*****************************************************************
11/25/01 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 9.277
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                    NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS
 
 1  INVITING DISASTER: REVIVIFYING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
 2  Operating profit on Bruce lease outstrips expectations
 3  Dounreay operators criticised in clear-up
 4  Ireland's plea to Blair: shut Sellafield
 5  Irish step up bid to close Sellafield
 6  Sellafield's nuclear balance sheet 
 7  European Commission head against EU meddling in Austrian-Czech 
 8  Russian ministry refuses to comment on Ukrainian nuclear "glow" 
 9  Temelin issue continues to split political Parties 
10  Sellafield in Ahern's sights
11  State shuts down WKU neutron work 
12  Just Shut Them Down?     
13  FF place ad in UK Times to close Sellafield 
14  BNFL refuse to comment on FF ad 
15  Far East Gets $40M Plant To Handle Nuclear Waste
16  NRC Names Grant F. Larkin Resident Inspector at Waterford 3
17  Kasyanov on Nukes
18  Energy Northwest accident plans inadequate, officials say
19  Protesters target Sellafield
20  Irish PM steps up Sellafield campaign
21  Should Sellafield be shut down?
22  Nuclear Threat Initiative
23  S.D. firm gets $46 million cleanup pact
24  Kentucky neutron generator given an order to stop
25  Public urged to attend panel discussion on Yucca
26  Nine more hearings set on Yucca Mountain
27  Letter: Yucca support is bad business
28  Operating profit on Bruce lease outstrips expectations  
29  Safeguard Russia's Nukes 
30  Irish take out anti-nuclear advert - 
31  Trade group rebuts effort to shut NY nuke plants
32  PTCL scam: court extends remand of three accused -
33  Sellafield Union Boss Resigns After 10 Years
34  British Energy Wants Out
35  Nuclear Industry Seeks New Waste Management Body
36  Safety Fears Spark Strike By Sellafield Site Contractors
37  nuclear waste have taken on a new significance                                                                                                                                                                                  
38  New Law Will Not Keep Us Quiet - Anti-Nuclear Group
39  MOX Case Goes To Appeal Court
40  Editorial: Still Waiting - USEC needs decision on future
41  Officials: Funds insufficient for Vermont Yankee emergency 
42  Regulators say disaster study on Yankee was 'misused' 
43  NRC PROPOSES $3,000 FINE FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LABS, INC.
44  NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet December 5 - 

                    NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS

 1  New Scientist Picks Up 'Osama's Nuclear Joke' Story 
 2  Japanese officials applaud Berkeley
 3  From the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  
 4  What if Terror Went Nuclear?
 5  Antinuclear activists criticize Bush
 6  Pakistan Continues Probe of Nuclear Scientists
 7  OFF CENTRE: Why it's time to worry about the bomb: The September 
 8  Former atomic minister plays down possibility of passing nuclear 
 9  Press Briefing by Spencer Abraham and Tom Ridge
10  Security barriers to stay at Richland Federal Building
11  Russian Submarine Heads for Disposal
12  Oak Ridge groundbreaking set
13  Baz calls on Israel to give up its nuclear program
14  The Real Threat to America 
15  Bin Laden's Nuclear Ambitions And Fears
16  Afghans glad to see fall of Taliban -
17  DOE not funding K-25 water project 
18  Terror’s dirty secret (
19  Secret Soviet atomic cities fuel nuclear nightmares 
20  Gauging Fallout From Baby Teeth 

****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 INVITING DISASTER: REVIVIFYING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
 
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:48:50 -0600 (CST)

 
To: ActionGreens@yahoogroups.com
From: Seth17279@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:23:06 EST
Subject: [ActionGreens] COMPREHENSIVE ARTICLE ON
REVIVIFYING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY






  MOTHERSALERT HOME PAGE:
  http://www.mothersalert.org
  MORE: http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html

  NUCLEAR SABOTAGE/TERRORISM:
  http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html
  http://www.nci.org

  http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/nukes.htm
  l

The Bush administration is pushing ahead with a full-scale 
revival of atomic power.  Karl Grossman

  The last time anyone ordered a new nuclear power  plant in the
United States was in 1978, but if you think that means nukes are
dead forever, guess again. The Bush administration and the nuclear
industry are making an intense push to revive nuclear power in the
U.S. "It's like reviving Frankenstein -- this is the sequel," says
Robert Alvarez, executive director of the Standing for Truth
About Radiation (STAR) Foundation and co-author of Killing Our
Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation.

  Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service
(NIRS) uses another word when describing the administration's
work. Says D'Arrigo: "It's the push to relapse."

  Ever since the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
shattered public trust in atomic power, advocates in government
and industry have been laying the groundwork for a nuclear
energy comeback. An unbridled drive has started under George W.
Bush in what "may be the most ardently pro-nuclear power presidency
in U.S. history," says Michael Mariotte, executive director of the
Washington, D.C.-based NIRS.

  The Bush administration's stance is aggressive, and it minimizes the
dangers of nuclear power. As Bush's secretary of treasury,
Paul O'Neill, told The Wall Street Journal, "If you set aside Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear power
really is good."

In Bed with the Industry

The Bush administration struck a close working relationship with the
nuclear industry well before taking office. The administration's
energy "transition" advisers included Joseph Colvin, president of the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which describes itself as "the policy
organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry," J.
Bennett Johnston, who as a U.S. senator was a leading pro-nuclear
power figure in Congress and who now runs a consulting firm that
assists the nuclear industry, Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison
Electric Institute, former head of the American Nuclear Energy
Council (forerunner of NEI) and a reported "Bush buddy" going
back to their days together at Yale, and representatives of four
nuclear utilities. There were no advisers representing renewable
energy or environmental organizations.

  Two weeks after being sworn in, Bush set up a "National Energy
Policy Development Group" and appointed as its chairman Vice
President Dick Cheney. Its members included O'Neill and other
top administration officials. Ten weeks after it was organized, the
group issued a report declaring its support for "the expansion of
nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our
national energy policy." The plan would substantially increase the
use of nuclear power both by building new nuclear power plants --
many to be constructed on existing nuclear plant sites -- and
extending the 40-year licenses of currently operating plants each
by another 20 years.

  "Many U.S. nuclear plant sites were designed to host four to six
reactors, and most operate only two or three; many sites across the
country could host additional plants," says the energy policy group's
report. "Building new generators on existing sites avoids many complex
issues associated with building plants on new sites." It could also
greatly amplify the impacts of an accident, notes Paul Gunter, head
of NIRS' ReactorWatchdog Project. If one nuclear plant in a
  cluster of facilities undergoes a catastrophic accident, there is the
potential, says Gunter, for a "cascading loss amplifying the release
of radiation."

  According to the policy report, "Many nuclear utilities are planning
to extend the operating license of existing plants by 20 years," and
"the licensing of as many as 90 percent of the currently operating
nuclear plants may be renewed." There are 103 nuclear plants now in
the U.S. They are, on average, 19 years old. Of the longevity of
nuclear plants, "No one foresaw them running for more than 40 years,"
says Alvarez of STAR, who was also senior policy advisor at the
Department of Energy from 1993 to 1999. The effects of intense
radioactive bombardment, especially on metals, have been seen as
limiting the operating life of nuclear plants. And then there's the
standard deterioration that occurs when any machine gets old. "These
reactors are just like old machines, but they are ultra-hazardous,"
says Alvarez. By pushing their operating span to 60 years, he says,
"disaster is being invited."

  New Nukes?

  The Bush administration's policy also supports "advanced" nuclear
power plants--supposedly new-and-improved nukes. "Advanced reactor
technology promises to improve nuclear safety," the national energy
group's report says. One example the report provides is "the gas-cooled,
  pebble bed reactor, which has inherent safety features." In fact,
says Gunter, the pebble bed reactor is not new; it's just "old wine in
a new bottle." It's a hybrid of the gas-cooled, high-temperature design
that "has appeared and been rejected in England, Germany and the U.S."
And far from being "inherently safe," a reactor of similar design, a
THTR300 in Germany's Ruhr Valley, spewed out substantial amounts
of radioactivity in a 1986 accident, which led to its permanent closure.

  David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, says that the pebble bed reactor uses blocks of graphite to
slow neutron action, although "graphite is a form of carbon, which can
ignite in a reactor fire. It was the graphite that kept burning at
Chernobyl for 10 days, releasing much of the radiation," he says.

  Also, the pebble bed would produce 10 times more high-level waste
per amount of electricity generated as compared to existing plants,
says Lochbaum, who worked in the nuclear power industry for 17
years and became a whistle-blower before coming to the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Further, Exelon, the builder of the pebble
bed reactor, wants five such units operated from a single control
room, which is a dubious proposition, says Lochbaum. He also notes
that the pebble bed systems' designers "reduced costs by eliminating
a key safety feature -- the reactor containment building."

  Lochbaum and Gunter dispute the "inherent safety" claim made for
the pebble bed reactor and the three reactor designs that have been
certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as "advanced"--
Westinghouse's AP-600, ABB Combustion Engineering's System
80+ and General Electric's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor. "Like
all nuclear plants, they are inherently dangerous," says Lochbaum.

  Moreover, the Bush National Energy Policy, with its reliance on
more nuclear power and greater fossil fuel generation, comes at a
time when safe, clean, renewable energy sources have arrived. The
need is for broad-scale implementation. Wind power, solar energy,
hydrogen fuel technologies including fuel cells, among other
renewable energy sources, are more than ready after years of
dramatic advances. Coupled with energy efficiency, they can be
tapped and widely used.

  A coalition of renewable, safe-energy advocates says of the
National Energy Policy: "The Bush/Cheney administration is
recklessly promoting the building of new nuclear plants to address
an energy crisis that in large part is being manufactured by the
energy corporations that will benefit from building new power
plants. We believe that instead of promoting dangerous and dirty
forms of energy, the United States should be a world leader in
promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency. But the Bush
administration is not to be turned around. As Cheney, in one speech,
said of nuclear power, "If we are serious about environmental
protection, then we must seriously question the wisdom of backing
away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean and very
plentiful energy source."

  Or, as he declared in another speech, "We're now at about 20
percent of our electricity being generated by nuclear. We'd like to
increase that."

  Not surprisingly, the nuclear power industry stands solidly
alongside President Bush. Says Nuclear Energy Institute President
Colvin, "The administration's support for nuclear power as a
proven energy technology that protects our air quality is a
tremendously positive development for our nation. ... The industry
looks forward to working with the White House and Congress to
make this long-term vision a reality."

  Pushing Ahead

  To fast track its vision of our radioactive future, the Bush
administration advocates a "one-step" licensing process for
nuclear plants already in place. It was part of an Energy Policy
Act bill overwhelmingly approved by Congress in 1992 and signed
into law by the former President George Bush. "One-step"
licensing allows the NRC to hold a single hearing for a "combined
construction and operating license." No longer can nuclear plant
projects be slowed down or stopped at a separate operating license
proceeding, at which evidence of construction defects can be
revealed. As The New York Times described the passage of the 1992
Energy Policy Act, "Nuclear power lobbyists called the bill their
biggest victory in Congress since the Three Mile Island accident."

  That Energy Policy Act was approved by a Democratic-controlled
Congress. As NIRS reported in its Nuclear Monitor in 1992: "As
the bill wound its way through the Senate and House, the nuclear
industry won nearly every vote that mattered, proving that Congress
remains captive to industry lobbying and political contributions
over public opinion."

  That remains the situation today. Public Citizen's Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program documents how the NEI regularly
showers Congress -- including members of both major parties -- with
political contributions. And when the nuclear industry gives, members
of Congress act, notes Public Citizen, which charts the record of
politicians on key nuclear issues. Likewise, nuclear industry money
pours into presidential campaigns.

  The Republican Bush-Cheney posture on nuclear power is hard line,
but that doesn't mean the Democratic alternative was (or is) much
different. The NEI's website includes a page of "Endorsements of
Nuclear Energy," and among those quoted are Al Gore: "Nuclear power,
designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place
in the world's energy supply," he reportedly said in a speech at the
Chernobyl Museum in Kiev in 1998. And Gore's former running mate,
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, is quoted as saying at a Senate
  hearing in 1998: "I am a supporter of nuclear energy. I believe it
can be part of the solution to solving the world's energy, environment
and global warming problems."

  Basically, there is a difference in degrees and rhetoric between
the politicians from the major parties, says Wenonah Hauter, director
of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.
And "the Clinton administration is by no means blameless" in the push
to revive the moribund nuclear industry, she says, especially because
of its support for development of "advanced" nuclear plants.

  The Bush National Energy Policy says that because of "one-step"
licensing, which it terms the "reformed licensing process," getting
new nuclear plants built and operating will now be streamlined. And,
to make sure public involvement is minimal in the process, the NRC is
now seeking to undo the public's right to formal trial-type hearings
on nuclear plant licensing. It plans to "deformalize" the hearings
by eliminating due process procedures.

