of radioactive materials. The institute, which owns Joyo, and Ibaraki prefectural police and firefighters donned protective masks and helmets to inspect radiation monitors. They determined no radiation leak or other serious problem had occurred. The officials agreed the fire probably started in a tank used to wash sodium from components. Radioactive sodium catches fire and discharges radioactive substances if it comes into contact with air or water. But the institute said there was no possibility the fire had been sparked by sodium. An institute official said the fire could not have started naturally as sodium-covered components are sealed with nitrogen gas to prevent them from catching fire. The institute reported that institute staff and 12 contract workers had cut metal pipes used to circulate sodium and cleaned them in the tank in a machinery room on the building's ground floor between 9 a.m. and 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday. The building, which has a total floor space of 1,400 square meters, was locked when the workers left, the institute said. The Oarai Engineering Center closes its main gate at night and guards are stationed at the entrance, according to the institute. The director of the Oarai Engineering Center, Tsutomu Yanagisawa, apologized at a press conference Thursday morning. "We caused great trouble and concern to all those concerned.We find it especially serious that the fire broke out in a facility that handles sodium," he said. === Emergency stop in Fukushima A nuclear reactor in Narahamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, automatically stopped operating when its monitors detected abnormally high levels of neutrons just one hour after the plant was restarted following a maintenance check on Thursday. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) reported the No. 2 reactor at its Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant stopped automatically about 1 a.m. TEPCO officials said there was no risk of radioactive leakage and the company was investigating the cause of the problem. The officials said the reactor's operations were suspended on Oct. 18 to allow maintenance on connected electricity lines. The reactor was restarted just after midnight Thursday. Abnormally high levels of neutrons were detected and the reactor automatically stopped, the officials said. Copyright 2001 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 36 THE crashing of a hijacked passenger jet into Sellafield nuclear plant on the Cumbrian coast, could release 44 times more lethal radiation than the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine. Gordon Thompson, executive director of the US Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Massachusetts, says such an incident would send a plume of deadly particles into the atmosphere, and certainly contaminate much of Britain and Ireland. Depending on wind direction and speed, the plume might spread over much of the near-continent, causing two million cancer cases in the next 50 years. British Energy, the East Kilbride-based body that supervises the UK's seven gas-cooledatomic power stations, dismissed Mr Thompson's claims as "alarmist". But he was backed by Mohamed El Baradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Authority, the UN watchdog authority that regulates safety standards for the nuclear industry. He said targeting nuclear facilities to cause "a Chernobyl-style disaster" was the most probable choice for terrorist groups hoping to "incite panic, contaminate property, and inflict death and injury among civilians." The path of the PanAm plane blown up by a bomb over Lockerbie in 1988 was a few moments' flight time from Sellafield. -Nov 2nd ***************************************************************** 37 Tunnel fire cited as cause for nuke waste changes Las Vegas SUN November 02, 2001 By Mary Manning Gov. Kenny Guinn and state attorneys have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to immediately amend rules that apply to the shipment of radioactive waste. Guinn's request came after the release of a study that factored in the presence of nuclear waste in a July 18 accident in Baltimore, where a train hauling toxic materials derailed in a tunnel. The accident led to a fire that shut down a portion of the city for more than a week. State officials have asked for a formal hearing concerning the report. If Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is approved by the Department of Energy to store 77,000 tons of the nation's high-level radioactive waste, the nuclear waste would be shipped to the site from locations throughout the county. The report, "Radiological Consequences of Severe Rail Accidents Involving Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments to Yucca Mountain: Hypothetical Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire Involving SNF (spent nuclear fuel)," was released to the public Thursday. The report analyzes the hypothetical release of radiation that subsequently blows 43 miles from a leaking nuclear waste container. Radioactive waste from the Calvert Cliffs reactor in Maryland would pass through the Baltimore tunnel en route to Yucca Mountain. The analysis relied on weather and environmental conditions that were present during the five-day fire. A "worst case" blaze could cause seals on either end of a metal container to crack, subsequently releasing enough radiation to expose 345,493 people and cause eight to 50 cases of cancer, the report says. Total cleanup costs were estimated at $13.7 billion. "In order to reduce a longterm dose, significant decontamination of the affected areas would be required, along with the likely relocation of a large number of households and businesses most affected," wrote the study's authors, Matthew Lamb and Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates. If an appropriate evacution and decontamination plan was in place, exposures could be "significantly" reduced, the report said, although the warning system must improve. Although Civil Defense sirens were activated as a result of the fire, residents became confused and did not immediately turn on televisions or radios, the report said. "Regardless, the scenario involving a spent nuclear fuel cask in a situation similar to the Baltimore tunnel fire would be disastrous," the 20-page report concluded. Guinn sent a copy of the report to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "As you will see from the report, the consequences of such an accident involving spent fuel would be disastrous," Guinn wrote in a separate memo. "It's definitely another arrow in our arsenal," Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said. Two years ago Nevada asked the NRC to review rules -- adopted in 1983 -- that outline how nuclear facilities would be protected against terrorism. The NRC has not responded to the state's request. NRC Chairman Richard Meserve has ordered such a review, which is ongoing, an NRC spokesman said Thursday. On Oct. 16, a Washington-based law firm that is working for the state in its fight against Yucca, asked Meserve for a formal hearing on the transportation of nuclear waste and security measures in place at DOE facilities throughout the country. "The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington, D.C., have, unfortunately, proven the state of Nevada's petition to be prophetic," wrote Washington attorney William Briggs Jr. of Ross, Dixon &Bell L.L.P., to Meserve. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Troops remain stationed at Wolf Creek power site Lawrence Journal-World: National Guard protects state's only nuclear plant facility By Carl Manning - Associated Press Writer Friday, November 2, 2001 Topeka — Long before this week's increased security at the nation's nuclear power plants, Kansas National Guard troops were on duty at the Wolf Creek facility. Throughout the nation, nuclear power plants, already on high alert, increased security even more in light of this week's new terrorist warning. Wolf Creek, near Burlington, is the state's only nuclear power plant. Guardsmen were placed on duty at the plant about a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Guard spokeswoman Joy Moser said Thursday. "We do have people down there, in addition to their own security. It is as a precaution," Moser said, declining to discuss the number of guard troops assigned or their duties. Federal officials, as well as industry spokesmen, have emphasized there has not been a specific threat against any of the 103 power reactors in 31 states. Aside from Kansas, at least seven other states have national guardsmen helping protect nuclear facilities, with Missouri being the latest on Thursday. Other states are Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Arizona. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also asked power plant operators this week to take another look at their security. "We have been in a heightened level of awareness since Sept. 11," Wolf Creek spokeswoman Jenny Hageman said. "We have taken additional measures. Safety is always a priority at Wolf Creek. We have just stepped it up." She declined to discuss specifics, but said the facility has a full-time security staff. "I feel very comfortable coming to work every day. I see the containment building outside my window." The 1,200-megawatt plant has one reactor and is owned jointly by Kansas City Power and Light Co., Kansas Gas and Electric Co., and Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives Inc. KGE is a division of Western Resources Inc. Meanwhile, Coffey County State Lake, near the plant, remains closed for security reasons. In addition to Wolf Creek, Kansas guardsmen also are providing additional security at eight commercial airports, including Wichita's Mid-Continent, the state's largest. •Lawrence Journal-World ***************************************************************** 39 Agency Warns of Nuclear Terrorism (washingtonpost.com) International Atomic Group Looks at 'Worst-Case Scenario' By T.R. Reid Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, November 2, 2001; Page A10 LONDON, Nov. 1 -- Governments around the world are tightening security at nuclear facilities as the International Atomic Energy Agency is warning that nuclear terrorism "seems far more likely in the wake of Sept. 11." On Wednesday, the United States established "no-fly" zones over civilian and military nuclear installations to prevent a suicide aircraft crash that could release hazardous radiation. France has set up antiaircraft missiles to protect the large pond used to store spent but toxic nuclear fuel at its Cap La Hague reprocessing plant. And the atomic agency has scheduled an emergency seminar Friday at its headquarters in Vienna to show delegates from dozens of countries how to counter terrorist threats. "We don't want to alarm anybody, but we now have to prepare for the worst-case scenario -- a terrorist who obtains some kind of nuclear weapon," Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency's director general, said in an interview. A renegade group equipped with a stolen nuclear weapon is a staple of James Bond movies, but in fact there has never been a case of nuclear terrorism, the agency said. There have been about 400 cases of nuclear smuggling in the past decade, but none involved nearly enough fissionable material to build a nuclear weapon. And there is no recorded case of anyone making a "dirty bomb" incorporating radioactive material. Still, ElBaradei said that increased precautions are essential after the Sept. 11 suicide attacks. Previously, officials at nuclear installations thought the risk of handling radioactive material would deter thieves or vandals, he said, "but if the terrorist is willing to die, that changes the security equation drastically." At Friday's seminar, which about 100 representatives from government agencies and nuclear facilities in the United States are expected to attend, the agency will lay out three possible approaches terrorists might take, ElBaradei said. One is that renegade groups could accumulate material to make a nuclear bomb. But Graham Andrew, a technical expert at the agency, said there is little risk of this because "it would be difficult for anybody to obtain enough nuclear material." A more likely scenario is construction of a dirty bomb -- a conventional plastic explosive or TNT salted with nuclear isotopes. The resulting explosion could spread radioactivity across a metropolitan area. "It might not be strong enough to cause serious health problems, but it could create panic," Andrew said. There are more than 10,000 possible sources of radioactive material around the planet for a terrorist to steal, the agency said. The third scenario would be an airplane or truck bomb breaching the walls of a nuclear plant and releasing toxic radiation. George Bunn, an analyst at Stanford's Institute for International Studies, who will speak at the seminar, said