  Documents would be restricted to what the NRC staff and company
deem relevant. Instead of cross-examining witnesses, interested parties
will have to submit written questions as suggestions for the NRC's
presiding officers to ask at their discretion at a hearing. Says
Mariotte, "The administration should learn from Seattle, Prague and
Quebec that when people are shut out of public policy processes,
the streets are their only alternative."

  Redefining Safety

  Also to help in a nuclear power comeback is the effort to alter the
standards for radiation exposure. As more and more has been learned
about radioactivity, the realization has come that any amount can be
dangerous, that there is no "safe" level. This is called the "linear no-
threshold theory," and it has been adopted by the NRC and other
U.S. government agencies.

  Now nuclear advocates in government and industry want to alter the
standards premised on a contention that low doses of radiation are
not so bad after all. They are "engaged in an all-out assault on
radiation protection standards," says D'Arrigo. There is even interest
in a long-rejected notion called "hormesis," which claims that a little
radiation is good for people and helps exercise the immune system.
The instrument for this change is a new Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) panel of the National Academy of Sciences,
which is to make recommendations to the federal government. "The
only way to convince the public that additional radiation is
acceptable is to put together a skewed panel to try to convince us
that more radiation is fine," says D'Arrigo. The new BEIR panel, she
says, is thus stacked with high-level radiation advocates.

  Nuclear waste is another obstacle the nuclear proponents in
government and industry are seeking to get around. "If we don't
deal with the waste problem," acknowledged Cheney in a speech,
"then my guess is we won't get the investment in new facilities
in the nuclear arena. ... It's within our grasp as a government, of
the executive and the legislative branches, to move forward, to
get the issue addressed and get it off the table so that utilities
are prepared to invest in nuclear."

  How is this being done? For high-level nuclear waste, there are the
drives to open Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 100 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, as well as Utah's Skull Valley Goshute Reservation and
possibly other Native American reservations, as nuclear waste
repositories. For what is considered low-level waste, the strategy
is to "recycle" it -- to smelt metals down and  incorporate irradiated
material into consumer items. "The plan is to put it into frying pans,
  belt buckles, cribs, zippers -- to parcel it out into everyday
commerce," explains D'Arrigo.

  The huge problem with Yucca Mountain, which the government
began exploring as a repository in the 1980s, is that it is on or near
32 earthquake faults and has a "history and prospects of volcanoes
and a likelihood of flooding and leakage," says D'Arrigo.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration is still seeking to "ram through"
Yucca Mountain, says Mariotte. Resistance from people in Nevada
and their elected representatives is so far blocking the scheme.

  In 1997, tribal leaders of the Goshute Indian reservation "leased
land to a private group of electrical utilities for the temporary
storage of 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel," according to
the Goshute's website. But some members of the tribe are fighting
the deal in court, demanding to know who got what for what.
Utah government officials are also challenging the arrangement.
Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt says, "We intend to leave no stone unturned
to make sure this waste does not come to Utah. The state's authority
and responsibility to protect its citizens and the environment is clear."

  But clear to advocates in government and the nuclear industry is that
working with ostensibly sovereign American Indian reservations is a
way to unload atomic garbage. Critics describe it as a new form of
environmental racism -- "nuclear racism" -- seeking to take advantage
of the poverty of Native Americans. The drive to "recycle" nuclear
waste has been percolating for years. In 1980, the NRC first proposed
that irradiated metal scrap could be converted, stressing that
"radioactive waste burial costs could be avoided, [and] the
resulting use of smelted scrap could be made into any number of
consumer or capital equipment products such as automobiles,
appliances, furniture, utensils, personal items and coins." Some
thought the push for radioactive quarters and hot Pontiacs was too
crazy to be true.

  But now the scheme is coming down the pike full-speed with the
DOE, Department of  Transportation and the NRC moving to
facilitate the "recycling of contaminated metal and other
radioactive wastes," as the DOE recently announced. Says D'Arrigo:
"Bush wants more nuclear power, and we are being told we'll have
to do our part by accepting atomic waste in our daily use items."

  Those behind the nuclear push are moving to extend a key piece
of U.S. law that facilitated the nuclear power industry in the
first place: the Price-Anderson Act. This law drastically limits
  the amount of money people can collect as a result of a nuclear
power plant disaster.

  It was originally enacted in 1957 after nervous utilities and
insurance companies balked at building nuclear power plants.
"The potential for catastrophe is apparently many times as great
as anything previously known in industry," said Herbert W.
Yount, vice president of Liberty Mutual Insurance, before the
Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, from which
  Price-Anderson emerged. The committee was part of the earliest
promotion for a nuclear establishment of government and
corporations that had grown out of the World War II-era Manhattan
Project. With the war over, nuclear scientists, government
bureaucrats and corporate contractors involved in the Manhattan
Project -- like Westinghouse and GE -- sought to perpetuate their
nuclear activities through electricity generation.

  In what was supposed to be a temporary measure to boost the
nuclear power industry, the Price-Anderson Act passed, limiting
liability in the event of a nuclear plant accident to $560 million,
with the federal government paying the first $500 million.
Although it was supposed to last for only 10 years, Price-Anderson
has been repeatedly extended. Now the Bush administration and
the atomic industry are seeking to use it as a financial umbrella for
the push to revive nuclear power.

  "The renewal of Price-Anderson is only to build new reators," says
Mariotte. "That's the issue. Existing nuclear plants are covered by
the present law."

  The Bush administration and nuclear industry are proposing that
the current liability limit of $9 billion be extended for another
10 years. The initial $560 million cap rose through the years
  to, in recent years, $9 billion. Still, notes Alvarez, this is all just
a fraction of what the NRC itself has concluded would be the
financial consequences of a nuclear plant accident. Those figures
are contained in a 1982 report prepared for the NRC by the DOE's
Sandia National Laboratories entitled Calculation of Reactor
Accident Consequences for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. It calculates
(in 1980s dollars) costs as a result of a nuclear plant disaster as high
as $314 billion at the Indian Point 3 nuclear plant north of New
York City and $174 billion for the Millstone 3 nuclear plant in
Connecticut. The report projects "early fatalities"with figures as
high as 100,000 dead for the Salem 1 nuclear plant in New Jersey
and 72,000 dead for the Peach Bottom 2 nuclear plant in
Pennsylvania.

  What are the chances of such a disaster occurring? In 1985, the
NRC was asked by a House oversight committee chaired by
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) to determine the probability
of a "severe core melt accident" for reactors now operating and
those expected to operate during the next 20 years. The NRC
concluded: "The crude cumulative probability of such an accident
would be 45 percent."

  That disaster has not come--yet. And "luck" is the only reason it
hasn't, says Lochbaum. But the drive to revive nuclear power, if it
succeeds, will push that luck and increase the danger from every
aspect of the nuclear power chain, from mining and milling to
transportation, fuel enrichment, fabrication and actual reactor
operation. The legacy will inevitably increase the "routine" emissions
of radioactivity and atomic waste management in perpetuity.

  For more information contact: Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program, (202) 588-1000, www.citizen.org/cmep;
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, (202) 328-0002,
www.nirs.org; Union of Concerned Scientists, (617) 547-5552,
www.ucsusa.org.

  Karl Grossman, a George Polk Award-winning journalist, teaches
investigative and environmental reporting at the State University
of New York/College at Old Westbury. This article originally
appeared in E The Environmental Magazine www.emagazine.com.

  * NucNews - Please circulate -- help educate! - http://prop1.org *
*****************************************************************
 2  Operating profit on Bruce lease outstrips expectations

Nov. 23, 02:00 EDT 
British Energy's share of profit is $90 million
      John Spears
      BUSINESS REPORTER

BILL SANDFORD FOR THE TORONTO STAR

POWER PLANT: British Energy is reaping rewards from investing in 
the Bruce nuclear plant.

British Energy's investment in the Bruce nuclear generating plant 
is performing even better than expected, the company says. In its 
six-month financial report for the period ended Sept. 30, British 
Energy says its share of operating profit on the Bruce lease was 
$90 million.

British Energy owns 82.4 per cent of Bruce Power, which holds an 
18-year lease on the Bruce nuclear facilities. An employee group 
and uranium producer Cameco Corp. hold the remainder.

The company is operating the four-unit Bruce B plant, and hopes 
to re-start two units of the mothballed Bruce A plant by 2003. 
"Bruce B has performed ahead of our business plan," the company 
says in its statement.

British Energy notes that the Bruce investment won't contribute 
profits in the second half of the year because one reactor will 
be shut down for planned maintenance.

Ultimately, the company says it hopes that each of the six Bruce 
reactors will contribute $45 million a year to operating profit, 
for a total of $270 million annually, by 2003-2004.

The $90 million rung up by British Energy in its first six months 
at the Bruce is a quick return on the company's initial 
investment of $367 million. It has agreed to pay an additional, 
deferred payment estimated at $225 million.

In addition, the lease agreement calls on Bruce Power to make 
annual payments of $62 million to $92 million over the term of 
the lease, depending on market conditions.

Bruce Power has an option to extend the lease for 25 years when 
it expires in 2018. Costs for decommissioning and storage of all 
radioactive material remain the responsibility of Ontario Power 
Generation, owned by the provincial government.

Ontario Power Generation has been ordered to slash its share of 
the electricity market, currently about 80 per cent, to 35 per 
cent . The province is also opening the market to competition by 
next May. Bruce Power will have more than 20 per cent of the 
Ontario market once the Bruce A units are up and running.

Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers 
*****************************************************************
 3  Dounreay operators criticised in clear-up

The Scotsman Online - 

John Ross 

DOUNREAY'S operators yesterday faced a barrage of criticism over 
the handling of the clear-up of radioactive particles. 

A group set up to examine the response to the problem indicated 
it has still to be convinced about the UK Atomic Energy 
Authority’s view on where the particles are coming from and 
if they are still being produced. 

The authority was also taken to task for not supplying 
information to the group on time, while its system of monitoring 
the particles on a public beach was called into question. 

The Dounreay Particles Advisory Group (DPAG), set up by the 
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in March 2000, held 
its first meeting in public to discuss the operation to clear up 
the contamination. 

Dr Campbell Gemmell, DPAG’s chairman, said the situation is 
still unclear. "We need to rule out whether it is a continuing 
source," he said. "It will be difficult to make progress unless 
we get that. These remain live questions." 

Lorraine Mann, an anti-nuclear campaigner, said the group’s 
first open meeting was "very encouraging". Colin Punler, a 
spokesman for Dounreay, said : "There is no question of anything 
being withheld." 

*****************************************************************
 4  Ireland's plea to Blair: shut Sellafield

Sunday Herald home

By James Hamilton

The Irish government yesterday intensified its bid to halt the 
opening of the new mixed oxide (Mox) fuel nuclear waste plant at 
Sellafield. 

A full-page advertisement in The Times demanding that the 
facility at the Cumbrian complex should be abandoned, was signed 
by every member of the parliamentary party and endorsed in a 
statement by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. 

The Irish government confirmed this month that action would be 
taken at the European Court of Justice in a bid to force the 
cancellation of the Mox project, and earlier this week spelt out 
their opposition at a session in Hamburg of the UN Law of the Sea 
conference. Dublin has been consistently opposed to all activity 
at Sellafield for a number of years, and has under taken a number 
of legal efforts to force its closure. 

The question is certain to feature prominently again at the end 
of this week, when Blair visits Dublin for a meeting of the 
British-Irish Council, which emerged from the 1998 Good Friday 
Agreement . 

Irish concerns centre on the threat of radioactive pollution in 
the Irish Sea and more recently have focused on the prospect of a 
terrorist threat to the Cumbrian installation, which is located 
60 miles from Dublin, and the possible fall-out effects for 
Ireland. Environmental campaigners Greenpeace and Friends of the 
Earth recently lost a High Court action in London aimed at 
stopping the Mox project. 

The advertisement spells out Dublin's opposition under the 
headings 'Shut Sellafield! Sellafield poses an unacceptable and 
unnecessary risk to our environment.' 

Ahern said the move had been made because his party, Fianna F‡il, 
wanted to put the case against Sellafield to the British people 
directly. 'My party is the largest in Ireland, and we want to 
bring home to people in Britain how strongly we in Ireland feel 
about the danger posed to the population of these islands by the 
current operations at Sellafield and in particular by the 
proposed new Mox operation.

'The safety of our people and the environment is being needlessly 
put at risk. British Nuclear Fuel's safety record through the 
decades is appalling and has been severely censured on several 
occasions by the British authorities.' 

A BNFL spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment , 
saying it was 'an issue for the two governments'.

 ©2001 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 5  Irish step up bid to close Sellafield

Ananova - 
       
Environmental campaigners have welcomed the main Irish government 
party's latest bid to halt the opening of a nuclear waste plant 
at Sellafield. Fianna Fail took out a full-page advertisement in 
The Times newspaper, demanding the new mixed oxide fuel facility 
at the Cumbrian complex be abandoned.

The demand was signed by every member of the parliamentary party 
and endorsed in a statement by leader and Irish Prime Minister 
Bertie Ahern. It follows legal action by Ireland against Britain 
at a United Nations tribunal earlier this week, with claims that 
the MOX plant could release radiation into the sea and atmosphere 
and become an "attractive" terrorist target. More action is set 
to follow in the European Court of Justice. Talks between Mr 
Ahern and Tony Blair failed to reach a solution and the pair will 
again face each other in Dublin at a meeting of the British-Irish 
Council.

The Times advertisement spells out Ireland's opposition under the 
heading: "Shut Sellafield!"

Mr Ahern says the Irish Sea will be the end destination for 
nuclear waste from all over the world, which will be brought to 
the MOX plant for reprocessing.

"The safety of our people and the environment of our countries is 
being needlessly put risk," he said.

"British Nuclear Fuel Ltd's (BNFL) safety record through the 
decades is appalling and has been severely censured on several 
occasions by the British authorities."

A BNFL spokesman would not comment on the advertisement, saying 
it is "an issue between the two governments".

Story filed: 16:42 Saturday 24th November 2001

Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd 
*****************************************************************
 6  Sellafield's nuclear balance sheet 

Irish Newspapers - 

SO YOU thought the IRA was slow to decommission? Think again. The 
Provos are lightning conductors compared to British Nuclear Fuels 
(BNFL). Just across the Irish Sea in Cumbria, more lip service is 
paid to "decommissioning" than in the Good Friday Agreement. Even 
less content is being destroyed. The annual report of BNFL, the 
owners of Sellafield , makes more mention of "decommissioning" 
than an IRA active service unit manual. The Sellafield lobby 
admits that decommissioning will take 100 years or more. Their 
sealed bunkers will be lethal until well into the 23rd century. 

And they are not only lethal to humans. They are a time bomb in 
the BNFL balance sheet. I always believed that the purported 
justification for Sellafield lay in its commercial value. So last 
week I dug out the BNFL accounts to see how much money they make 
from their radioactive arsenals. 

The result was a shock. BNFL is losing money. Last year, 
according to its chairman, it lost £210 million. He admitted that 
its "operational performance was poor". Worse still, 
shareholders' funds fell from £310m to £250m. 

But most alarming of all was its balance sheet, where it carries 
what it obscurely calls "discounted nuclear liabilities" of £16.1 
billion. This single provision in the accounts of one company 
amounts to half the entire Irish national debt.

This is where nuclear decommissioning comes in as opposed to the 
IRA's orthodox version. BNFL is unable to render its weaponry 
useless. It will not rust away in a year or two. It has to be 
inspected and guarded from human contact for over a century. An 
expensive little business.

Not only is it an expensive business, it makes a nonsense of the 
accounts. By far the largest item on the BNFL balance sheet is 
guesswork. Think of a number. How much do you think it will cost 
to bury radioactive waste for 10 decades? Shove it in the balance 
sheet. Who is qualified to argue with you? And indeed who will be 
around in 100 years to tell you that you were wrong? 

Sellafield is not only a menace to life and limb; it is an 
economic fantasy land. The auditors' report confirms the 
company's fantasy status when it baldly states that they "have 
taken note of the fundamental uncertainties inherent in the 
estimation of nuclear liabilities ... "

Pontius Pilate auditing. 

Ah well, BNFL is a semi-state company. They make their own rules. 
Costs are hardly a priority. The realisation that the British 
government is the sole shareholder should be well understood here 
in Ireland. The chairman's words that he now has a "commercially 
driven management team" will have an ominous ring in a country 
where "commercial mandates" have hardly injected the profit 
motive into the state-controlled Aer Lingus and CIE. They carry 
costs galore.

All these costs. And no mention of the security costs in the BNFL 
balance sheet. Security at Sellafield has always been lax. Today 
the Irish nation fears a Bin Laden Twin Towers-type attack on the 
nuclear power station just across the water. Security has been 
stepped up. Rumours of a no-fly zone are rampant. The Territorial 
Army is meant to be in the area. The accounts never mention this. 
But they should. The same owner the British taxpayer is footing 
the bill for all the costs, visible or invisible. Security costs 
should appear as a charge in the annual profit and loss account. 

The subsidy should be exposed. Otherwise there is no fair way of 
comparing nuclear power with alternative sources of energy. Today 
the commercial world has to take Mr Osama Bin Laden seriously. 

If Mr Bin Laden, or any of his fellow peddlers of death, decide 
to strike Sellafield, the employees killed are expected to hit 
4,000. Or so a spokeswoman for BNFL told me calmly last week. But 
I lost faith in statistics from BNFL, ever since they falsified 
their records on their Mox data.

Other employees at this company have had better luck. Like the 
directors. True to form, the guardians of these islands' most 
fragile cargo pay themselves handsomely for their care and 
compassion. The part-time chairman receives £150,000; but the 
executives are on a nice number, topped up by handsome bonuses 
for guess what? 

"Bonuses are earned," according to the notes in the accounts, " 
... for performance, for example, in SAFETY, PROFIT BEFORE TAX 
and CASH FLOWS." Last year all four directors hit the jackpot. 
The chief executive took a bonus of £75,000 on top of his 
£350,000 salary while the other three top bosses all drew a 
minimum bonus of £38,000 each. 

Last year was, strangely, a year when "CASH FLOW" declined and 
"PROFIT BEFORE TAX" fell; so their bonuses must all be due to 
"SAFETY". Ho hum. How reassuring. 

No more reassuring is the board's cavalier attitude to the 
Combined Code of Conduct on Corporate Governance, which it admits 
to breaching in six instances.

Breaching rules seems a bit of a habit. Traditional objections to 
Sellafield have centred on radioactive leaks. Its awful record on 
this is frightening for Ireland. But its attitude to cost is 
equally revealing. 

Figures released this month by the British cabinet office which 
supports nuclear energy suggest that alternative forms could cost 
half as much as nuclear energy within 20 years. These numbers 
ignore the costs of countering terrorist attacks or the unsolved 
problems of disposing of nuclear waste, known in the business as 
decommissioning.

In human terms, the cost of Sellafield could be obscene. In 
financial terms, the subsidised BNFL is a candidate for 
liquidation. If reality reigned, BNFL could be bust. 

Shane Ross

© Copyright Unison
*****************************************************************
 7  European Commission head against EU meddling in Austrian-Czech 
nuclear dispute 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 24, 2001


Text of report in English by Czech news agency CTK

Vienna, 24 November: 

European Commission Chairman Romano Prodi rejects the Austrian 
government's demand that the EU sets legally binding safety norms 
for the Czech Temelin nuclear power plant, he said in an 
interview for the Austrian weekly Format.

He does not, however, rejects the idea of the EU defining safety 
standards of nuclear facilities. "It is a legitimate thing," he 
said. Some EU member countries with advanced nuclear power 
sector, such as France and Britain, have been opposing such norms 
so far, arguing that every country has built its nuclear power 
plants according to national safety standards and that the 
unification of these norms is practically impossible.

Prodi stressed that the creation of such norms in the EU has 
nothing in common with Temelin. If the EU finally accepts such 
safety norms, it would happen in several years, he said.

Prodi also said he did not believe that Austrian would really 
veto the Czech Republic's admission to the EU due to Temelin. 
Austria is strongly opposed to putting Temelin, situated some 
60km from the Austrian border, into commercial operation. The 
Austrian government as well as Austrian, Czech and German 
environmentalists say the plant, which started to be launched in 
October 2000, is not safe because it combines Soviet design with 
Western fuel and safety technology.

Some Austrians support the ruling Freedom Party's (FPOe) demand 
that Austria should block Prague's EU entry if Temelin were in 
operation. The demand, however, has been rejected by the senior 
government People's Party (OeVP) as well as the strongest 
opposition Social Democrats (SPOe).

Source: CTK news agency, Prague, in English 1141 gmt 24 Nov 01 
/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter
*****************************************************************
 8  Russian ministry refuses to comment on Ukrainian nuclear "glow" 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 24, 2001


Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax

Moscow, 23 November: 

Ukraine has not asked Russia to help investigate the situation at 
the Khmelnytskyy nuclear power plant where a glow has been 
visible above the plant for several days, the press service of 
the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry has told Interfax.

The leadership of the regional chapter of the Ukrainian Nature 
Protection Society and the Ukrainian Public National Security 
Committee issued a joint statement, the text of which was 
obtained by Interfax. They demanded a study of the glow, 
scientific explanations for it and the publication of the 
findings.

The statement says that in the early morning of 7 November the 
glow above the nuclear plant was seen from a distance of several 
hundred kilometres. The phenomenon caused panic and prompted 
rumours about an accident at the station. However, a ministry 
spokesman said that Russian experts have no details of the 
phenomenon at the Ukrainian nuclear plant and therefore cannot 
comment on the situation.

"The IAEA has not asked the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry about 
the situation at the Ukrainian nuclear power plant either," the 
spokesman added.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian statement expresses the theory that the 
glow seen above the plant on 7 November was caused by "ionized 
air - a smouldering electrical charge" and related to the planned 
escape of isotopes of inert gases from the reactor's ventilation 
pipe.

Commenting on the explanation the ministry spokesman said that 
theoretically inert gases may escape, however an escape is not 
accompanied by any glow. "A glow means a high temperature and 
smelting, but so far there has been no information about such 
phenomena at the Ukrainian facility," he said.

Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 0935 gmt 23 Nov 
01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to 
*****************************************************************
 9  Temelin issue continues to split political Parties 

Austria Today  

The latest round of four Party talks over an anti-Temelin 
initiative ended in failure late on Wednesday, after the 
coalition Government found itself unable to reach agreement with 
the Opposition Parties Several days of intensive negotiations 
over a joint-party initiative against the Czech nuclear power 
station at Temelin ended in failure on Wednesday. Final talks 
between the governing coalition and Opposition Greens did not 
produce a breakthrough. The Social Democrats (SP), the main 
Opposition Party, were not involved in the last-minute efforts. 

Announcements from Parliament late on Wednesday afternoon said 
the Greens and SP would put forward their own separate motions. 
The Greens had called for a temporary halt to Prague´s energy 
chapter EU membership negotiations until summer 2002, and to 
Austrian financial support for the Czech Republic. Temelin, 
although 60 kilometres outside Austrian territory to the north, 
has been the most difficult political problem in Vienna this 
autumn. 

One of the coalition partners, the right-wing Freedom Party (FP), 
plans a nation-wide referendum in January to get popular backing 
for a veto of Czech EU membership if Temelin goes into commercial 
operation. The FP´s coalition partner, conservative People´s 
Party (VP) Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, is against the 
referendum and disapproves of veto threats. He wants negotiations 
with Prague for maximum safety standards. 

The only point on which all Austrian Parties agree is their 
charge that Temelin is fundamentally unsafe, which in turn is 
denied by the Czech authorities. (TM) Photo: apa
*****************************************************************
 10  Sellafield in Ahern's sights

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | In brief
 	 
Saturday November 24, 2001
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 
Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern has stepped up his "relentless 
campaign" against the Sellafield nuclear plant with an advert in 
the Times urging its closure. He says the Cumbrian site poses a 
serious environmental threat, and a huge security risk through 
the danger of terrorist attack. Second home bills to rise
 
Ministers yesterday signalled the end of half price council tax 
for second home owners, with the extra money raised helping to 
fund the building of new houses for the poor. Custody death 
inquiry
 
The police complaints authority has launched an inquiry into the 
death in custody on Thursday of a 25-year-old man who fell ill 
after telling officers in Lambeth, south London, he had swallowed 
crack cocaine. Relief for Cumbrian farms
 
Foot and mouth restrictions were eased in Cumbria yesterday, with 
944 farms being removed from the infected area zone. Bomb hoaxer 
gets two years
 
Alexander Walters, 18, of Brecon, mid Wales, who made a hoax bomb 
call to Heathrow four days after September 11 was sentenced at 
Merthyr yesterday to two years in a young offenders' institution. 
Couch cucumbers
 
Cucumber plants are to be turned into furniture by supermarket 
chain Tesco. A spokesman said the long fibres would make a dense, 
durable chipboard.
 
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
*****************************************************************
 11  State shuts down WKU neutron work 

DAILY NEWS ONLINE - Bowling Green, Ky.  

University uses radioactive material in experiments; health 
officials say school performed work improperly 


By Deborah Highland, dhighland@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3242

State health officials issued a cease and desist order to Western 
Kentucky University, to immediately stop all activities involving 
the use of neutron generators and to secure all radioactive 
material in the physics department pending an investigation. 

The state alleges in its order that Western used a neutron 
generator in the parking lot of the Applied Physics Institute on 
Nashville Road on Nov. 2. Neutron generators emit radiation when 
they are turned on and because of that, their uses and locations 
of use are regulated by the state, State Cabinet of Health 
spokeswoman Gwenda Bond said. 

This isn't the first time that Western has been cited for this 
type of activity, Bond said. However, she was unable to obtain 
the records of the previous incident, which happened about five 
to seven years ago, she said. Western also was unable to produce 
the records of the earlier incident. Western is licensed to use 
the generators, but was not given the OK by the state to use a 
neutron generator outside, according to the order. 

"It's my understanding that the researchers took the proper 
safeguards," university media relations director Bob Skipper 
said. "But that's a determination that the radiation safety 
committee will have to determine for sure. 