he thinks this kind of attack poses the greatest risk of nuclear terrorism. The energy agency said there are 438 nuclear-powered electric generating stations in the world, mostly in Europe, the United States and Japan, and about 250 nuclear fuel plants. "Of course, reactors are shielded, they have safeguards," Bunn said. "But we didn't think about terrorism when we designed those things. If you had an Oklahoma City kind of truck bomb at a reactor or a spent fuel pond, you'd be releasing some very radioactive stuff into the atmosphere." "Exactly what it would do, nobody can say," said Bunn, who has worked on nuclear terrorism issues for 15 years. "But when I think about it, I'm scared." © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 40 Russia To Participate In Construction Of Nuclear Power Station In India Source: RosBusiness Consulting Story Filed: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:11 AM EST Moscow, Russia, Nov 02, 2001 (RosBusinessConsulting via COMTEX) -- Premier of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee will make an official visit to Russia on November 4-7 and hold talks concerning Russia's participation in the construction of a nuclear power station in Kadum-Kulame (India). Atomic Energy Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Rumyantsev reported this in an interview with journalists today. According to him, a "general agreement" will be signed after the negotiations, and the final terms of the beginning of construction will be determined later. The volume of financing of the project will be determined after the final approval of the project, Rumyantsev stressed. At the same time, the official noted that the total cost of the VVER-1,000 nuclear reactor is around $600m. The Minister added, that Russia accepts the possibility of its participation in the construction of "nuclear facilities" not only in China, India and Iran, but in Eastern Europe as well. Copyright (C) 2001, RosBusinessConsulting. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 41 New calls to tighten air security Ananova - The aviation industry is facing calls to tighten up air security. Two newspapers have exposed weaknesses that could have been exploited by terrorists. One team of journalists got into the cockpit of a passenger jet and another chartered a plane and flew directly over a nuclear power plant. A two-man team from The Mirror roamed freely around a Boeing 737 passenger jet at Stansted Airport. Another team from the Western Daily Press chartered a plane and flew directly over a nuclear power plant in Somerset. The Mirror journalists drove into the staff car park of maintenance firm FLS Aerospace at Stansted, Essex, before walking into a hangar, the newspaper claimed. They were said to have walked past a security office without being asked for identification and climbed into a plane belonging to the cut-price airline Go. They spent an hour in the hangar and in the plane, and even picked up a coffee at the vending machine as staff strolled by, it is claimed. A spokeswoman for FLS Aerospace said: "The security personnel who were on duty have been suspended without prejudice pending an investigation. The US has imposed no-fly zones around its nuclear power stations but the Western Daily Press plane was able to circle directly above Hinkley Point A and B nuclear reactors, near Bridgwater, while a photographer took pictures. Story filed: 12:16 Friday 2nd November 2001 Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd ***************************************************************** 42 Sydney 'should be prepared for attack on nuclear plant' theage.com.au, Breaking News Source: AAP|Published: Friday November 2, 1:18 PM Every household in Sydney should be issued with potassium iodide tablets in case the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor becomes the target of a terrorist attack, NSW Senate candidate Helen Caldicott said today. The call by Dr Caldicott comes in the wake of yesterday's declaration by the Taliban that Australia was now a target of a holy war because of its alliance with the United States. Dr Caldicott said the government needed to protect Australians in light of the threat, especially those living around the southern Sydney nuclear reactor. ``The Australian Government should take responsibility for Lucas Heights and every household in Sydney should have been issued with potassium iodide tablets,'' she told AAP. The paediatrician and activist is a candidate for the anti-nuclear Our Common Future Party. She said an attack on the reactor would be disastrous for Sydney. ``If there was an attack on Lucas Heights, the predominate radioactive material escaping would be radioactive iodine, which is taken up avidly by children's thyroids, but also adult thyroids,'' she said. Taking potassium iodide up to 16 hours after exposure can block the uptake of radioactive iodine. It would need to be taken for two weeks after contamination, Dr Caldicott said. There was an unknown quantity of potassium iodide stockpiled at Lucas Heights but it was reserved for emergency workers in the event of an accident, she said. Copyright © 2001 The Age Company Ltd. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 43 Groups ask NRC to consider terrorist threat to nuclear plant By Associated Press, 11/2/2001 08:48 WATERFORD, Conn. (AP) Federal regulators have been asked to consider the increased possibility of terrorist attacks on the Millstone Power Station. The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone and the Long Island Coalition Against Millstone filed a motion Thursday with the Nuclear Regulator Commission asking that regulatory proceedings be reopened, The groups say new hearings should be held to consider the ''never previously analyzed terrorist threat'' to spent-fuel pools in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Earlier this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that plans to store more nuclear fuel in an existing water-filled pool at the Unit 3 reactor posed no significant environmental risk. But the motion filed Thursday claims that if the pools are damaged in an attack and water laced with radiation-absorbing boron particles be lost, a radioactive fire could result. The groups propose dry storage in reinforced concrete casks as a safer alternative. The two groups say the Sept. 11 attacks ''demonstrate conclusively that destructive acts of malice or insanity against U.S. nuclear facilities ... are foreseeable events'' and should be considered. ''We feel we have a comprehensive and safe program for the management of spent fuel at Unit 3,'' Millstone spokesman Pete Hyde said. ***************************************************************** 44 Action urged over nuclear threat - CNN.com - November 2, 2001 [Sellafield] Countries around the world are being urged to review security at nuclear plants VIENNA, Austria -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has urged governments to "act quickly" to prevent any terrorist atomic attack. Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told a special safety session in Vienna on Friday that a terrorist nuclear attack was more likely than previously thought. The total disregard for human life in the September 11 suicide strikes on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon have alerted experts to the heightened threat of such an attack, he said. Countries must move to protect their atomic installations and act to prevent nuclear material getting into the hands of terrorists, he added. ElBaradei said: "We need to act quickly to protect ourselves." Experts from many of the 132 member states of the IAEA are attending the session, looking at how to protect installations. France and the U.S. have stepped up security at sites, placing anti-aircraft batteries near some nuclear facilities, but it is unclear what measures the UK has taken. ElBaradei said it is unclear whether terrorist groups have the capability of building a nuclear bomb, but warned that governments must act immediately to prevent it from happening. "We don't have any information that al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisation has nuclear material," he said. "We are not directing our attention against any particular terrorist group, just protecting against any possible attack." Poorer nations need to protect their nuclear interests most, he added. ElBaradei called on countries around the world to take a careful inventory of the security risks at their nuclear power plants and other facilities and to spend the money necessary to ensure they can prevent or withstand terrorist attacks. Nuclear experts are especially worried that terrorists could obtain low-level radioactive material and construct a so-called "dirty bomb." Unlike more sophisticated nuclear weapons, a "dirty bomb" is a crude device using radioactive material taken from industrial sites or hospitals and detonated by conventional explosives. Founded in 1957, the agency sets world standards for nuclear safety and provides help to countries in case of a radiological disaster. The nuclear weapon programmes in the five acknowledged nuclear weapons states -- China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States -- are not subject to IAEA safeguards. Neither are any that may exist in India, Pakistan and Israel, countries that have either tested or developed nuclear weapons, and are outside the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. ElBaradei pleaded for international unity in creating universal and stringent controls on nuclear materials. © 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 45 Security costs take heavy toll American News (Aberdeen) | Big bite chomped out of city, county budgets By Chelsea J. Carter Associated Press Writer All the extra airport patrols, security cameras and X-ray machines put in place since Sept. 11 may have eased security fears, but they're taking a huge bite out of city and county budgets. Governments across the country have racked up millions of dollars in unbudgeted expenses, and analysts say the final price tag could top several billion dollars. In California alone, the bill could top $500 million by the end of next year. In Michigan, local governments determined they would need $73 million in equipment and training just to meet preparedness goals. Cities and counties have begun seeking federal and state assistance to cope with the costs, and some are considering raising taxes. "We understand we're taking our marching orders on terrorism out of Washington, but there has to be some serious dialogue about how we are going to pay for this," said Scott King, the mayor of Gary, Ind. "A singular diet of tax credits and cuts isn't going to be the revenue that these cities and counties require," he said. Congress has earmarked billions of dollars in aid for New York, Washington and hard-hit airlines, but little so far has been targeted for local governments. Republicans support a House-passed $100 billion economic stimulus plan, which consists mostly of tax cuts for businesses and grants to help pay for laid-off workers' health insurance premiums. Senate Democrats want to tack on $20 billion for security upgrades at airports and nuclear plants, investments in state and local anti-terrorism law enforcement, improving food safety and improving U.S. border security. Under the federal legislation, however, the money would go to states, not directly to cities and counties. Many local governments are also being stung by the loss of millions in sales and hotel taxes because tourists are staying home. "There are going to be wrenching decisions that have to be made," said economist Steve Cochrane, who tracks state and local finances for Economy.com. "Local governments can cut back and raise taxes. But for some local governments, they are going to have to find some new ways to raise revenue to pay for this." A coalition that includes the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the International City-County Management Association has proposed a federal stimulus package that includes spending for local public works projects. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is seeking to recover $1.5 billion its 1,200 member cities have spent since the terrorist attacks, though Cochrane said a federal bailout was unlikely. "Police and firefighters will be at the head of the line for federal support," he said. "But beyond that, it's going to be up to local governments to get through it." In Fresno, Calif., city officials took the unorthodox step last month of declaring a state of emergency while paying an estimated $5,000 a week in overtime to police officers and firefighters. The order allowed the California Air National Guard to take over patrols around its base. Washington's King County, which includes Seattle, is considering a property tax to help pay for its security costs. Santa Fe, N.M., and its surrounding county created a joint task force to share security costs. California Gov. Gray Davis is considering whether to call a special legislative session to create an economic stimulus package. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn has started a task force to examine how the attacks have affected the city's budget and local economy. "All of it has an impact," Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook said. "The increased security around City Hall, the number of firefighters on the street, more police officers responding to suspicious reports." Beyond the current security, local governments are scrambling to determine whether they are ready for a terrorist attack. Last week, more than 100 mayors huddled in Washington to discuss preparations. San Jose, Calif., is one of the few cities with a plan in place. Establishing the program cost $1.4 million, mostly from federal grants, and the city spends about $300,000 a year to keep it running. Gary, Ind., population 110,000, is among many cities conducting risk assessments. "In addition to New York City and Washington," King said, "cities across the country are picking up unexpected costs." © 2001 Aberdeen American News. All rights reserved. Any copying, ***************************************************************** 46 Review of 'weak' security at civil nuclear centres news.telegraph.co.uk - By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent (Filed: 02/11/2001) SECURITY is being reviewed at civil nuclear installations across Europe amid concerns that they could be the next targets of terrorist attacks, a succession of European governments said yesterday. A French soldier guards a SAM battery recently placed at the Cogema nuclear plant at La Hague, Cherbourg The statements came after the United Nations nuclear safety watchdog gave warning that nuclear terrorism was now "far more likely". Experts will meet in Vienna today at a conference on nuclear terrorism organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yesterday, the agency's director general, Mohamed Elbaradei, said security surrounding radioactive sources was "disturbingly weak". Mr Elbaradei said nuclear reactors were relatively well protected but gave warning that controls on radioactive material used for medicine and industry were uneven. "Security is as good as its weakest link and loose nuclear material in any country is a potential threat to the entire world," he said. "The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before September 11." Since 1970 there has been a six-fold rise in the use of nuclear material in peaceful programmes. The IAEA is concerned about the tens of thousands of radiation sources used in agriculture, medicine, industry and research. Many have been abandoned or separated from regulatory control. IAEA experts believe that terrorists could build crude "dirty" bombs by shrouding conventional explosives around a radioactive source from a hospital or laboratory. Abel Gonzalez, the IAEA's director of radiation and waste safety, said security surrounding radioactive materials had traditionally been relatively light. "There are few security precautions on radiotherapy equipment and a large source could be removed quite easily, especially if those involved had no regard for their own health," he said. "In many countries, the regulatory oversight of radiation sources is weak. As a result, an undetermined number of radioactive sources have become orphaned of regulatory control and their location is unknown. "The effects of a dirty bomb would not be devastating in terms of human life. But contamination in even small quantities could have major psychological and economic effects." The IAEA said it was also concerned about the risks of a fully fuelled jet being crashed into a nuclear reactor. "After September 11, we realised that nuclear facilities - like dams, refineries, chemical production facilities or skyscrapers - have their vulnerabilities," Mr Elbaradei said. "There is no safety zone." Mr Elbaradei urged countries with nuclear weapons programmes - Britain, China, France, America, the Russian Federation, India, Pakistan and Israel - to review security urgently. A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman declined to say whether additional measures had been taken since September 11. "We've always applied the stringent international rules on nuclear plant safety. We've taken the extra threat on board and are reviewing security at installations," he said. In Germany, power companies have tightened security and in Russia, extra Interior Ministry troops are patrolling sites. France has taken dramatic measures to strengthen security, deploying ground-to-air missiles near a nuclear plant at La Hague. Terrorists have never used a nuclear weapon but there have been reports that some groups, including al-Qa'eda, have tried to buy material. Since 1993, according to IAEA figures, there have been 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material and 201 incidents of trafficking in radioactive materials for medicine or industry. Eighteen cases involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the material needed to make a bomb. 12 October 2001: Demand for no-fly zone at Sellafield 11 October 2001: Passenger jet hit on Sellafield 'would dwarf Chernobyl fall-out' © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited ***************************************************************** 47 King: No need to send troops to Maine Yankee © 2001 George J. Foster Co. Friday, November 2, 2001 By GLENN ADAMS Associated Press Writer AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Gov. Angus King said Thursday that posting National Guard troops at Maine Yankee would do little to bolster security at the closed nuclear power plant. The governor also said he is becoming increasingly concerned about the state being saddled with new defense responsibilities and costs related to terrorism and threats of attacks. The state has received little beyond "vague reassurances" from the federal government that it will provide costs of what is traditionally a federal responsibility, King said. King made the remarks after being asked about a federal directive to tighten security at nuclear power plants in response to the latest alert of potential terrorist attacks. A Maine Yankee spokesman declined to discuss security at the Wiscasset site. Without going into great detail, King said security has been beefed up with armed guards, concrete barriers and blocked-off roads near the site. He noted that the plant’s level of risk is lower than that of operating plants. "Based upon the risks, and the provisions that are in place, I do not believe it would significantly increase the security of that facility to add National Guard troops," King said. King said his decision not to send troops to Maine Yankee is not based on costs the state would incur. But he said the state has been absorbing increased expenses to provide defense from terrorist threats while getting no compensation from the federal government. King said there’s a strong consensus among governors that states should receive funding for new defense costs. "I am not being unpatriotic. I and all of the other governors are perfectly willing to do all that we can to assist," he said. But he said the list of facilities that need new protection or extra services, such as airports, nuclear plants and health labs, is growing longer. King said he had no figures for what the state’s cost is so far, saying it is not a "huge" sum. But the city of Portland alone has spent $400,000 in added security-related expenses, he said. The governor acknowledged the federal government has promised Maine compensation for added security at airports in the state. King acknowledged that some sites in the state other than Maine Yankee are getting added security, but he would not identify them. On Monday, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge told governors to consider deploying more police at nuclear power plants, but left it up to the states to decide on use of guardsmen, the White House said. King said he knew of no other governor who has posted guards at the site of a decommissioned nuclear power plant. Some local officials near the coastal Maine Yankee site are worried about the vulnerability of more than 1,400 highly radioactive spent fuel rod assemblies being stored at the site. ***************************************************************** 48 An unlikely target Orange County Register - Local Nuclear power plant runs little risk of terrorist attack, officials say, but security is beefed up nonetheless. November 2, 2001 By JOEL ZLOTNIK The Orange County Register The San Onofre nuclear power plant's unique location - on Marine Corps land - makes it an unlikely target for terrorists, officials say, although they have added even more security with this week's heightened terrorist alert. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, three miles south of San Clemente, continues to review and refine security plans, said Ray Golden, spokesman for plant operator Southern California Edison. Additional security measures were put in place this week regarding how vehicles travel on the grounds of the power plant, Golden said. That comes in addition to other measures put in place since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration ordered Wednesday that airspace be restricted to ban private planes from coming within an 11-mile radius of nuclear power plants unless they are flying above 18,000 feet. Golden said in addition to the airspace restrictions, the Coast Guard is patrolling a one-mile radius of ocean around the plant, and the California Highway Patrol has increased its presence on streets leading to the plant. Even so, Golden said, "We don't see ourselves as a likely target." But Golden said he can certainly understand the concern. "People are naturally anxious with what's going on in this country, and for whatever reason they seem to think nuclear plants have a higher risk potential," he said. "My opinion would be just the opposite." He noted that San Onofre has full FBI rundowns for all new employees, and that those entering the inner sanctum of the plant pass through X-ray machines and metal detectors and have a high-tech "biometric" body scan to make sure they are who they say they are. San Onofre has a private security force protecting the plant, Golden said. He wouldn't disclose the size of the force, but said 75 percent of the guards are former military personnel, many from neighboring Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base. Camp Pendleton spokeswoman Lt. Mamie Ward said the base and the power plant have a very close working relationship and that if anything were to happen, the Marines would respond. "Camp Pendleton officials stated any imminent or actual attack also would be looked at as an attack on the base," Golden said. Golden said he didn't know if the nuclear reactors could withstand a jetliner crash like the ones that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. If they were breached, he said, a resulting jet-fuel explosion and damage within a reactor could lead to a release of radiation and evacuation of nearby communities. Golden said that 75 percent of the time, prevailing winds would carry released radiation over the ocean or to uninhabited portions of Camp Pendleton. There would be no immediate release of radiation if a jet were crashed into a reactor, nor would there be an atomic explosion, he said. "There is no scenario that would result in a nuclear explosion," he said. "The fuel is physically incapable of exploding like an atomic bomb." The nuclear plant's first reactor, no longer in use, was built in 1968. The second and third reactors were built in the early 1980s. Golden said the plant has 2,000 employees, and it generates power for about 1.2 million households. San Clemente's emergency planner, L.R. McKeough, said he doesn't believe San Onofre is a target for terrorism, but it's his job to be concerned. "I think I (worry) for the simple reason that there are a lot of folks down here that are concerned and it makes me more vigilant to calm the fears of the residents." Lyn Harris Hicks, a longtime activist opposed to the nuclear power plant, said heightened security measures don't satisfy her. "I think if they were really seriously intending to protect us, they would have made those (security) changes before Sept. 11," she said. "(San Onofre) is a prime target. If they breach containment, it could cause devastation all over Southern California." San Clemente resident Bill Kindel, who surfs at San Onofre in the shadow of the plant's domes, disagrees. "I think the chances of something happening are pretty low," he said. "I surf at San Onofre ... And if you stop that kind of activity, you are giving up to the terrorists." Register staff writer Fred Swegles contributed to this report. The Orange County Register ***************************************************************** 49 Opinions:Alvarez: A nuclear disaster waiting to happen Augusta Georgia: 11/01/01 Web posted Thursday, November 1, 2001 By Robert Alvarez Guest Columnist AS THE horror of Sept. 11 unfolded, the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors, and dozens of federal nuclear weapons facilities were put on high security alert. The U.S. government has long considered them potential terrorist targets, implementing programs to protect nuclear facilities against these threats. But is enough being done? Ten days after large commercial jets slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conceded that "nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes." As a result, the NRC concedes that a similar attack on one of the nation's reactor stations could cause thousands of fatalities, and render large areas uninhabitable. The public should be aware that some the largest concentrations of radioactivity in the world are contained in this country's storage pools for spent reactor fuel rods. There are 40,000 tons of spent reactor fuel stored in pools of water at almost all U.S. commercial reactor sites, collectively representing the single largest concentration of radioactivity on the planet. Many pools store more spent fuel than the original designs intended. Moreover, the pools were designed to serve only as interim storage, under the assumption the waste eventually would be disposed of elsewhere. Some pools are contained in corrugated facilities or with metal roofs. These buildings are not capable of withstanding a small plane crash, let alone a hijacked airliner. THE NUCLEAR Regulatory Commission has officially conceded that a catastrophic fire at the nuclear waste storage facility in Orange County, N.C. - similar to the one at the Chernobyl reactor in 1986 - could result in the release of 100 percent of its radioactive contents into the air. The radioactive strength of the spent fuel would be about eight times greater than in a reactor core. In such a disaster, the geographic area that would have to be evacuated would be the size of the entire state of North Carolina. Before Sept. 11, federal nuclear regulators dismissed the likelihood of such a scenario, arguing it was impossible to predict acts of malice. Unfortunately, this scenario is no longer an abstraction, but storage facilities have not been improved. Another danger is the lack of adequate and safe storage for nuclear weapons production materials. Tons of nuclear materials, such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium, are either sitting outside, exposed to the elements, or in aged and deteriorating Department of Energy facilities. Like those at nuclear power plants, these facilities were never constructed to withstand large jet crashes and in some cases, even the crash of a small plane. The refusal by responsible programs to assume financial responsibility for the safe storage and disposition of dangerous nuclear materials like highly enriched Uranium-233 continues to create delays. In particular, the Energy Department still has not decided whether the materials should be kept for future use or disposed as waste. BEFORE SEPT. 11, both the Energy Department and commercial reactor owners had been slow to deal with this problem because of the expense. Since then, however, some experts are now contending the chances of terrorist attacks against nuclear installations are small. This is wishful thinking. A rapid effort to safely store the nation's huge inventories of potentially vulnerable commercial reactor spent fuel and nuclear weapons materials should become a top security and public safety priority. If the events of Sept. 11 and since have taught us anything, it is that the war against terrorism will be an unpredictable struggle. The costs of fixing America's nuclear vulnerabilities may be high, but the price of doing too little may prove far greater. (Editor's note: The writer, a former senior adviser at the Energy Department, is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington., Global Beat Syndicate The Augusta Chronicle. ***************************************************************** 50 Fed Govt called to define 'co-location' in nuclear waste dump disposal ABC News - This Bulletin: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 7:29 ACDT A South Australian antinuclear party is calling on the Federal Government to clearly define the term "co-location" in its proposal for a second radioactive waste dump in South Australia's outback. SA Nuclear Free Future Party candidate, Ben Aylen, says his party found no supporters of the proposed low and medium level waste dumps during a recent tour of the state's mid and far north. He says while the Federal Government bowed to environmental pressure not to co-locate the dumps, it needs to do more. "That's define what co-location means, so they could still feasibly put the higher level dump a few kilometres away from the proposed lower level dump and still meet their requirements of it not being co-located," he said. © 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 51 Yankee security costs a concern By Associated Press, 11/1/2001 08:31 MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) Could the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant go bankrupt if additional security measures make the cost of nuclear power prohibitive? That's a question that the state Public Service Department wants answered in the upcoming hearings on the sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy Nuclear Inc. of Jackson, Miss. PSD attorney Geoffrey Commons told the Public Service Board on Wednesday that state government was very concerned about the safety of Vermont Yankee in light of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Commons said the upcoming review of the $180 million sale to Entergy must evaluate whether it would be better for Vermont ratepayers if Yankee was shut down. Commons said the department was concerned that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee could go bankrupt if the security changes and requirements anticipated from the federal government made nuclear power too expensive. With bankruptcy, the cost would ultimately fall on Vermont. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying new requirements to ensure safety at the country's nuclear reactors, but the cost of such improvements is a big question mark. Michael Dworkin, chairman of the Public Service Board, raised that very issue. ''Is it likely the NRC's requirements will add 30? 40? 50? 100 percent increase in operating costs?'' Dworkin asked Vermont Yankee's attorney, John Marshall. But Marshall said the state's evaluation would have to be done hypothetically. The state doesn't need to analyze the specific safety issues, Marshall said, since that is already the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But at least two nuclear critics say that the state has a responsibility to review new safety requirements and doesn't have to leave it to the NRC. ''Who's going to bear the cost if the NRC says you cant have a school within 1,000 feet of a nuclear power plant,'' asked Jonathan Block, the attorney for the Citizens Awareness Network. The Public Service Board, which must approve the sale, heard arguments on how broad the scope of its review should be. Anti-nuclear groups, including the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the Citizens Awareness Network, want safety issues examined thoroughly while Vermont Yankee and Entergy say the review should only focus on whether Entergy has the cash and expertise to run the plant. Boston Globe ***************************************************************** 52 Troops remain stationed at Wolf Creek power site Lawrence Journal-World: National Guard protects state's only nuclear plant facility By Carl Manning - Associated Press Writer Friday, November 2, 2001 Topeka — Long before this week's increased security at the nation's nuclear power plants, Kansas National Guard troops were on duty at the Wolf Creek facility. Throughout the nation, nuclear power plants, already on high alert, increased security even more in light of this week's new terrorist warning. Wolf Creek, near Burlington, is the state's only nuclear power plant. Guardsmen were placed on duty at the plant about a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Guard spokeswoman Joy Moser said Thursday. "We do have people down there, in addition to their own security. It is as a precaution," Moser said, declining to discuss the number of guard troops assigned or their duties. Federal officials, as well as industry spokesmen, have emphasized there has not been a specific threat against any of the 103 power reactors in 31 states. Aside from Kansas, at least seven other states have national guardsmen helping protect nuclear facilities, with Missouri being the latest on Thursday. Other states are Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Arizona. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also asked power plant operators this week to take another look at their security. "We have been in a heightened level of awareness since Sept. 11," Wolf Creek spokeswoman Jenny Hageman said. "We have taken additional measures. Safety is always a priority at Wolf Creek. We have just stepped it up." She declined to discuss specifics, but said the facility has a full-time security staff. "I feel very comfortable coming to work every day. I see the containment building outside my window." The 1,200-megawatt plant has one reactor and is owned jointly by Kansas City Power and Light Co., Kansas Gas and Electric Co., and Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives Inc. KGE is a division of Western Resources Inc. Meanwhile, Coffey County State Lake, near the plant, remains closed for security reasons. In addition to Wolf Creek, Kansas guardsmen also are providing additional security at eight commercial airports, including Wichita's Mid-Continent, the state's largest. Copyright © 2001, the Lawrence Journal-World. All rights ***************************************************************** 53 Mississippi River closed near Prairie Island nuclear plant Published Friday, November 2, 2001 Statewire RED WING, Minn. (AP) -- The U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday closed the Mississippi River to recreational traffic near the Prairie Island nuclear plant. A section that stretches five miles north of lock and dam No. 3 will be closed indefinitely, although it will remain open to commercial traffic. The federal government ordered heightened security around nuclear power plants after the most recent terrorist alert. The nearby Red Wing Airport is also closed. The FAA has banned small planes from flying within 10 miles of nuclear reactors. Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Fighting terrorism - By invitation Economist.com Could worse be yet to come? Nov 1st 2001 | CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS From The Economist print edition Whether or not Osama bin Laden has acquired nuclear weapons, Graham Allison* argues that the world must respond as though he has—and without delay AL-QAEDA'S terrorist assault on September 11th awakened Americans to the stark reality of mega-terrorism: terrorist acts that kill thousands of people at a single stroke. In the twinkling of an eye, possibilities earlier dismissed as analysts' (or Hollywood's) fantasies became brute fact. President George Bush rightly and resolutely declared war on Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their Taliban hosts. Yet as the American government scrambles to pursue a war for which it had not prepared, it must, in the idiom, “go with what we've got”. Assembling an international coalition of very strange bedfellows, acquiring intelligence from sources and by methods it had mostly neglected, and jerry-rigging defences against the most obvious vulnerabilities, it gallops off in all directions. It does so without a comprehensive assessment of the threats it now faces, and lacking a coherent strategy for combating mega-terrorism. In contrast, Mr bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have been thinking, planning and training for this war for most of a decade. September 11th demonstrated a level of imagination, sophistication and audacity previously thought impossible by the American, or any other, government. As the press has reported, just a year ago the FBI had assured the administration that it had a “handle” on all al-Qaeda operatives within the United States. Even in the midst of the exhausting exigencies of the current crisis, responsible leaders must acknowledge the possibility that much more catastrophic terrorist acts may be yet to come. Along the spectrum of mega-terrorism, the worst case would be a nuclear explosion in a large city. Had al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Centre not with a minivan filled with explosives, as in 1993, nor with jumbo jets, but with a vehicle containing