"Anyone involved with this had to wear a radiation badge that 
measures the amount of radiation that you might have been exposed 
to, but we don't have the readings back from those and probably 
won't until next week." 

The university's radiation safety committee also is 
investigating, committee chairman Gene Tice said. Tice also is 
the vice president of student affairs and campus services. 
According to the order written by John A. Volpe, manager of the 
Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch of the Kentucky Cabinet 
for Health Services, to Mary Reynolds, Western's radiation safety 
officer, "Western Kentucky University (WKU) has been conducting 
activities specifically forbidden under Kentucky Radioactive 
License number 203-017-83." 

In July, Western requested an amendment to its radioactive 
materials license that would have allowed the use of neutron 
generators in the parking lot of the Applied Physics Institute. 
The state denied that request "based on the potential for 
exposure to the general public and lack of physical shielding and 
barriers," Reynolds' letter stated. "On Friday, Nov. 2, 2001, WKU 
Physics Department utilized a neutron generator in the parking 
lot of the Applied Physics Annex in direct violation of your 
radioactive materials license. 

"Additionally, the activity was conducted after WKU's Radiation 
Safety Officer informed the physics department that the request 
to utilize a neutron generator in the parking lot was not 
approved," the order stated. 

"All personnel involved with the incident are suspended from use 
of radioactive material under any license in the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky pending the investigation." Western has until Nov. 30 to 
respond in writing to the notice of violation. 

The generator was one of many instruments being used to detect 
the elemental composition of materials, Applied Physics Institute 
facility Manager Gary Spichiger said. 
*****************************************************************
 12  Just Shut Them Down?     
       
Princeton, N.J. 

Matt Bivens's "Nuclear Power & Terrorism" [web only, Oct. 24] 
makes an interesting point about how hard nuclear power plants 
are to defend against terrorists, and uses this as an argument to 
shut them all down. I think that is rather a simplistic and 
sweeping solution to a very complicated problem. One could make a 
very good argument that manufacturing plants using powerful 
industrial chemicals (similar to the Bhopal plant), oil 
supertankers traversing the oceans (as well as refineries), 
gas-powered power plants, and even major dams pose a great threat 
to the surrounding environment and the people living nearby if, 
say, a truck bomb was driven into one. Major portions of our 
infrastructure are vulnerable to terrorism. I hope you're not 
proposing to dump it all overboard. RAY YANG 


Washington, D.C. 

So, Matt Bivens poses the either/or of needing to either prepare 
to "shoot down civilian aircraft that stray too close" to nuclear 
power plants or "just shut the nuclear plants down." 

I don't know where Bivens lives or works, but I see your offices 
are in New York which gets 28 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear plants. If Bivens or you live in New Jersey, the figure 
there is 57 percent. So, if we can't tolerate the perceived risks 
of suicidal airplanes, I wonder what substitute generation source 
does he suggest for those states? 

We certainly have a right to insist that the NRC provide 
reasonable assurance that each nuclear plant, active or shut 
down, is prepared to withstand foreseeable threats. Until those 
academics in the National Laboratories convince the public that 
there is indeed a national energy efficiency program that could 
"unfold with most citizens never even noticing," we will have to 
make do with the nuclear energy. 

BRIAN O'CONNELL, PE Director, Nuclear Waste Program Office

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

W. Lafayette, In. 

The article by Matt Bivens on "Nuclear Power & Terrorism" is 
given to (admittedly topical) hysterics that one expects to find 
in the tabloid press, not your esteemed journal of opinion. 

Nuclear power quietly, efficiently, safely and economically 
provides not only 20 percent of the country's electricity but an 
environmentally sound option for addressing global warming and 
possibly shifting to a hydrogen-based economy. 

As a technical person and concerned citizen, I would like to 
reassure The Nation's readers: Nuclear power plants are 
extraordinarily at risk of being the target of demonization by 
ignorant, if not opportunist, fear peddlers; they are not a 
vulnerable target for terrorists. 

LEFTERI H. TSOUKALAS, PhD Professor of Nuclear Engineering Purdue 
University 

Huntersville, N.C.

There is an unacceptable tendency by the media to exaggerate the 
potential that a US design nuclear plant has towards becoming 
another Chernobyl. 

While the technology is complex and hard to explain in layman's 
terms, I'll try to put it most simply. The disaster at Chernobyl 
was not due to a fire but an uncontrolled increase in reactor 
power called a reactivity excursion. A reactivity excursion was 
allowed to occur first, by design and second, by misoperation. 
The result blew the bottom out and the top off of the reactor. US 
reactor plant designs are self-limiting to the extent that an 
intentional reactivity excursion (say perhaps by a team of 
terrorists) would not result in more than light core damage. The 
main point here is for the media to stop contributing to the 
hysteria to which our nation finds itself subjected to and to 
stop exaggerating the dangers that Nuclear plants present to the 
US citizens. Moreover, the unfavorable press coverage defeats our 
opportunities to diversify our country's power generation 
portfolio and reduce our risk of reliance on one source of fuel. 

KENNETH PITSER 

Dayton, Ohio 

I read the recent editorial about nuclear terrorism with interest 
("Nuclear Power and Terrorism") and it was actually making sense 
to me--until I got near the end. There it was--the same old, 
tired liberal argument against nuclear power. From a reasoned 
discussion about the potential terrorist attacks on nuclear 
powerplants, the item degenerated into a predictable polemic. 
Face it--nuclear power is safe, cheap, and reliable. If we had 
not listened to the shrill Luddites years ago, we would now have 
many more nuclear powerplants and not be so dependent on 
petroleum products. We need to guard the powerplants, not close 
them down. 

Using your logic, we could come up with the following: airplanes 
can crash, air travel is dangerous, the terrorists have targeted 
airliners, so shut down the nation's airlines and airports. I 
wish the left would stop using the recent terrorist attacks as an 
excuse to rail against American institutions they don't happen to 
like. 

ALEX DRINKWATER JR. 

Seattle, Wash. 

Seems to me you're very busy giving terrorists ideas on what to 
do next. NADINE LAVONNE 

Salt Lake City, Utah

Thank you for Matt Bivens's important story today. The issue of a 
"mobile Chernobyl" hits close to home with Utahans, who may 
welcome over 40,000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste if 
plans to build a storage facility in the West Desert are approved 
by the NRC. If you are interested in this story, please, visit 
www.kued.org/skullvalley. KUED-Channel 7, the local public 
television station in Salt Lake City, presented a comprehensive 
documentary on the subject this summer, called Skull Valley. Our 
web site continues to offer news updates if you'd like to check 
it out. 

JOEY MARQUART KUED-7 


Miami, Fl.

After reading Matt Bivins's fine article today, I was interested 
to see that you could find the address of my nearby nuclear 
neighbors (I live within a dozen miles of the two nukes at Turkey 
Point, near Miami, Florida) by going to the web site of 
Wackenhut, the security firm in whose charge safety ordinarily 
rests! 

http://www.wackenhut.com/nuclear/sites/s-turkey.htm 

And for other nukes you can find all kinds of assistance, 
including actual photos of the facility: 
www.nucleartourist.com/us/us-plant.htm--although I note that the 
Florida Power & Light link has now been pulled. 

This nuclear facility is also highly visible, and approachable, 
from the ocean side. The water is extremely shallow in close, but 
fishing boats have been known to come in almost to land--there is 
no beach to speak of. Dark stormy nights and higher than usual 
tides probably make Wackenhut very nervous. 

WARREN HOSKINS 

BIVENS REPLIES

Ray Yang, Brian O'Connell and Alex Drinkwater all cut to the 
chase. Each in his own way challenges whether the security 
vulnerabilities at nuclear plants really do suggest we should, as 
Yang puts it, "dump it all overboard." 

Yang and Drinkwater ask if it also follows we should jettison 
other useful yet vulnerable infrastructure--airlines, dams--while 
O'Connell asks if we can really give up reactor-generated 
electricity as easily as I suggested. These are all intelligent 
questions, deserving of a more thorough discussion than I can 
offer here. 

My quick answer would be that nuclear power plants are unusual in 
being uniquely inefficient--the industry can only claim to be 
"cheap" because taxpayers cough up billions of dollars toward 
waste disposal--uniquely dangerous if targeted by terrorists, and 
uniquely easy to phase out rapidly. 

My suggestion would be to replace our fleet of nuclear power 
plants, which provide 18 percent of the nation's electricity, 
with a mix of renewable energy sources, energy efficiencies and 
natural gas-fired plants. This could largely be done in a matter 
of a few years--or a single US presidential term. It wouldn't 
solve all of our problems--there are still huge amounts of poorly 
secured radioactive materials that demand storage, for example. 
But it would be a good start. 

For further discussions of these possibilities, I'd recommend the 
websites of the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), the Union 
of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org/index.html) and the 
Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org). One can also go to 
www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid506.php for even more related links. 

O'Connell in particular might be interested in a transcript of a 
speech given in July by Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky 
Mountain Institute, about the California energy crisis. In that 
talk, which can be downloaded at 
www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php, Lovins says California--already 
one of the most efficient states in the nation--was able to drop 
its electricity consumption by from 12-14 percent this summer 
through conservation and/or efficiency efforts so burden-free 
that few are even commenting on them. 

Lefteri Tsouklas and Kenneth Pitser suggest I'm indulging in 
hysterics by discussing nuclear plant vulnerabilities, and Nadine 
LaVonne wonders if I'm not abetting terrorists. For good measure, 
Tsoukalas suggests I am an "ignorant, if not opportunist, fear 
peddler," while Drinkwater wishes "the left would stop using the 
recent terrorist attacks as an excuse to rail against American 
institutions they don't like." To this all I can say is: 

I don't think it's hysterics to report on how strangely little 
was being done post-September 11 to secure our nuclear power 
plants; it's been well documented that the terrorists are way 
ahead of us on nuke plant vulnerabilities; it's a cheap shot to 
suggest I'm using the death of 4,700 of my countrymen as a prop 
to advance unrelated pet arguments; and I don't consider myself a 
representative of "the left." 

I have no substantive comment about the more favorable letters 
from Warren Hoskins and Joey Marquart, but I do have to nod to 
them appreciatively, because that's the way my mother raised me. 

MATT BIVENS 

thenation.com Webmanager 

© 2001 The Nation Company,
*****************************************************************
 13  FF place ad in UK Times to close Sellafield 



online.ie 24 Nov 2001 



Fianna Fail has placed on a full page advertisement in the 
British Times newspaper headlined, "SHUT SELLAFIELD". 


Tao is each Bertie Ahern said his party took the step because 
they are concerned and frustrated at their lack of progress and 
feel they are not being treated seriously enough. T he £30,000 
advertisement highlights how the nuclear reprocessing plant poses 
an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to our environment. 




Mr Ahern added that Ireland has tried politically, diplomatically 
and legally to deal with the issue and feels that the Irish 
people have had enough.

*****************************************************************
 14  BNFL refuse to comment on FF ad 


online.ie 24 Nov 2001 


A British Nuclear Fuels Ltd spokesman has said it would be 
inappropriate to comment on the full-page Fianna Fail 
advertisement, saying it was "an issue between the two 
governments".

However, the move was welcomed by campaigners in Cumbria who said 
they fully supported the Irish stance and sympathised with their 
concerns.

Janine Allis-Smith, a spokeswoman for Cumbrians Opposed to a 
Radioactive Environment, said: "We fully support this action and 
can understand how they feel.

"They carry all the risks of Sellafield both in terms of possible 
terrorist attacks and pollution.

"There are no benefits for the Irish whatsoever. We fully support 
them in objecting to the operations at Sellafield."

*****************************************************************
 15  Far East Gets $40M Plant To Handle Nuclear Waste
 
Friday, Nov. 23, 2001. Page 3 

 By Yevgenia Borisova [yevgenia@imedia.ru] 	 
	Staff Writer 

Grigory Pasko's dream has come true. Four years after the former 
military journalist was jailed for blowing the whistle on the 
Pacific Fleet for dumping liquid radioactive waste in the Sea of 
Japan, a facility to process such waste officially opened 
Thursday in the Far East.
 
But Pasko is not happy. "How could we be glad?" he said in a 
telephone interview. "I have seen its feasibility studies, and it 
is absolutely outdated because the project was launched eight 
years ago. The infrastructure is not ready. The constructors 
didn't even manage to build proper roads and railways."
 
The $40 million floating facility, called Landysh, is the fruit 
of Japanese efforts and funding, with the participation of the 
United States, Britain, France and Norway. It is part of the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program under the Nunn-Lugar Act 
passed by the U.S. Congress in the fall of 1991 and has a central 
role in Russia's implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty. 

The Japanese Embassy said in a statement that the decision to 
build the facility was made by Russia and Japan in 1993 "to 
prevent Russia dumping radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan." 

A Japanese-Russian committee for cooperation in the destruction 
of nuclear weapons was created, and Japan provided $200 million. 

The embassy information department was unable to explain what 
most of it was spent on.
 
The facility is to process up to 7,000 cubic meters of liquid 
low-grade radioactive waste a year, extracted from decommissioned 
submarines. 

The mobile facility is on the territory of the Zvezda plant in 
the Primorye region town of Bolshoi Kamen -- a base for the 
Pacific Fleet's nuclear submarines. For a number of years Zvezda 
has been involved in the disposal of decommissioned submarines, 
and for years the waste was simply dumped in the sea or stored 
without processing. 

Zvezda head Valery Maslakov said at the opening that the facility 
will process waste from up to eight nuclear submarines a year and 
the local workload will keep it busy for six to seven years.
 
Deputy Nuclear Power Minister Alexander Lebedev said at a 
briefing in Murmansk in September that 188 nuclear submarines 
have been decommissioned. About 80 are expected to be processed 
in the Far East. 

Navy and Nuclear Power Ministry officials were unable to say how 
much liquid radioactive waste is stored in the Far East and how 
much may accumulate per year from now on. 

But Pasko said the Far East had 3,500 tons of waste, well below 
Zvezda's capacity. Although the facility can be towed to other 
locations, Pasko fears waste from Japan, Taiwan and Northern 
Korea will be brought to it.
 
"I am absolutely positive that after the law was passed that 
allows transportation of spent nuclear fuel and the first fuel 
arrived from Bulgaria, we will soon start getting it from these 
three countries," Pasko said. "And as the gates are open, the 
liquid waste will follow it."
 
[http://www.moscowtimes.ru
*****************************************************************
 16  NRC Names Grant F. Larkin Resident Inspector at Waterford 3

Region IV -- 2001- 48 - 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011   

  No. IV-01-048     September 28, 2001   

CONTACT:   Breck Henderson
 Phone: 817-860-8128
 Cellular: 817-917-1227
 e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov [bwh@nrc.gov] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has named Grant F. Larkin 
resident inspector at Waterford 3, a nuclear power plant near 
Taft, La. Mr. Larkin joins senior resident inspector Tom 
Farnholtz. Following U.S. Army service in Germany as a 
translator/interpreter, Mr. Larkin graduated from the University 
of Minnesota with bachelor's degrees in political science and 
geology in 1982. While working for the Department of the Navy, he 
completed a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1986 
and continued his civilian career as a nuclear engineer at naval 
facilities in California, New York and Washington state. From 
1983 to 2000, Mr. Larkin refueled naval reactor plants and worked 
with mechanical and fluid system engineering groups engaged in 
repair work. In February 2000, Mr. Larkin joined the NRC as a 
reactor engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects at the 
Region IV office in Arlington, Texas.
 
Mr. Larkin, his wife, Jenni, and three children will live in 
Destrehan, Louisiana. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC 
resident inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at 
the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring 
significant work projects and talking with plant workers and the 
public.
 
*****************************************************************
 17  Kasyanov on Nukes

Friday, Nov. 23, 2001. Page 4 

News in Brief

 
MOSCOW (AP) ó Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov on Thursday 
applauded Russiaès safety record for transporting radioactive 
cargo, and announced that even tougher safety controls are being 
crafted to handle more shipments. 

About 30 transport vehicles carrying radioactive materials ó such 
as used nuclear fuel and medical products ó move across Russia 
every day, Kasyanov told a Cabinet session, Interfax reported. 
Most of the cargoes are transported by rail. 

Kasyanov said that Russiaès system for transporting radioactive 
materials is one of the most reliable in the world, and hasnèt 
recorded "a single incident" in 50 years. But he added that the 
government planned to tighten safety measures even more to cope 
with an expected increase in materials, which he attributed to 
the developing economy. 

Kasyanov did not elaborate. 

                                        
[http://www.moscowtimes.ru/
*****************************************************************
 18  Energy Northwest accident plans inadequate, officials say
 
This story was published Thu, Nov 22, 2001
 By Chris Mulick Herald staff writer 

Federal officials believe Energy Northwest's procedures may be 
inadequate for notifying workers at defunct plants Nos. 1 and 4 
if an accident occurred at the nearby Columbia Generating 
Station.
 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a yellow inspection 
finding, indicating a possible "substantial safety significance."
 
A yellow finding is the second highest of four classifications 
but not serious enough to warrant shutting down the 
1,150-megawatt Columbia Generating Station.
 
It is Washington's only operating nuclear plant.
 
"It's not an urgent safety issue," said NRC spokesman Breck 
Henderson.
 
The NRC is scheduled to meet Monday in Texas to discuss its 
findings with officials from Energy Northwest, the 16-member 
public power consortium that owns the plants.
 
The findings do not relate to any activity inside the fence at 
Columbia. But from time to time, outside contractors and 
businesses bring workers to other parts of the nuclear site for 
various reasons. Contractors were recently on site, for example, 
to remove material from the partially finished cooling towers at 
Plant No. 1.
 
A brake drum manufacturer also is a tenant, a Hanford contractor 
occasionally sells surplus equipment at Energy Northwest and 
another company leased land at Plant No. 1 earlier this year to 
bring in temporary diesel generators.
 
The NRC believes procedures for notifying workers associated with 
those companies of an accidental radiation release at Columbia 
and follow-up plans for radiological monitoring are faulty.
 
"They were left out of the procedure," Henderson said. "They were 
not on the call list."
 
Energy Northwest maintains there always has been a plan for such 
workers but acknowledges it is guilty of an "implementation 
weakness."
 
The utility has sirens that cover all of the site and a public 
address system that reaches most of it, spokesman Don McManman 
said.
 
It also has procedures for notifying workers by phone, a chain of 
command responsible for ensuring workers leave the site and a 
plan for directing traffic off the site.
 
"We've got sirens you can hear for miles," McManman said.
 
Several additions to the plan already have been implemented, 
including giving security crews more responsibility to ensure 
proper evacuation. 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 19  Protesters target Sellafield

BBC News | ENGLAND | 

23 November, 2001, 17:59 GMT       

The Mox fuel plant at Sellafield has provoked outrage More than 
50 anti-nuclear protesters, including MPs from the Irish 
parliament, have staged a protest at Sellafield. 

The protesters, who were joined by Irish MPs, were outraged by 
the government's recent decision to allow the start of operations 
at the new mixed oxide (Mox) plant at the Cumbrian site. 

The leader of the Irish Green party Trevor Sargent said the 
protest was "designed to promote dialogue, not confrontation". 

British Nuclear Fuels Limited said it had no objection to the 
anti-nuclear activitists marching to the main gates of its site. 

Sellafield has been the target of protesters before
 		 		 		  
A spokesperson for BNFL said the protesters' main complaint had 
"been dealt with in the courts". 

Environmental groups have already failed in a legal challenge to 
the decision, which they say will increase pollution and provide 
a new target for terrorists. The Irish Government has launched 
its own legal challenge to the mox decision, going to the UN's 
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg for 
arbitration. 

Campaigners have argued that sea pollution from Sellafield is the 
cause of above average cancer rates in some parts of the east of 
Ireland. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern has attacked the 
decision, while environmentalists have pointed out Sellafield is 
closer to Dublin than it is to London. 

Plutonium stocks 

A decision is expected from the Hamburg tribunal on 9 December. 
The Norwegian Government is also understood to be considering 
legal action over the issue. The UK Government says the Mox plant 
will help recycle the growing stocks of plutonium which are a 
by-product of nuclear reprocessing. 

The plutonium can be combined with uranium and turned into a new 
fuel source. British nuclear officials argue that far from 
increasing the terrorist threat, the Mox plant will reduce the 
security dangers by reducing plutonium stockpiles. 

*****************************************************************
 20  Irish PM steps up Sellafield campaign

BBC News | ENGLAND | 

24 November, 2001, 

The advert says Sellafield is an environmental hazard 
Environmental campaigners have welcomed calls by Irish Prime 
Minister Bertie Ahern for Sellafield's controversial Mox plant to 
be scrapped. 

Sellafield poses an unacceptable and unnecessary risk
   	 		
Times advertisement                       

Mr Ahern put his name to a full-page advert in the UK's Times 
newspaper, placed by his ruling Fianna Fail party, calling on the 
new Cumbria plant to be closed. And he told the BBC the 
government's nuclear policy was "fundamentally flawed". Local and 
environmental campaigners, which have been fighting a legal 
battle against the plant, applauded the advert, saying the Irish 
had "good cause" to fear Sellafield. 

But the Department of Trade and Industry said: "All radioactive 
discharges from UK nuclear sites are stringently regulated to 
rigorous standards to ensure that health and the environment are 
properly protected." 

Sea pollution 

The Mox plant can reprocess plutonium and uranium into a powerful 
energy source. 

But the Irish Government argues that the plant breaks 
international laws on sea pollution, in addition to its safety 
and security concerns. It has already started legal action 
against the new facility at a United Nations tribunal, and 
signalled its intention to do so through the European Court of 
Justice.
 
The advertisement said: "Sellafield poses an unacceptable and 
unnecessary risk to our environment. 
	 		 			
The Mox fuel plant at Sellafield was built in 1996
 		 		 		  
"Furthermore, in the aftermath of the September 11 assault... we 
also believe that Sellafield poses a grave security risk to both 
our countries." 

Mr Ahern told the BBC: "We believe having enormous amounts of 
nuclear waste treading its way up and down the Irish Sea is a 
fundamentally flawed policy and one we object to strongly." 

A British Nuclear Fuels spokesman said it would be inappropriate 
to comment on the advertisement, saying it was "an issue between 
the two governments". 

They (the Irish) carry all the risks of Sellafield both in terms 
of possible terrorist attacks and pollution
   	 		
Janine Allis-Smith, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive 
Environment                     

But Janine Allis-Smith, a spokeswoman for Cumbrians Opposed to a 
Radioactive Environment, said: "We fully support this action and 
can understand how they feel. 

"They carry all the risks of Sellafield both in terms of possible 
terrorist attacks and pollution. 

"There are no benefits for the Irish whatsoever. We fully support 
them in objecting to the operations at Sellafield." A DTI 
spokesperson said there was no need for heightened concerns in 
the wake of the 11 September attacks. 

"Prior to September 11, we had in place rigorous security 
measures at all our nuclear sites. 

"In light of the terrorist attacks in the US, these were reviewed 
and we now have in place measures appropriate to the current 
level of risk." 

Defence Friends of the Earth, which with Greenpeace next week 
continues its legal battle to halt the plant, said: "Mox is 
highly dangerous and uneconomic. It must not be opened." 

The two groups will on Tuesday go to the Court of Appeal to 
challenge the recent High Court decision that the government had 
acted legally in allowing the plant to go ahead. 

"It is time the government turned to the future and invested in 
clean, green energy for the 21st century. It should abandon the 
discredited technology of a previous era," the FoE's energy 
campaigner Roger Higman added. Prime Minister Tony Blair will put 
forward a defence of Sellafield when he meets Mr Ahern in Dublin 
next week. 

The plant was built in 1996 and is due for commissioning on 20 
December. 

*****************************************************************
 21  Should Sellafield be shut down?

BBC News | TALKING POINT | 

26 November, 2001, 

Ireland's ruling Fianna Fail party placed a full page advert in 
Saturday's Times newspaper, urging the closure of the Sellafield 
nuclear reprocessing plant. 

The Irish government is already taking legal action against 
Britain's decision to sanction a new reprocessing facility at the 
Cumbrian site. The newspaper ad says Sellafield poses an 
"unacceptable" threat to the security and environment of Britain 
and Ireland. 

But Sellafield is a major employer and the Mox (mixed oxide) 
plant will re-use otherwise useless plutonium and combine it with 
uranium to produce a new fuel source. 

Do you think the Irish government is right to take action? Should 
Sellafield be closed down, or does it have an important role to 
play? What about the economic impact? 

Instead of being shut down, Sellafield should clean up its act
   	 		
P, UK                     

Instead of being shut down, Sellafield should clean up its act. 
However given that in all its 40-odd year history it has done 
nothing but pollute I have no option but to conclude that even if 
it could clean up its act there is no intention to do so and 
should therefore be closed down. P, UK 

The place was proven unsafe when it was still called Windscale 
and should have been decommissioned there and then. Instead, it 
thrives under the new name of Sellafield with a visitor centre to 
keep up the PR offensive. Rory McKnight, UK 

It would take just one big accident at Sellafield to render all 
arguments in favour of the plant useless. There is no second 
chance with Nuclear Power, no middle ground. Let us never forget 
Chernobyl, ask the people there if they think plants like 
Sellafield are a good idea. Close down Sellafield and safeguard 
the Lake District National Park and the country as a whole. Ian, 
Lancashire, England 

Plain envy on the part of the Irish government
   	 		
   	 	 David Paul Morgan, UK 	 	 	   

Plain envy on the part of the Irish government. They have no 
fossil fuels and no nuclear power. They are an 'energy poor' 
region. The Sellafield plant is an important part of the (clean) 
nuclear industries strategy for recycling nuclear fuel. The 
safety record for British Nuclear plants is the best in the world 
and getting better. 

David Paul Morgan, UK 

Sellafield should be kept open, and MOX fuel is a good idea. Why? 
Because it is one of the few methods of burning up the worlds 
plutonium stockpiles. As nuclear weapons are decommissioned the 
plutonium they contained is removed and stockpiled. There are 
currently many TONNES of both weapons and reactor grade plutonium 
sitting in stores around the world. 