a nuclear device, what would the consequences have been? Even a crude nuclear device could create an explosive force of 10,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT, demolishing an area of about three square miles. Not only the World Trade Centre, but all of Wall Street and the financial district, and the lower tip of Manhattan up to Gramercy Park would have disappeared. Hundreds of thousands of people would have died suddenly. In a 1995 Washington Post op-ed, I warned: “In the absence of a determined programme of action, we have every reason to anticipate acts of nuclear terrorism before this decade is out.” I find no reason to revise this estimate today. The question is whether the horror of September 11th can now motivate the United States and other governments to act urgently not only against al-Qaeda, but also on the well-identified agenda for action to minimise the risk of nuclear mega-terrorism. How real is the threat? As the Bush administration took office in January, a bipartisan task-force, chaired by the former Senate majority leader, Howard Baker (now ambassador to Japan), and Lloyd Cutler, a former counsel to the president, presented a report card on non-proliferation programmes with Russia. The principal finding of the task-force is that “the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-useable material in Russia could be stolen, sold to terrorists or hostile nation states, and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.” (Emphasis added). Think about it. Is this proposition correct, or incorrect? No serious analyst has spent more than a day examining the evidence without concluding that “loose nukes” are a first-order threat. Although some would argue that bioterrorism is an equal or greater danger, both count as threats of the highest order. As Mr Baker testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, “It really boggles my mind that there could be 40,000 nuclear weapons, or maybe 80,000, in the former Soviet Union, poorly controlled and poorly stored, and that the world isn't in a near state of hysteria about the danger.” Attempts to steal nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material are a recurring fact The danger can be summarised in three propositions. First, attempts to steal nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material are not hypothetical, but a recurring fact. Just last week, the chief of the directorate of the Russian Defence Ministry responsible for nuclear weapons reported two recent incidents in which terrorist groups attempted to break into Russian nuclear-storage sites, but were repulsed. The past decade has seen scores of incidents in which individuals and groups have successfully stolen weapons material from sites in Russia and sought to export it—but have been caught. A few years ago Boris Yeltsin's assistant for national security affairs, Alexander Lebed, reported that 40 out of 100 special KGB suitcase nuclear weapons were not accounted for in Russia. Under pressure from colleagues, he later retreated to the official Russian line that all nuclear weapons are secure and accounted for, but his twists and turns left more questions than answers. In the mid-1990s, more than 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium—material sufficient to allow terrorists to build more than 20 nuclear weapons—sat unprotected in Kazakhstan. Recognising the danger, the American government purchased the material and removed it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Second, if al-Qaeda or some similar group obtained 40 pounds of highly enriched uranium, or less than half that weight in plutonium, with material otherwise available off-the-shelf, it could produce a nuclear device in less than a year. The only high hurdle to creating a nuclear device is fissionable material—an ingredient that is fortunately difficult and expensive to manufacture. But as a former director of the Livermore Laboratories wrote a quarter of a century ago, “If the essential nuclear materials like these are in hand, it is possible to make an atomic bomb using the information that is available in the open literature.” An even easier alternative is a radioactivity-dispersal device which wraps a conventional bomb with radioactive materials that disperse as fallout when the bomb explodes. If you can smuggle heroin in containers, you may be able to smuggle in a nuclear bomb Third, terrorists would not find it difficult to sneak such a nuclear device into the United States. Recall that the nuclear material required is smaller than a football. Even an assembled device, like a suitcase nuclear weapon, could be shipped in a container, in the hull of a ship, or in a trunk carried by an aircraft. After September 11th, the number of containers that are X-rayed has increased to approximately 10%: 500 of the 5,000 containers currently arriving daily at the port of New York/New Jersey. But as the chief executive of CSX Lines, one of the foremost container-shipping companies, put it: “If you can smuggle heroin in containers, you may be able to smuggle in a nuclear bomb.” This threat has emerged because, after the cold war, the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal and stockpile were no longer held behind prison walls. Post-Soviet societies have experienced a remarkable transformation over the past decade, becoming simultaneously more free, more chaotic and frequently more criminalised. The same dynamic that liberated individuals also undermined systems that previously controlled some 30,000 nuclear weapons and 70,000 nuclear-weapon equivalents in highly-enriched uranium and plutonium at more than 100 sites across Russia. Thanks to extraordinary professionalism on the part of Russian military and security guards, many attempts to steal weapons have been thwarted. The security forces have been greatly helped by far-sighted co-operative threat-reduction programmes, set up at the initiative of Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, which have contributed almost $1 billion a year. The American government knows of no case at present in which those who wish to make nuclear weapons have acquired either the weapon, or sufficient nuclear materials to make one. What must worry us, however, is what we don't know. If Mr bin Laden and other terrorist groups have not so far succeeded in acquiring nuclear weapons, or materials from which to assemble them, we should give thanks for our great good fortune. If they have acquired them, most people will quickly conclude that, under existing conditions, this was bound to happen. How serious is the enemy? Andrew Marshall, one of the few long-term strategists at the Department of Defence, has often warned that “If the United States ever faces a serious enemy, we will be in deep trouble.” Al-Qaeda could be that serious enemy. There can be little doubt that Mr bin Laden and his associates want to acquire nuclear weapons, have been seeking nuclear weapons, and would carry out a nuclear assault were they capable of doing so. Last year the CIA intercepted a message in which a member of the al-Qaeda group boasted of plans for a “Hiroshima” against America. According to the Justice Department indictment for the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, “At various times from at least as early as 1992, Osama bin Laden and others, known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons.” Additional evidence from a former member of al-Qaeda describes attempts to buy uranium of South African origin, repeated travels to three Central Asian states to try to buy a complete warhead or weapons-useable material, and discussions with Chechens in which money and drugs were offered for nuclear weapons. Mr bin Laden has declared that acquiring nuclear weapons is a “religious duty Mr bin Laden himself has declared that acquiring nuclear weapons is a “religious duty”. “If I have indeed acquired [nuclear] weapons,” he once said, “then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” When forging an alliance of terrorist organisations in 1998, he issued a statement entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam”. Characterised by a distinguished Islamic scholar, Bernard Lewis of Princeton, as “a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose,” it states that “it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God.” His fatwa, videotapes and interviews offer chilling clues to Mr bin Laden's thinking. In a 1997 CNN interview he observed that “the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind, but also in the minds of all Muslims,” when the mujahideen defeated the Russians in Afghanistan. In his view, “the Russian soldier is more courageous and patient than the US soldier,” and the United States—as seen in its withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 after the deaths of 241 marines, and its precipitous retreat from Somalia in 1993 after 18 special-forces soldiers died—is cowardly about suffering casualties. The attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 is a powerful symbol for him: “The destroyer entertained the illusion she could destroy anything,” but found herself immobilised by a tiny boat. In his world, “The destroyer represented the capital of the West, and the small boat represented Mohammed.” Mr bin Laden cannot doubt that he is now at war. After the 1998 bombings of America's embassies in Africa, according to press reports, a secret presidential finding authorised the CIA to seek him out and kill him under the doctrine of self-defence. The United States launched surprise cruise-missile attacks on an al-Qaeda training camp in August 1998, but Mr bin Laden had left several hours earlier. What will al-Qaeda do now? Mr Bush has declared that the United States wants Mr bin Laden “dead or alive”. As the noose tightens around his neck, al-Qaeda's efforts to terrorise America are likely to intensify. Al-Qaeda can be expected to do everything it can to acquire and use every mega-terrorist means within its reach. When asked by an interviewer why his earlier claims that the battle “will inevitably move to American soil” had produced so little action, Mr bin Laden replied: “The nature of the battle requires good preparation.” September 11th signals not only preparation but also a campaign that puts a premium on surprise and seeks maximum terror through dramatic effect. As al-Qaeda concludes that the American-led international coalition may succeed in destroying it, it will become more desperate in seeking to acquire and use all possible weapons of mass-destruction against its adversaries. What must America do? Preventing nuclear terrorist attacks on the American homeland will require a serious, comprehensive defence—not for months or years, but far into the future. The response must stretch from aggressive prevention and pre-emption to deterrence and active defences. Strict border controls to keep out smuggled containers will be as important to America as ballistic-missile defences. To fight the immediate threat, the United States must move smartly on two fronts. First, no effort can be spared in the military, economic and diplomatic campaign to defeat and destroy al-Qaeda. Simultaneously, the unprecedented international effort of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies must seek to discover and disrupt al-Qaeda sleeper cells and interrupt attempted shipments of weapons. Second, the United States must seize the opportunity of a more co-operative Russia to “go to the source” of the greatest danger today: the 99% or more of the world's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction that are stored in Russia and the United States. The surest way to prevent nuclear assaults on Russia, America and the world is to prevent terrorists from gaining control of these weapons or materials to make them. The readiest sources of such weapons and materials are the vast arsenals accumulated over four decades of cold-war competition. At the November summit at Crawford, as a central pillar of what Colin Powell, the secretary of state, has called the new “post-post-cold war” partnership, Mr Bush and Vladimir Putin should pledge to make all nuclear weapons and material as secure as technically possible as fast as possible. Their best course would be to follow the recommendations of the Baker-Cutler task-force (see above). Within Russia, the programme should be jointly financed by the United States, its allies in the war against terrorism, and Russia. In the fog and heat of a frustrating war against an elusive terrorist enemy, to call upon leaders to act to prevent attacks of a kind that have not yet occurred may seem over-demanding. But if we fail to act on this agenda now, how shall we explain ourselves on the morning after a nuclear September 11th? Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School and author of “Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy” (MIT Press, 1996). He served as assistant secretary of defence in the first Clinton administration. Copyright © 2001 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. ***************************************************************** 2 India rules out nuclear arms race in sub-continent Expressindia.com Press Trust of India New Delhi, November 2: In an obvious reference to possible links between Pakistani nuclear scientists and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, India voiced serious concern over weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands but ruled out chances of a nuclear arms race in the sub-continent in the wake of developments in Afghanistan. "In this war against terrorism, what we should be worried about is weapons of mass destruction falling into hands of terrorists," External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh told reporters after talks with visiting Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou in New Delhi. Asked about the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the region as a result of developments in Afghanistan, Singh shot back saying "please put your mind at rest. We are not reinventing the cold war. Talk about new or old arms race is a figment of imagination. There is no arms race," he said, addressing a joint press conference. Maintaining that the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan should not be an "unidimensional effort," Singh said the military strikes were only one component of the war against terrorist with the others being diplomatic, economic, political and psychological. air strikes have limited effectiveness and they should not be treated in isolation," he said adding that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already re-addressing the tactics in Afghanistan. ***************************************************************** 3 US offers nuclear protection to Pakistan The Clinton Courier Copyright 2001 by United Press International.November 02, 2001 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov 02, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The United States has offered to teach Pakistan how to protect its nuclear weapons and Pakistan has accepted. Quoting Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar, Pakistani newspapers reported Friday that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made this offer when he visited Islamabad last month. According to Sattar, Powell invited Pakistan to send its experts to the United States to "see how Americans protect their weapons." Asked about Pakistan's response, he said: "Positive offers are not turned down, at least not from friendly countries." Recent reports in the U.S. media have expressed concerns about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Some reports suggested that Muslim extremists could get these weapons if the ongoing campaign against President Pervez Musharraf gets out of control. Over a dozen Muslim religious organizations are protesting Musharraf's decision to back U.S military strikes into Afghanistan, urging him to support neighboring Muslim nation's Taliban leaders instead. Although still small, the rallies have grown bigger since Oct. 7 when the United States launched military strikes into Afghanistan because Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington. Quoting official sources, some newspapers reported that the Bush administration was concerned that the agitation may get worse and lead to the collapse of the Musharraf government. They also reported that U.S. and Israeli special forces were already conducting joint exercises to take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons should the Musharraf government collapse. Dismissing these reports as "baseless fears," the Pakistani foreign minister assured that Pakistan's "nuclear weapons already are in secure hands." He said that Pakistan has "a concrete control and command center for its nuclear weapons and nobody except those responsible for their security has access to them." Earlier this week, Pakistan received unlikely support for its position on this issue. Addressing a seminar in New Delhi, India's Defense Minister George Fernandes said Wednesday that "politics aside, we believe Pakistanis are responsible people and quite capable of defending their nuclear assets." Both India and Pakistan tested their nuclear devices in May 1998 and since then have been working on various programs to develop control and delivery systems. ©The Clinton Courier 2001 ***************************************************************** 4 Secretary Abraham: Don't delay vit plant Published Nov. 1, 2001 Dear Energy Secretary Abraham: Welcome to Hanford and the Tri-City community, which have supported the Department of Energy and the federal government since the Manhattan Project and through the Cold War. On your visit today, you'll no doubt hear much about the planned Hanford Waste Vitrification Project - and for good reason. It is the key to cleaning up the site and the unfortunate byproducts of our community's 60 years of outstanding service to the nation. For the last 14 years, the site's mission has been cleanup of the leftover mess, the most troublesome of which is the liquid wastes in 177 aging underground tanks less than one-quarter mile from the Columbia River. The vitrification project, once built, would turn those wastes into stable glass logs and minimize the risk to our area. More than 1 million people live downriver from Hanford where 1 million gallons of wastes already have leaked into the soil and contaminated groundwater. Like a military veteran, the Tri-City area has done its duty, providing homes, services and infrastructure for Hanford workers and the site. But the waste has been something of an albatross to a community eager to design a destiny after federal funding goes away. Clearly, cleanup is a regional priority. Washington state officials have threatened to sue the Energy Department if your agency doesn't keep the promises it made in the Tri-Party Agreement, a pact among DOE, the state Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency that establishes deadlines for cleanup tasks. Under the agreement signed in 1989 during President George Bush's administration, the Energy Department promised it would request enough money from Congress to meet its deadlines. This year, Secretary Abraham, you requested for 2002 far less than what was needed and expressed concern the nation's nuclear cleanup approach was too costly and too lengthy. Congress disagreed and on Tuesday a House-Senate committee approved a compromise that would appropriate $1.818 billion for Hanford cleanup, including the full $690 million to keep the vitrification project on track. We urge the president to approve this funding, which is critical to the federal government's 12-year-old promise to clean up Hanford. You have begun a top-down review of Energy department programs - a prudent move for a new administrator. At Hanford, you'll find many successes. Recently, the last 25 of Hanford's most worrisome liquid radioactive waste tanks were taken off the so-called "Wyden watch list" six weeks before the deadline. And Hanford's spent nuclear fuel rods are being moved out of the K Basins and away from the Columbia River ahead of schedule. We caution against letting the review process delay progress. And projects such as the vitrification plant, which have been in the development stages for years, deserve to move forward. Granted, the vitrification project has had its setbacks, but the new contractor, Bechtel National Inc., is moving forward ably with proven technology. The Energy Department's Office of River Protection is holding the contractor accountable, and the community is watching. Trust your people who have been working on Hanford cleanup for years, Secretary Abraham. They are experts. Check their conclusions and push them for improved performance, but don't stall their work. What's your opinon? Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 5 Bush Will Offer Nuclear Cuts to Sway Russia November 2, 2001 MISSILE DEFENSE By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER Agence France-Presse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, in Washington on Thursday. Diplomacy: Bush Adviser Says Russia Is Warming to U.S. ABM Tests (October 28, 2001) Missile Defense: U.S., Awaiting Putin, Delays Missile Tests (October 26, 2001) The President: Bush and Putin Declare They Can Alter ABM Pact (October 22, 2001) Strategic Relations: Russia and U.S. Optimistic on Defense Issues (October 19, 2001) ASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — President Bush will decide in the next few days how deeply to slash America's nuclear arsenal as part of a new understanding with Russia on missile defense and strategic nuclear arms, officials said today. Together with economic incentives for Moscow, the reductions in nuclear arms are intended to be an inducement to the Russians to accept the Bush administration's program to test and develop antimissile defenses — which are prohibited by the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. A leading option under consideration, according to senior administration officials, is to reduce the American nuclear force to a range of around 1,800 to 2,250 warheads, from current levels above 6,000. The president's final decision on the cuts is expected to be included as part of a broad package of strategic and economic incentives that Mr. Bush hopes to present to President Vladimir V. Putin when he arrives here later this month. White House officials confirmed today that Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has made a series of calls around Capitol Hill in hopes of arranging a quick vote on revoking the main economic sanction against Russia remaining from the cold war. That measure, the 1974 Jackson- Vanik Amendment, was intended to pressure Communist-bloc nations to allow free emigration, particularly in the case of Russian Jews trying to leave. The law has not been applied to Russia in years. But Mr. Bush wants to announce this month that Russia and a host of former Soviet republics will be "graduated" from the entire process of being reviewed annually to be granted normal trading status. That step would also help pave the way for American approval of Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. Congress permanently exempted China from the law last year. American officials are touting these actions as signs of a new relationship with Moscow. But to forge those ties, Mr. Bush also appears to be modifying his own positions. He needs Russian cooperation in the war against terrorism and the attacks on Afghanistan. The result is that few in the administration are now talking about withdrawing from the ABM treaty any time soon, despite Mr. Bush's oft-repeated claim that the treaty is outdated and dangerous. Other stances have changed: the Bush administration is markedly more reserved on the question of Russian use of force in Chechnya despite previous American concerns that civilians were being hurt by indiscriminate Russian attacks. While Mr. Bush has repeatedly indicated as a candidate and president that he favors deep cuts in the country's nuclear arsenal he has never said how many weapons he plans to eliminate. At a briefing for reporters today, Ms. Rice said nothing about the nuclear cuts, other than repeating the administration's position that it would not engage in negotiations over a new arms control treaty. "We really believe the old arms control agreements in which you had to match warhead for warhead, system for system, ignoring geography, ignoring history, ignoring the threats around you, was the old way of thinking about this," she said. Other administration officials said that Mr. Bush would make a unilateral declaration of how deeply he hoped to cut the American stockpile, and that the administration expected Mr. Putin would do the same. "This may not be on paper," one administration official said. "It doesn't have to be." That alone is a huge change. By avoiding negotiations on limits that apply equally to both sides, the Bush administration is breaking with the cold war tradition in arms control, which made parity between the superpowers the paramount consideration. Moreover, if there can be an agreement without a treaty, there is nothing for the United States Senate to debate or approve. But first Mr. Bush must resolve differences within the Pentagon about how deep those cuts should go. The second strategic arms reduction treaty, Start II, which has never legally taken effect, called for reducing armament levels to around 3,000 to 3,500 warheads. President Bill Clinton and President Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia agreed that their goal should be to cut the number of warheads on each side to 2,000 to 2,500 under a proposed Start III accord. The Bush administration may go somewhat lower. The primary option under review is to set a range for the United States at around 1,800 to 2,250 warheads, officials said. Some in the administration would like to lower the upper end of the range, to make the cuts more significant and thus to differentiate the Bush administration's policy from Mr. Clinton's arms control goals. But the United States Strategic Command, which oversees the nuclear arsenal, is resisting deep cuts and says the country needs to maintain an arsenal at the high end of that band, officials said. Since the Russians face severe budgetary pressure, their arsenal is expected to be smaller than that of the United States. Russian officials, for example, have said the number of nuclear warheads they have is likely to shrink to 1,500. But if the Russian total is higher, the Bush administration may have to rethink its approach. The arms reductions would be made over a 10-year period under provisions for on-site inspection outlined by Start I. Some former Clinton administration officials said the reductions the Bush administration is considering are less significant than advertised. That is because the Bush administration is adopting a new procedure for counting weapons in which strategic submarines and bombers that are being overhauled will not be included, a break with past arms control treaties. This change in the counting will reduce the official tabulation of nuclear weapons by about 250 warheads without actually eliminating a single weapon. "It sounds like the Bush team may not have overcome the institutional resistance to lower numbers that the Clinton administration encountered," said Steven Andreasen, the director of defense policy and arms control for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. Arms control advocates said the reductions being considered by the White House are not nearly as deep as they had hoped. "They are not sensible cuts for the end of the cold war," said Bruce G. Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information. "Those numbers imply a requirement to prepare for the possibility of a large-scale nuclear war with Russia, which is not a plausible scenario." A Bush administration official asserted, however, that the reductions projected now were the product of a review that took a fresh look at the nuclear force. He defended the decision not to count submarines and bombers in the overhaul, saying officials have decided it is not sensible to count what he termed "phantom arms." Ms. Rice's calls to Congress this week to take Russia off the list of countries that are affected by the Jackson-Vanik amendment was another step in the direction of integrating Russia more fully into the West. "We'd have to do it anyway to get Russia into the W.T.O.," one administration official said. "Putin wants Russia off the list, and by doing it we can declare victory, say `it worked,' and move on," the official added. Getting Russia into the World Trade Organization, however, will be a far more complex problem, involving extensive negotiations about opening Russia's markets. It is unclear whether Mr. Putin is willing to pay the political price — especially if entry into the W.T.O. forces Russian industry to face global competition. The third element of the administration's package to encourage an agreement with Mr. Putin is a new position on defensive systems. Instead of abandoning the ABM treaty, as many conservatives have advocated, the Bush administration now appears to be proposing a phased approach During the first phase, it appears, Russia would permit the United States to go ahead with testing — but not deployment — of its antimissile system. But it would do this by amending, but not abandoning the ABM treaty. This approach would enable the Pentagon's antimissile defense program to go forward while partially satisfying the Russians, who insist that the ABM treaty is the bedrock of arms control. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information ***************************************************************** 6 FRONT PAGE - FIRST SECTION: Deal on N-weapons comes nearer Financial Times; Nov 2, 2001 By STEPHEN FIDLER and ANDREW JACK The US and Russia are moving towards an agreement that would greatly reduce the number of nuclear weapons in each country's arsenal and would move the countries closer on the issue of missile defence, US officials said yesterday. The Washington Post yesterday reported that a proposed deal would include cuts in the US and Russian arsenals from more than 6,000 warheads each to around 2,000. It would also include an understanding that US testing of the administration's proposed national missile defence system would not be interpreted by Russia as violating the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty between Moscow and Washington. But US officials cautioned against expecting a deal before a crucial summit meeting between presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in the US later this month and made clear that an agreement was not yet secured. "I would not jump to any conclusions about precisely how this is all going to come out or when there's going to be an agreement. I think that would be a mistake," said Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser. The Washington Post reported a split in the administration between those such as Ms Rice who favoured holding on to the ABM treaty, if it did not interfere with testing, and those such as Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, who favoured withdrawing from the treaty soon. Ms Rice said cuts in the US nuclear arsenal were favoured by Mr Bush, but that the cuts would not be based on talks but an internal US assessment of what should be the proper number of warheads. She also said the president remained convinced the ABM treaty was outdated. Ms Rice spoke as Colin Powell, secretary of state, met Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, for talks on these and other issues. The Kremlin yesterday refused to comment before a formal statement on reports of the proposed cuts. However, Russian officials privately expressed satisfaction at indications of US willingness to cut substantially missile numbers in line with proposals from Moscow that go far beyond Washington's previous limits. The latest US statements appeared to show fresh willingness to lean towards Russia's position in exchange for Mr Putin's support for the international coalition against terrorism. US-Russian contact is set to intensify with Mr Rumsfeld visiting Moscow at the weekend and Mr Putin visiting Washington and Texas from November 12-15. www.ft.com/us Copyright: The Financial Times Limited ***************************************************************** 7 Progress on Cutting Nuclear Stockpiles Las Vegas SUN November 02, 2001 WASHINGTON- The United States and Russia are headed toward an agreement to slash nuclear weapons stockpiles to let President Bush's pet project, a national missile defense system, go forward with muted Russian objections. The goal of talks held in Washington on Thursday and scheduled in Moscow this weekend is a warheads cutback of about two-thirds, with each country limiting itself to no more than 1,750 to 2,250 strategic warheads, a senior White House official told The Associated Press. Any understanding reached probably will not take the form of a formal treaty, with strictly scheduled reductions. Another senior Bush administration official said the administration still intends to withdraw from the 1972 treaty with Moscow that bans national missile defenses for either country. For the time being, the Pentagon has deferred aspects of tests that would violate the landmark pact. Bush will play host to Russian President Vladimir Putin Nov. 13-15 in Washington and at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas. Weapons reduction and missile defenses are at the top of their agenda, with progress on weapons cutbacks outpacing missile defense so far. The reductions are bound to be substantial, since both sides have concluded they have far more weapons than necessary in the post-Cold War world. Not to be overlooked in the attention being given by the media to progress on arms control are U.S. misgivings over Russia's transfers of technology to Iran, the second senior official told The Associated Press. After a 3 1/2 -hour meeting Thursday with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We are looking forward to the two presidents having a very successful meeting." Ivanov, ending a 15-hour stay in Washington, also was upbeat. He told reporters his discussions with Powell were "substantial and constructive" and that the two sides want to ensure "documents on the key issues" are ready for the meeting in two weeks' time. On a telecast to Russia, Ivanov said detailed, complex work remained to be done by experts on the subject. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld now picks up the ball, meeting Saturday in Moscow with his counterpart, Sergei Ivanov. "I suspect that the ribbon will not be placed around the thing until President Bush and President Putin meet and sort through the several important issues," Rumsfeld said Thursday at the Pentagon. Bush has reserved the right to abandon the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits national missile defenses to discourage weapons buildups. Still, Bush would like Putin's acquiescence to conduct banned tests. The anti-missile program will continue one way or another, the official said. Putin wants deep cutbacks in the 6,000 or so warheads the United States and Russia now have to as few as 1,500 to 2,000. The concept echoes positively within the administration. Before setting a precise level, however, Bush is awaiting the conclusion of a Pentagon assessment of U.S. military strength. At a White House news conference, Bush's chief national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said, "We believe that we understand each other better, that we are making progress." On the Net: State Department arms control office: http://www.state.gov/t/ [http://www.state.gov/t/] Condoleezza Rice briefing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-2.html [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-2.html] All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Energy secretary reschedules trip This story was published Fri, Nov 2, 2001 By the Herald staff After canceling a trip to the Tri-Cities on Thursday, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's office said he plans to visit Hanford within the next two weeks. Abraham, who was to make his first visit to Hanford on Thursday, twice has canceled Hanford tours since Sept. 11. He had urgent duties as a Cabinet member, said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Department of Energy. Because of terrorist attacks, the secretary has had extra duties in recent weeks and has occasionally had to change his schedule on short notice, Davis said. Abraham was disappointed not to visit Hanford, he said. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not ***************************************************************** 9 New clues to Kursk sinking BBC News | EUROPE | Friday, 2 November, 2001, Investigators say a lot of new evidence has been found The head of the investigation into the sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, says discoveries have been made which may help to explain why the vessel sank last year, with the loss of 118 lives. Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said he hoped to be able to detail the causes of the disaster within two months. The bodies of two more submariners were removed from the wreck on Thursday, bringing the total number of crew members recovered to 55. Meanwhile efforts to remove the submarine's 22 Granit cruise missiles have run into difficulties. Missiles removed Mr Klebanov said "a lot of new evidence" had been found on board, but he would not guarantee that an explanation to the sinking would be found. The bow section of the submarine - which was cut off and left on the sea bed until next year - is believed to contain many important clues. The Kursk was raised from the bed of the Barents Sea last month and is now in dry dock in the port of Roslyakovo near Murmansk. By Friday, 16 of its cruise missiles had been removed. However naval officials have been quoted as saying that damage to the port side is hampering the retrieval of the remaining three missiles there. Click here to see a graphic of the inside of the Kursk The submarine's two nuclear reactors are to be removed at a later stage. [Missile removal] The operation to remove the missiles is fraught with danger The wreck was brought to the surface on 8 October in the culmination of a $65m, three-month long operation to fulfil President Vladimir Putin's pledge to bereaved relatives to give the submariners a proper burial. Thirty-nine of the 55 bodies recovered have now been flown to their home regions for burial. Twelve others were removed from the wreck by divers last year. Investigators have also found a note written by one of the crew to his family in the hours following the sinking. The contents are considered too personal to be released publicly. The most likely cause of the sinking is thought to be a missile malfunction, but the possibility that the submarine may have collided with another object has not been ruled out. ***************************************************************** 10 Urgent Worries About Pakistani Nuclear Material IHT: Nayan Chanda IHT Friday, November 2, 2001 NEW HAVEN, Connecticut Policymakers in Washington are casting a wary eye toward their troubled, nuclear-armed ally Pakistan. In an article in The New Yorker, the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reports that elite U.S. and Israeli units are being trained to "take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons to make sure that the warheads do not fall into the hands of renegades" if Pervez Musharraf is toppled by Islamist opponents. Washington insiders believe that such a coup is now more likely than ever. But in their view an even bigger threat is the risk that fissile material in Pakistan could be stolen and used for crude terror devices. Pakistani leaders have said repeatedly that their country's nuclear assets are safe. But a former senior U.S. official says helping Pakistan to strengthen its nuclear security at potentially vulnerable sites is "perhaps our most urgent threat reduction priority in South Asia." Pakistan's military is evidently serious about protecting its nuclear arsenal of some 25 weapons - enough for strategic parity with a much bigger India. Robert Einhorn, a nonproliferation expert in the U.S. government for nearly 30 years who recently joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says Pakistan's military has done a respectable job in securing its nuclear assets. "But," he adds, "I am not entirely confident about fissile material" - the highly enriched uranium and plutonium used to make the bomb core. Doubts about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear program center on the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratory in Kahuta. The lab is named after Abdul Qadir Khan, the self-proclaimed father of the Pakistani bomb. U.S. intelligence has noted visits to the lab in May 1999 by senior Saudi and United Arab Emirates officials, and deals between the lab and North Korea. Saudi officials deny any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan, but the United States worries about the possible implications of the May 1999 visit. The Khan Research Laboratory is known to have imported North Korean missile technology for Pakistan's Ghauri missile program. The worry is that in exchange for such technology North Korea may have been provided with vital know-how or fissile material for its own suspected nuclear armory. Of greater concern is the possibility of fissile material being pilfered by sympathizers of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan among the lab's scientists. Still, this year American pressure prompted General Musharraf to remove Mr. Khan from the institution bearing his name. The recent detention of two senior scientists from the lab is the result of growing U.S. concern about these individuals' fundamentalist connections. One of them, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood, is a former director of the Kahuta Enrichment Project who took early retirement to establish an organization promoting science and technology in Islamic countries. "My sense," says George Perkovich, author of "India's Nuclear Bomb," "is that the problem of an insider or insiders making off with fissile material is probably greater than somebody making off with an actual weapon." Designing a simple, gun-type device using highly-enriched uranium is not difficult, once the enriched uranium is at hand. With relatively little effort, a small amount (as little as three kilograms) of highly enriched uranium could be turned into a weapon of nearly half the power of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. "The most likely danger is that with any kind of radioactive material you just add dynamite or a high explosive and blow it up and poison people," Mr. Perkovich says. The delivery weapon for such a device could be as simple as a truck driven across the border into India. How to prevent such theft, and the killing of tens of thousands of people? The dire prospect calls for upgrading existing regulations. The United States should offer assistance to ensure the physical protection of nuclear assets such as vaults, sensors, alarms, tamper-proof seals and labels, and other means of protecting sensitive assets. Pakistan and India, too, can benefit from American procedures and methods to ensure personnel reliability, prevention of unauthorized activities and secure transport of sensitive items. The writer is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. With Strobe Talbott, he is co-editor of the forthcoming book "The Age of Terror: America and the World After September 11." He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. ***************************************************************** 11 House Democrats lose effort to boost spending on securing Russian nuclear weapons - 11/1/2001 - ENN.com Thursday, November 01, 2001 By Alan Fram, Associated Press WASHINGTON — House Democrats lost an effort Tuesday to add money to a program aimed at keeping Russian nuclear weapons away from terrorists. By voice vote, House lawmakers working with senators to craft a compromise energy-and-water spending bill rejected an effort by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, that would have added $131 million to a $173 million program that helps Russia guard its nuclear facilities. The $173 million is the same amount that was provided for the program last year. "That's business as usual," Edwards said after the meeting. "We're faced with a war against terrorism, and the terrorists have declared war on us." Opponents objected to Edwards' plan to take the money from a separate program for nuclear-armed cruise missiles. But they also agreed that nuclear nonproliferation efforts must be strengthened and told him they look for extra money in future bills. "There's no question we should be helping the Russians," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy and water spending. "It's really in our interest to help them." Overall, the bill contains $803 million for nuclear nonproliferation, including money for other programs that create jobs for Russian nuclear scientists so they won't be tempted to work for terror groups. That is $69 million less than this year, but $29 million more than President Bush requested. The bill has a $24.6 billion price tag, $573 million more than last year and $2 billion above Bush's request. The measure must now be approved by the full House and Senate. The legislation includes $60 million for new water projects, a favorite of lawmakers, and extra money for renewable energy research and cleanups of Energy Department nuclear waste sites. Bargainers also decided to drop House-approved language that would have blocked the Army Corps of Engineers from seasonally altering water flows on the Missouri River, a battle that has pitted upstream and downstream business interests against each other. A Senate-passed provision, which remains in the bill, lets the Corps study various alternatives. The battle will be fought again next year. House-Senate bargainers also adopted a second spending bill, a near $3 billion measure to finance Congress' own operations. It is $245 million higher than was spent last year, and $13 million more than Bush sought. Copyright 2001, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 12 The general and the bomb - Jane's Asia/Pacific News 01 November 2001 Of all the dangers currently facing the US-led anti-Taliban coalition, perhaps none is so urgent as the status of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. However, relations between the country’s self-appointed president, General Pervez Musharraf, and those scientists who actually developed the bomb for the world’s first Islamic nuclear power raise a number of awkward questions. In recent weeks there has been intense media speculation over alleged links between several of the Pakistani scientists who played key roles in the country’s nuclear programme and the Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan. The main concerns are: + The risk that Pakistani nuclear experts may have already passed weapons technology over to Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network. + The danger that such technology might be supplied in the future. + A fear that Pakistan’s existing nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of terrorists, or of pro-Taliban elements within the country’s armed forces. Against this background, in recent weeks there has been intense pressure on General Musharraf to ensure that his leading nuclear specialists are not in a position to defect to the Taliban or to provide Al-Qaeda with the know-how to develop its own nuclear weapons for use against the West or its military forces in the region. Earlier this week the general approved the detention of two of Pakistan’s best known nuclear scientists: Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majeed. Both are retired members of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and, according to the Pakistani interior minister, Moinuddin Haidar, they have been taken into what he termed “protective custody”. Local intelligence sources suggest that the two scientists have links to organisations that are suspected of supporting the Taliban. 278 of 908 words [End of non-subscriber extract.] The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services. Please refer to the box below for details. ***************************************************************** 13 No halt to raids in Ramazan: Rumsfeld holds talks with Musharraf -DAWN - By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, Nov 4: US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld gave no indication of any let-up in bombing of Afghanistan during Ramazan as desired by President Gen Pervez Musharraf. "It is important to stop the terrorists," Mr Rumsfeld said here on Sunday, adding there were some "real and credible threats" of additional acts of terrorism. The defence secretary was speaking at a joint press briefing with Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar after his talks with Gen Musharraf and top commanders. "The US is sensitive to the views in the region," he said in reply to a question about a general view repeatedly aired by President Musharraf that the bombing during Ramazan would aggravate sentiments across the Muslim world. The US, he said, would like to end the bombing as quickly as possible but it was linked to the underlying objectives. Mr Rumsfeld said that four weeks of bombing had greatly weakened the Taliban's ability to function as a government. The Taliban authority had been restricted to enclaves, and the militia was not making any more military moves, he said. The defence secretary alleged that the Taliban had been lying about civilian causalities; they were using mosques as military command centres and for storing ammunition, and placing tanks near hospitals and schools. Mr Rumsfeld, who arrived here abroad a C-17 military cargo plane from Uzbekistan flying over Afghanistan, left for New Delhi in the evening on the last leg of his tour to the region. The US President, he said, was determined to root out the Al Qaeda network and "he will see it through." Referring to his discussions with President Musharraf and his team, Mr Rumsfeld said he had wide-ranging talks with them. The United States, he added, "values its relations with Pakistan and recognizes and appreciates its support for the fight against terrorism." Mr Sattar said they had also apprised the defence secretary about their concern on the Kashmir issue. "The President also apprised the US secretary about stringent measures that have been taken by Pakistan to ensure custodial security of our strategic assets," Mr Sattar said. Mr Sattar said the US had agreed on the establishment of a broad- based, multi-ethnic government in Afghanistan. "My perception is that the US too seeks to support the process of establishing a broad-based, multi-ethnic government in Afghanistan," he said. Mr Rumsfeld said they had agreed on the formation of a broad-based government, the one which would implement the UN resolutions and would not harbour terrorism. During talks, President Musharraf was assisted by the chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Aziz Khan, Naval Chief Admiral Abdul Aziz Mirza, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir, Vice Chief of Army Staff Gen Muhammad Yousaf, Chief of General Staff Lt-Gen Shahid Aziz and others. © The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001 ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************