Opponents of MOX say that it creates a security risk - this is 
not the case as MOX fuel would be very very difficult to separate 
and use as raw material for a crude nuclear weapon, without 
having access to extensive re-processing/manufacturing 
facilities. Plutonium stockpiles are possibly at greater risk of 
theft as the material would require little or no reprocessing. 
Russ, New Zealand 

Assuming the government is going to carry on using nuclear power 
and not tide and wind, I would like a MOX plant deep under ground 
and far away from any where else and hopefully, eventually get 
rid of all the spent fuel dumps, but it is much cheaper to put 
the waste under ground and forget it so I don't think it will 
operate for very long any way. 

Steve, Scotland 

Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs and should be treated as such. 
They should be extinct before we are
   	 		
Mark E. Schneider, USA                            

Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs and should be treated as such. 
They should be extinct before we are. Governments have the 
responsibility to explore sustainable energy sources The 
perpetuation only temporarily sustains the current 
energy/military sector, both of which threaten all life on earth.

Mark E. Schneider, USA 

How many people have died in the coal mines, hundreds. None have 
died in nuclear power stations, 

Leonard Charles, UK 

Sellafield is long overdue for closing down but at every 
opportunity the British Government allows it to expand. Witness 
the decisions on Mox and Thorpe. It seems virtually impossible 
for the government to see sense over Sellafield and to take a 
rational decision. All of the developments have been very 
polluting and will cost the tax-payer a fortune, either now or 
when the sites have to be cleaned up. I think that government 
ministers taking such stupid and short-sighted decisions should 
be put on notice that they will be put on trial as eco-criminals 
at some time in the future. 

Simon, England 

Of course Sellafeild should be shut down, as should all plants 
that contribute to the nuclear industry. The waste produced is so 
toxic that it will remain deadly for 1000s of years. Those who 
argue that it can be contained safely during that time are as 
irresponsible as they are foolish. Quite apart from the huge 
threat to our health and safety, this will have to be paid for a 
millennium. That will pour away billions more after all the state 
aid (ie our taxes) that have been pumped into this industry, 
which has always been a front for the production of nuclear 
weapons, disguised as 'clean' energy. At a time when the UK looks 
as though it will incur huge fines for not reaching its recycling 
objectives and has agreed to cut CO2 emissions, the money would 
be better spent on developing green solutions and genuinely 
renewable energy. This will have the added bonus of boosting the 
high-tech sector and British industry in general. 

Mike Stone, UK 

Lots of other countries have nuclear plants and dispose of 
nuclear waste in environmentally unfriendly ways, so why should 
we stop. 

Andrew, UK 

There can be no economic, moral, business or other argument to 
justify the continuance of a process that poisons the environment 
for tens of thousands of years into the future. 

Steve, Scotland 

If only we could tap into all that hot air emanating from Ireland 
  	 		
Mark M. Newdick, US/UK                            

Perhaps they would prefer a nice coal fired power station, 
churning out all kinds of nasties into the air ... especially as 
the prevailing wind would blow it over to Europe! If only we 
could tap into all that hot air emanating from Ireland ... that 
seems to be their biggest energy resource! 

Mark M. Newdick, US/UK 

The Irish are right. They've helped close down the IRA which 
killed thousands. We should close down Sellafield which could 
well do the same. 

John, England 

Ideally, new nuclear plants should be built inland, and deep 
underground. It is not acceptable to rely on the sea as even a 
last-ditch dump. We do need nuclear power though, and now this 
Mox plant is built, it is more economical to use it than abandon 
it. The employment factor is not entirely relevant, as skilled 
technicians can be usefully employed anywhere. If employment is 
the main consideration, then building windmills seems most 
agreeable. 

Matt, UK 

We must learn from the mistakes that have been made in our 
relations with Ireland
   	 		
John Collins, England                     

Again, this is Britain being insensitive to legitimate Irish 
concern. If Sellafield is to continue is must re relocated away 
from endangering Ireland in the event of sabotage or pollution. 
We must learn from the mistakes that have been made in our 
relations with Ireland. We must start rebuilding goodwill there. 

John Collins, England 

Sellafield is, as John Collins stated, a legitimate concern for 
the people of Ireland. If there were any hazards there it would 
affect the Irish people. Therefore the Irish Government has every 
right to have its say. It is not envy on the part of the Irish 
government, more selfishness on the part of the English 
government. 

Mel, Ireland 

What right does one country have to dictate what another country 
can do? 

Caron, England 

For too long this plant has posed a great risk to the people on 
both sides of the Irish sea. I am glad that the Irish government 
are now speaking out about it. It is the greatest threat to both 
our countries. 

KATE, Dublin 

There has been an increased leukaemia rate in Co. Down where I 
live and many young children are suffering not just physically 
but mentally when they hear about "possible terrorist threats" to 
Sellafield. Many 16 year olds are also worried, they know about 
Chernobyl and have been told that this would be worse. N. Ireland 
and the Republic of Ireland receive no benefits from this plant 
and I fully support all action taken to close it down. 

Ciaran O'Connor, Northern Ireland 
*****************************************************************
 22  Nuclear Threat Initiative
 
By Kevin Featherly, Newsbytes
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, U.S.A.,
 22 Nov 2001, 11:09 AM CST
 		   	 
One of the greatest of U.S. presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 
once uttered this immutable phrase: "We have nothing to fear, but 
fear itself." It's a truism that has perhaps never been so 
challenged as it is today. But it's probably better to accept the 
thought than reject it, and that's the kind of thinking behind 
this site. The Nuclear Threat Initiative was formed by media 
mogul Ted Turner and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn out of fear that 
the threat of nuclear war had fallen off the public's radar 
screen. Turner ponied up $250 million of his own money to create 
the project, which includes this Web site.

"NTI has created this Web site to give people access to the facts 
about these threats," the site says. "These issues need to be 
debated beyond a small circle of experts and policy-makers so 
that closing the gap between the threat and the response becomes 
a global priority. The world needs to do everything possible to 
keep weapons of mass destruction out of terrorist hands." The 
site reproduces speeches to its members, and contains numerous 
links to news of the global nuclear threat. World Wide Web: 
http://www.nti.org [http://www.nti.org]

© 2001 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 23  S.D. firm gets $46 million cleanup pact

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Business -- 

By Kim Peterson 
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER 
November 21, 2001 

A San Diego company has won a $46 million contract from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental cleanup 
response to disasters in the western part of the country. 

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced the award to Project 
Resources on Monday. 

Under the five-year contract, the company will respond to 
terrorist activities, weapons of mass destruction, natural and 
man-made disasters and nuclear, biological or chemical incidents. 

The company will be responsible for the geographic area known as 
EPA Region Nine, which covers California, Nevada, Arizona, 
Hawaii, Guam and Western Samoa. The award will allow the company 
to continue to grow and hire more employees, said President Frank 
J. Loscavio. Project Resources has 195 workers throughout the 
United States. 

The contract was not awarded in response to the Sept. 11 
terrorist attacks, Loscavio said. The government first informed 
companies about the contract last July. 

Project Resources was founded in 1989 and has performed major 
cleanup projects nationwide, Loscavio said. Last winter, workers 
removed mercury spilled by a gas utility from about 5,000 homes 
in Chicago. 

Workers also cleaned lead from the soil around hundreds of homes 
in Omaha, Neb., last year, and this year demolished an abandoned 
crude-oil facility in Oklahoma City. 

Kim Peterson: (619) 293-2022; kim.peterson@uniontrib.com 

© Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.   	 	
*****************************************************************
 24  Kentucky neutron generator given an order to stop

DAILY NEWS ONLINE - Bowling Green, Ky.

November 23, 2001      

  Deborah Highland, dhighland@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3242

State health officials issued a cease and desist order to Western 
Kentucky University, to immediately stop all activities involving 
the use of neutron generators and to secure all radioactive 
material in the physics department pending an investigation. 

The state alleges in its order that Western used a neutron 
generator in the parking lot of the Applied Physics Institute on 
Nashville Road on Nov. 2. Neutron generators emit radiation when 
they are turned on and because of that, their uses and locations 
of use are regulated by the state, State Cabinet of Health 
spokeswoman Gwenda Bond said. 

This isn’t the first time that Western has been cited for this 
type of activity, Bond said. However, she was unable to obtain 
the records of the previous incident, which happened about five 
to seven years ago, she said. Western also was unable to produce 
the records of the earlier incident. Western is licensed to use 
the generators, but was not given the OK by the state to use a 
neutron generator outside, according to the order. 

“It’s my understanding that the researchers took the proper 
safeguards,” university media relations director Bob Skipper 
said. “But that’s a determination that the radiation safety 
committee will have to determine for sure. 

“Anyone involved with this had to wear a radiation badge that 
measures the amount of radiation that you might have been exposed 
to, but we don’t have the readings back from those and probably 
won’t until next week.” 

The university’s radiation safety committee also is 
investigating, committee chairman Gene Tice said. Tice also is 
the vice president of student affairs and campus services. 

According to the order written by John A. Volpe, manager of the 
Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch of the Kentucky Cabinet 
for Health Services, to Mary Reynolds, Western’s radiation safety 
officer, “Western Kentucky University (WKU) has been conducting 
activities specifically forbidden under Kentucky Radioactive 
License number 203-017-83.” 

In July, Western requested an amendment to its radioactive 
materials license that would have allowed the use of neutron 
generators in the parking lot of the Applied Physics Institute. 
The state denied that request “based on the potential for 
exposure to the general public and lack of physical shielding and 
barriers,” Reynolds’ letter stated. 

“On Friday, Nov. 2, 2001, WKU Physics Department utilized a 
neutron generator in the parking lot of the Applied Physics Annex 
in direct violation of your radioactive materials license. 

“Additionally, the activity was conducted after WKU’s Radiation 
Safety Officer informed the physics department that the request 
to utilize a neutron generator in the parking lot was not 
approved,” the order stated. “All personnel involved with the 
incident are suspended from use of radioactive material under any 
license in the Commonwealth of Kentucky pending the 
investigation.” 

Western has until Nov. 30 to respond in writing to the notice of 
violation. The generator was one of many instruments being used 
to detect the elemental composition of materials, Applied Physics 
Institute facility Manager Gary Spichiger said. 
  
www.bgdailynews.com
*****************************************************************
 25  Public urged to attend panel discussion on Yucca
 
November 23, 2001 
 
By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com [manning@lasvegassun.com] >
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 State and Clark County officials are soliciting comments from 
Southern Nevada residents at a special panel discussion on a 
proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

 The forum is scheduled from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Dec. 1 at the 
County Government Center Commission Chambers, 500 S. Grand 
Central Parkway.

 State and county officials will include public comments from the 
event in a final report to the Department of Energy due on Dec. 
14. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham extended the public comment 
period on the repository proposal for 30 days earlier this month.

 The DOE, manager of the repository program, is expected to 
recommend Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in the 
next few months to President Bush. The Yucca plan has not been 
approved by the president, Congress or the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

 County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera and Commissioner Myrna 
Williams urged residents to attend the hearing, moderated by 
former Sen. Richard Bryan.

 "I think it's important that the people who live here have a 
chance to comment and get legitimate information," Williams, a 
foe of the repository project, said.

 In addition to the commissioners, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. will 
attend. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Ensign, R-Nev., and Rep. 
Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., will appear by video hookup. State Sen. 
Mark James and Bob Loux, director of the state Agency for Nuclear 
Projects, are participating.

 Fred Dilger of the county's Nuclear Waste Division said he plans 
to talk about the terrorist threat to nuclear waste shipments en 
route to a proposed repository. State and county studies are 
under way on a potential threat from a terrorist attack on a 
container in transit, a possibility that was taken more seriously 
after Sept. 11, he said.

 Public participants who plan to attend include Paul Brown of the 
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, or PLAN, and Steve 
Cloobeck, a Las Vegas businessman spearheading a grass-roots 
effort called SAVE NEVADA.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 26  Nine more hearings set on Yucca Mountain
 
November 23, 2001 
 
LAS VEGAS SUN

 The Department of Energy has scheduled nine more hearings in 
December on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham extended the comment period on 
a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository from Nov. 14 
to Dec. 14.

 The first hearing is set for Dec. 5 from 3 to 9 p.m. at Cashman 
Center, Rooms 103-106, at Las Vegas Boulevard North and 
Washington Avenue.

 That same day, the DOE will conduct hearings in Pahrump and 
Battle Mountain.

 The second set of hearings runs 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. in Cashman 
Center, Rooms 203-206, on Dec. 8. Hearings also will be held in 
Reno and Ely on the same day.

 The third set of hearings is 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Cashman Center, 
Rooms 103-106, on Dec. 12. Other hearings are set for Amargosa 
Valley and Caliente.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 27  Letter: Yucca support is bad business
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
November 23, 2001 
 
Regarding Erin Neff's recent story, "LV area chambers may leave 
U.S. group over Yucca":

 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has set policy in centralized 
fashion much like the old Supreme Soviet and with much the same 
linear mindset, "We support nuclear power, so we support the 
nuclear industry, which wants Yucca, so we support Yucca, and 
damn the consequences."

 It strikes me that Las Vegas would be a perfect town from which 
to launch a new, improved version of the U.S. Chamber -- call it 
the American Commerce Council or what you will. Perhaps you would 
have an organization in which all members, not just the few able 
to spread a lot of money around in Washington, are considered.

 And, you know, promoting good business might just be creating 
new business for Nevada.

 RAYMOND SHADIS Edgecomb, Maine
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 28    Operating profit on Bruce lease outstrips expectations  

  [Thestar.com]   
  Nov. 23, 02:00 EDT   
  
British Energy's share of profit is $90 million
  
John Spears
BUSINESS REPORTER
  
  BILL SANDFORD FOR THE TORONTO STAR  

  POWER PLANT: British Energy is reaping rewards from investing 
in the Bruce nuclear plant.  

British Energy's investment in the Bruce nuclear generating plant 
is performing even better than expected, the company says.

In its six-month financial report for the period ended Sept. 30, 
British Energy says its share of operating profit on the Bruce 
lease was $90 million.

British Energy owns 82.4 per cent of Bruce Power, which holds an 
18-year lease on the Bruce nuclear facilities. An employee group 
and uranium producer Cameco Corp. hold the remainder.

The company is operating the four-unit Bruce B plant, and hopes 
to re-start two units of the mothballed Bruce A plant by 2003.

"Bruce B has performed ahead of our business plan," the company 
says in its statement.

British Energy notes that the Bruce investment won't contribute 
profits in the second half of the year because one reactor will 
be shut down for planned maintenance.

Ultimately, the company says it hopes that each of the six Bruce 
reactors will contribute $45 million a year to operating profit, 
for a total of $270 million annually, by 2003-2004.

The $90 million rung up by British Energy in its first six months 
at the Bruce is a quick return on the company's initial 
investment of $367 million. It has agreed to pay an additional, 
deferred payment estimated at $225 million.

In addition, the lease agreement calls on Bruce Power to make 
annual payments of $62 million to $92 million over the term of 
the lease, depending on market conditions.

Bruce Power has an option to extend the lease for 25 years when 
it expires in 2018. Costs for decommissioning and storage of all 
radioactive material remain the responsibility of Ontario Power 
Generation, owned by the provincial government.

Ontario Power Generation has been ordered to slash its share of 
the electricity market, currently about 80 per cent, to 35 per 
cent .

The province is also opening the market to competition by next 
May.

Bruce Power will have more than 20 per cent of the Ontario market 
once the Bruce A units are up and running.

any material from www.thestar.com
*****************************************************************
 29  Safeguard Russia's Nukes 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
By David S. Broder

 Sunday, November 25, 2001; Page B07 

As a rule, procedural votes in the House of Representatives are 
about as important to the citizenry as yesterday's tide table. 
But one scheduled to come up this week could affect the lives of 
you and millions of other Americans.
 
The question is whether the Republican leadership of the House 
will allow a floor vote on an amendment that would increase 
spending on anti-terrorism programs by $6.5 billion. A key part 
of the proposal would boost funding for joint U.S.-Russian 
efforts to keep Russian nuclear materials from falling into 
terrorist hands.
 
The amendment was rejected by a narrow 34-31 margin in the 
Appropriations Committee, with two Republicans joining all the 
Democrats on the losing side. Chairman Bill Young of Florida, who 
led his fellow Republicans in scuttling it, made it clear that he 
did not disagree with its substance but felt constrained by 
President Bush's threat to veto any appropriation larger than the 
administration had requested.
 
Still to be decided is whether the Rules Committee, which takes 
its guidance from the Republican leadership, will allow a floor 
vote on the amendment or, alternatively, if the House will insist 
on it.
 
Here's why it matters to you. In the wake of the Sept. 11 
attacks, federal agencies asked the White House for $127 billion 
more to recover from that assault and beef up security. The White 
House Office of Management and Budget cut that back by more than 
two-thirds.
 
Most of the extra $6.5 billion proposed by Wisconsin Rep. David 
Obey and the other Democrats would be spent on security measures 
here at home. Among other things, their amendment would enable 
the FBI to modernize its computer system for tracking suspects by 
next spring, instead of waiting until 2004. It would give the 
U.S. Postal Service funds for detection equipment to prevent 
anthrax-laden envelopes from going through the mail. It would 
increase coverage at 64 Canadian-U.S. border points that now are 
not staffed 24 hours a day, and boost port security, where 
currently only 2 percent of entering cargo containers are 
searched.
 
But "the major deficiency" that Obey says his amendment would 
rectify is the scant $18 million add-on the Bush-imposed ceiling 
allows for securing Russian nuclear materials from terrorists, 
who have made repeated efforts to acquire ingredients for atomic 
weapons. The amendment would add $316 million to the Nunn-Lugar 
program, which began 10 years ago under the bipartisan 
sponsorship of then-Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia and Sen. Richard 
Lugar of Indiana.
 
Those who watched NBC's "Meet the Press" Nov. 18 heard national 
security adviser Condoleezza Rice say that President Bush has 
been "very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program." She said, "The 
funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the 
president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for 
programs of this kind." Rice said Bush has asked for as "much 
money as is actually needed."
 
Perhaps the usually well-informed security adviser was 
misinformed, but what she said was wrong.
 
The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy 
part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million 
and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The 
"materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and 
monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the 
program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian 
nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, 
another $10 million.
 
Nor is it true, as Rice claimed, that no more money could 
usefully be spent. Veteran professional staff people in Congress 
and the administration tell me the Russians have never been more 
receptive to American help in locking up or disposing of these 
materials. On Sept. 26 the Russians agreed to give U.S. 
inspectors access to nuclear sites never before opened. The 
window is open, but money is short.
 
The program for disposing of plutonium -- a basic ingredient of 
nuclear weapons -- is essentially bankrupt. Some in the Bush 
administration argue that current disposal methods -- burning it 
in nuclear power reactors or storing it in glassified form -- are 
too expensive. I cannot judge. But last week, 20 senators wrote 
Bush "strongly urging" him to give "full and adequate funding" to 
the plutonium disposal program. Among the signers were 10 
Republicans, including the party's senior defense and budget 
spokesmen, Sens. John Warner and Pete Domenici.
 
This is a stupid place to try to save money. The House deserves a 
chance to reverse the error.
 
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 30  Irish take out anti-nuclear advert - 

CNN.com - 

November 24, 2001
 	 	
  Ireland has raised concerns about Sellafield        

LONDON, England -- The Irish Government has used a full-page 
newspaper advert to appeal to the British Government to close its 
Sellafield nuclear fuel plant. 
				 
The advertisement in The Times was signed by members of Ireland's 
ruling Fianna Fail party including Prime Minister Bertie Ahern 
and said the plant in northern England was an environmental and 
security hazard. 
				 
It is the latest in a long-running dispute with Britain about the 
potential environmental threat the plant poses, located on the 
other side of the Irish Sea. 
				 
"Sellafield poses an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to our 
environment," the advertisement said. 
				 
"Furthermore, in the aftermath of the September 11 assault...we 
also believe that Sellafield poses a grave security risk to both 
our countries." 
				 
The British Government has been reluctant to reveal security 
details imposed at the plant following the suicide attacks on New 
York's twin towers and Pentagon. France has said it has installed 
surface to air missiles at its nuclear locations. 
				 
The plant, which is due to begin production of MOX fuel -- a mix 
of uranium oxides and plutonium -- in late December, is located 
in Cumbria, northwest England, near the Irish Sea coast. 
				 
Earlier this month Dublin took its case to a United Nations 
tribunal, claiming the plant breached the 1982 United Nations Law 
of the Sea Convention (LOSC). 
				 
It followed a ruling by Britain's High Court which said Prime 
Minister Tony Blair's government had acted lawfully in giving 
approval in September for the operator, BNFL, to begin production 
of MOX. 
				 
London has defended its position, saying in a written response to 
the U.N. tribunal that the United Kingdom did not plan any action 
in the near or long term that would damage Ireland's rights under 
the sea convention "or cause serious harm to the marine 
environment." 
				 
The U.N. tribunal is expected to rule in early December on 
whether Ireland should be granted an injunction. 
				 
A BNFL spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment on the 
advert, saying it was "an issue between the two governments." 
				 
But the move was welcomed by campaigners in Cumbria who said they 
fully supported the Irish stance and sympathised with their 
concerns. 
				 
Janine Allis-Smith, a spokeswoman for Cumbrians Opposed to a 
Radioactive Environment, said: "They (the Irish) carry all the 
risks of Sellafield both in terms of possible terrorist attacks 
and pollution. 
	 		 
*****************************************************************
 31  Trade group rebuts effort to shut NY nuke plants
                                        
[Reuters]   

Wednesday November 21, 12:55 pm Eastern Time
 
NEW YORK, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Arguing that customer costs would 
increase, an electric trade association in New York opposed a 
recent effort by environmental groups and local elected officials 
to shut nuclear power plants due to security concerns, the group 
said in a statement late on Tuesday.

The Independent Power Producers of New York Inc. (IPPNY), which 
represents electric generators and marketers in New York, said 
shutting the plants would "immediately increase the cost of 
electricity to consumers, cost thousands of jobs, and threaten 
the reliability of New York's electric system.

``While we understand the issue of plant security is on the minds 
of everyone who lives and works near a nuclear power plant, 
prudent steps have been taken to ensure the security of nuclear 
facilities in New York,'' IPPNY Executive Director Gavin Donohue 
said in response to a petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) to close the Indian Point power plant 
indefinitely. About two weeks ago, Riverkeeper, an environmental 
group that seeks to protect the Hudson River, filed a petition 
with the NRC calling on the federal nuclear watchdog to 
immediately shut the Indian Point facility pending a full review 
of the plant's vulnerabilities and safety systems.

Indian Point's two operating nuclear reactors are located on the 
Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., about 40 miles north of New York 
City.

The facility, owned by a unit of energy giant Entergy Corp. 
(NYSE:ETR [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=etr&d=t]  - news) of New 
Orleans, provides about 10 percent of the city's power supply.

The petition by Riverkeeper, which is represented by 
environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated that the 
events of Sept. 11, ``clearly demonstrate that the plant's status 
needs to be reexamined.''

Pointing out that 20 million people live within a 50-mile radius 
of Indian Point, Riverkeeper warned an attack on the facility 
could have devastating consequences, rendering much of the Hudson 
River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable.

IPPNY RESPONSE

The environmental groups are, ``taking advantage of recent 
national security concerns,'' said IPPNY.

``The NRC already has strict security standards that must be met 
by nuclear facilities across the country and is currently 
reviewing those standards to determine if there is room for 
improvement.''

``Calling for plants to shut down is the sort of knee-jerk 
reaction that won't help security and will certainly have a 
negative impact on electricity markets and the economy,'' IPPNY's 
Donohue said. Officials at the NRC said they have a well 
established process for handling petitions and will form a panel 
to look at the Riverkeeper's filing.

``We just got it, so we are not even close to giving them a 
response yet,'' said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman at the NRC. 
Utilities depend on nuclear power to maintain a reliable, 
inexpensive supply of electricity.

There are more than 80 nuclear facilities in the U.S. In New 
York, nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of the electricity 
consumed.

``If nuclear plants are shut down, electricity prices will 
increase significantly,'' said IPPNY's Donohue.

``This campaign is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to 
take advantage of the tragedies of Sept. 11 to permanently shut 
down these facilities,'' Donohue said.

CLINTON INVOLVEMENT

Earlier this week, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham 
Clinton spoke at Indian Point about a plan to improve the safety 
of the nation's nuclear power plants.

Last week, Sens. Clinton and Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid 
of Nevada announced plans for legislation that would station 
federal agents at nuclear power plants to guard against security 
threats. The NRC said the bill would also likely seek the 
expansion of the emergency planning zone from 10 miles to 50 
miles.

The emergency planning zone is the area surrounding a nuclear 
plant where most of the emergency response drilling and radiation 
testing occurs. Increasing the zone around Indian Point to 50 
miles would be very costly since it would include New York City.

Senators Clinton and Reid said they intend to introduce the bill 
after the Thanksgiving recess. 


Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 32  PTCL scam: court extends remand of three accused -

DAWN - 

By Our Staff Reporter 

ISLAMABAD, Nov 26: An accountability court on Monday extended for 
another ten days the judicial remand of three accused involved in 
a massive corruption through local purchases involving Rs158 
million in a project of Pakistan Telecommunication Company (PTCL) 
initiated with the Chinese assistance. 

The accountability court No III adjourned the proceedings asking 
the authorities to produce Raja Arshad, the divisional engineer 
built and operate (BT) project Islamabad, Syed Akbar Hassan 
Jaffery, the director BT project Gujranwala and Gohar Aman, the 
divisional engineer BT project Peshawar again on December 5. 

The contract was signed between China Wanbao/ZTE and the PTCL on 
October 17, 1998 for the installation of 305,000 digital 
telephone lines in the country. 

The accused were involved in the misappropriation of funds 
through purchases which were never required and exceeded too far 
from the requirement. 

According to the reference, the prices sanctioned for the 
purchase of these items were also several times higher than the 
market value and made on some bogus or highly-inflated rates with 
an intention to simply defraud the PTCL. 

Meanwhile, the accountability court No I deferred the hearing of 
a corruption case against ex-naval chief admiral (retd) Mansurul 
Haq for December 8 since his counsel was not available on Monday. 

The court was scheduled to hear and decide about the plea- 
bargain application of Mansurul Haq. The prosecution being 
represented by deputy prosecutor general Abdul Baseer Qureshi had 
to inform about NAB's point of view on the application of the 
retired admiral Mansurul Haq. 

In his application, Admiral Mansurul Haq had asked the court to 
stay the proceedings in the corruption reference against him and 
direct the NAB authorities to release him and make arrangements 
for receiving full amount of the alleged corruption money. 

According to the court's indictment the admiral was accused of 
receiving kickbacks, commissions and bribe to the tune of $3.369 
million from the foreign suppliers in defence deals. The charges 
were framed after his similar plea-bargain application was 
rejected by the former chairman of NAB. 

DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001
*****************************************************************
 33  Sellafield Union Boss Resigns After 10 Years
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
SELLAFIELD UNION BOSS RESIGNS AFTER 10 YEARS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
One of Sellafield's high-profile public figures, John Kane, is 
giving up his position as convenor of the GMB, the nuclear site's 
bigg-est trades union.
 
After 10 years as convenor, representing a-round 3,000 BNFL 
general workers, Mr Kane is relinquishing union duties to take up 
a new Sellafield (white collar) position. 

The 46-year-old said of his GMB post: "It is the loneliest job in 
the world, at times you are on your own.
 
"A lot of people don't fully understand what the job entails and 
tend to blame you if things don't go their way.
 
"Sometimes people get personal and your family gets drawn into 
issues but those who come back and say 'thank you' have made it 
all worthwhile.
 
"You always get criticism. When I took over in October 1991, I 
had a hard act to follow in Bernard Owen and before that Bill 
Maxwell, but I feel I can walk away with my head held high and my 
dignity intact.
 
"I think I have done a good job. I've taken things as far as I 
can and it is time to put my family first." 

He will take up his new job in the New Year, after conducting the 
shop stewards ballot to elect his successor as convenor once 
nominations close on December 6.
 
Mr Kane will become a team leader responsible for about 100 
workers in the site laundry, changerooms and personal air 
samplers section.
 
The trades union fight to open Thorp along with the Gardner 
childhood leuk-aemia report saw father-of-two Mr Kane become one 
of Sellafield's best-known faces on national television.
 
"On many occasions I have stood in the middle between BNFL and 
the people who want to close us down.
 
"I have never been afraid to go into the lion's den because I 
believe in Sellafield - keeping it safe and its importance to our 
communities," said Mr Kane.
 
"The most difficult thing I have been involved in has been the 
Mox issue over the last two years. It put Sellafield and all our 
futures at risk."
 
Mr Kane was in the thick of helping to negotiate the new single 
contract designed to bring equality in pay and conditions.
 
"I still don't think we are seeing all the potential benefits of 
it," he said.
 
"I have always believed in partnership between the unions and the 
company.
 
"We have kept out of any industrial action over the last 10 
years.
 
"At the end of the day it is BNFL that makes the decision, you 
have to do your best to influence it and get the best deal 
possible for your members." 

Mr Kane has been at Sellafield for 27 years, working in the 
reprocessing plant before being elected GMB convenor. 
*****************************************************************
 34  British Energy Wants Out
 
[http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/] 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
One of Sellafield's main customers has told a Parliamentary 
Select Committee it wants to end its reprocessing contracts with 
BNFL because it is too costly.
 
It prompted CORE spokesman, Martin Forwood to say: "In confirming 
exactly what we have been saying over the last 21 years, British 
Energy's statement has pulled the rug from underneath BNFL's 
claims for reprocessing.''
 
In its submission to the Commons committee, British Energy told 
MPs: "British Energy has never re-used any of the material 
produced by reprocessing because it would be uneconomic to do so; 
this is likely to remain the case in the short to medium term. 

"Reprocessing AGR fuel is an unnecessary and expensive exercise 
that British Energy cannot afford. Reprocessing produces 
materials that have no current economic value. There is no 
technical need for reprocessing; BNFL could provide storage-only 
management, at a fraction of the cost, leaving open the option in 
the future to reprocess if it became economically desirable to do 
so. British Energy has made it clear in a previous submission to 
the Trade and Industry Committee that it would prefer not to 
reprocess AGR fuel, but it is constrained by contracts which BNFL 
are not currently prepared to renegotiate.''
 
The company continued: "Most countries do not carry out 
reprocessing, recognising the economic drawbacks, and propose to 
directly dispose of their spent fuel. 

"In the US, nuclear operators deal with their spent fuel 
management on a "pay as you go" basis, paying $1 per MWh to 
Government. In the UK, British Energy has to pay BNFL and other 
government organisations some six times this amount. Put quite 
simply, if the UK arrangements for spent fuel were to apply in 
North America, British Energy would be making a loss there and if 
the US arrangements were to apply in the UK, we would be in 
profit here.''
*****************************************************************
 35  Nuclear Industry Seeks New Waste Management Body
 
[http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/] 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
The nuclear industry is lobbying hard for the taxpayer to fund a 
Liabilities Management Agency to take over BNFL's nuclear waste 
and decommissioning problems. 

If created such a body could become a "Son of Nirex" as 
consultation starts on a possible return of plans for a Cumbrian 
nuclear waste dump.
 
The privatised company, British Energy, has threatened to take 
its future investment to the United States if the UK government 
does not help it and BNFL with its nuclear waste liabilities.
 
Last Thursday describing his "contingency plan" if the government 
decides against a lobbying for new nuclear reactors to be built, 
British Energy's executive chairman Robin Jeffrey said: "Our 
focus would be outside the UK. We'd continue to develop the 
company in North America.''
 
The British Energy half-yearly report and results also reveal 
continuing attempts to get nuclear reprocessing contracts with 
BNFL to be rewritten. In his annual statement the chairman Sir 
John Robbs says: "We have continued our discussions with BNFL, 
making it clear that we require substantial reductions in their 
charges to us for fuel and reprocessing.''
 
British Energy has urged the government to assume responsibility 
for the company's £3.4 billion of pre-privatisation 
decommissioning liabilities.
 
*****************************************************************
 36  Safety Fears Spark Strike By Sellafield Site Contractors
 
   [http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/] 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
Trouble blew up on Sellafield's big construction site when fears 
that a scaffolder could have been electrocuted led to wildcat 
strike action. 

About a hundred men working for two construction companies - 
Interserve and Balfour Kilpatrick - went out on strike last 
Friday in an angry mood claiming that the scaffolder's life had 
been put at risk.
 
The incident happened inside the new BNFL Dry-pac plant for 
treating old radioactive waste. 

The men were incensed when a 30-ton crane was allowed to operate 
in an area where a scaffolder was dismantling a scaffold tower. 
They claimed he was in potential danger because part of an 
overhead power line was still live. 

Although they returned to work on Tuesday, it was on the initial 
insistence that the BNFL-employed safety officer should be 
transferred to another part of the site but this was later 
dropped.
 
A spokesman for the men said: "Both the scaffolder and the rigger 
had permits to work. One stated that the electric power was 
switched off from a 52-ton crane on the same nine metre level as 
the 30-ton crane being operated by the rigger. 

"The scaffolder thought that the power line had been isolated but 
part of it was still live. The danger was that he could have been 
electrocuted - fortunately both the scaffolder and the rigger saw 
what was happening and stopped working. 

"BNFL has said since that the distance between the tower and the 
power supply was a safe limit but we feel that because he was 
moving poles around the limit could have been breached and this 
man put at serious risk. 

"We held a meeting after the incident and concerns were raised 
about BNFL's attitude towards the contractors' safety policy. We 
voted for industrial action and also to return to work on Tuesday 
morning. The men lost confidence in the safety supervisor and 
said they wanted him removed to another job but after hearing his 
explanation they are not pursuing this. We are having a meeting 
with the BNFL clerk of works to try and improve the permit to 
work situation and also discuss other issues." 

BNFL said yesterday: "There was a misunderstanding about the 
rules for working beneath cranes. We investigated this 
immediately and no safety rules were broken. Once the position 
was clarified the individuals concerned returned to normal 
working."
 
n Contractors are also upset by BNFL's insistence that they have 
to wear eye-protection glasses at all times while they are 
working.
 
"We are under orders to wear these glasses seven hours a day and 
it is causing damage to people's eyes. We have complained until 
we are sick of complaining but to no avail," said the spokesman.
 
"We also don't think it is right contractors should have to bear 
the brunt of the new security measures. Our cars are stopped 
twice a day to have their passes examined by AEA police whereas 
BNFL workers don't have to put up with as many checks. 
Construction workers feel that, while they build Sellafield to 
the highest standards, they are being treated as third-class 
citizens."
 
BNFL said: "Everybody is subject to the same security checks as 
well as the same safety rules and procedures for wearing 
protective clothing in work areas." 
*****************************************************************
 37  nuclear waste have taken on a new significance                                                                                                                                                                                  

Trains Full of Terror

TIMEeurope.com: Europe -- 

2001/Vol. 158 No. 22
												
mail@TIMEatlantic.com]                                                                                                 

 MARKUS SCHREIBER/APA man is detained in Splietau, north Germany, 
at one of the protests  

It was a case of speed and overwhelming numbers. Some 15,000 
police officers in riot gear swooped down at dawn on 2,000 
antinuclear demonstrators who were trying to block a truck convoy 
carrying nuclear waste from reaching a storage center in northern 
Germany. 

The officers closed roads for miles around Dannenberg and ripped 
down protest banners. They detained 780 protesters briefly and 
arrested 45 others. "They didn't allow us even a small, 
low-profile demonstration," complained Sven Teske of the 
environmental group Greenpeace. "It was a democracy-free zone." 

Antinuclear demonstrators are hardly new to Germany. In fact, 
this is the second such stop-the-transport protest this year. But 
since Sept. 11 the demonstrators have a new argument: that the 
spent nuclear waste, moving slowly by truck or rail, provides an 
easy target for terrorists. 

The German convoy reached the nuclear storage facility at 
Gorleben last week after a 1,400-km journey mostly by rail from 
La Hague in northern France, where German nuclear waste had been 
sent for reprocessing. The train carried six 100-ton, cast-iron 
casks designed to transport nuclear material safely. Each cask 
contained 28 canisters of nuclear waste at temperatures of around 
400°C. They will remain in an interim storage facility for 
between 20 and 30 years, so that the waste can cool down to a 
more manageable 200°C, when it can be permanently stored in a 
mine shaft. 

Paradoxically, the German antinuclear Green Party helped make the 
shipment happen. In June the federal government (the Greens are 
part of the coalition) and the nuclear power industry signed a 
groundbreaking agreement to phase out atomic energy in Germany 
completely. Under the deal, each of the country's 19 nuclear 
power stations will shut down after 32 years of service, an 
average of 12 years from now. As part of the agreement, the 
government agreed to take back nuclear waste that had been 
shipped to France in the '70s and '80s for reprocessing into 
storable materials. 

There are roughly 170 more casks to be returned to Germany for 
storage. The agreement also provides for reprocessing to end in 
2005. Between now and then, officials say, another 500 casks will 
be sent for reprocessing either to France or to Britain's 
Sellafield nuclear facility. "However hard it may be," said 
German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin, a prominent member of 
the Green Party, "we have to deal with the waste that Germany's 
nuclear-energy policy produced." 

The protesters hope to disrupt these future shipments, by 
blockading roads, sabotaging rails or making the whole process so 
costly that the government calls them off. During a protest in 
March, when 10,000 demonstrators turned out, the government spent 
$22.5 million to provide police protection for the train. 

Now protesters are playing the terrorism card. "Nuclear transport 
is always dangerous, but in this situation it shouldn't be done," 
said Greenpeace's Teske. "The casks wouldn't survive a plane 
crash." That case was boosted at a special session on nuclear 
terrorism held by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency 
in Vienna this month. There experts warned that the threat of 
sabotage on spent-fuel nuclear transport was being 
underestimated. 

"If terrorists were willing to kill thousands of innocent people 
in suicidal attacks against buildings symbolizing America's 
economic and military power . . . they would have little trouble 
acquiring antitank weapons that could blow up the heavy canisters 
in which radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors is 
transported through populated areas," wrote George Bunn and Fritz 
Steinhausler at Stanford University's Center for International 
Security and Cooperation in the October issue of Arms Control 
Today. "Despite the danger, no multilateral treaty requires that 
nuclear material and facilities be protected from such attacks." 

Jürgen Sattari, spokesman for a Bremen-based environmental group 
called Robin Wood, said the November protesters had a simpler 
idea in mind: an earlier phase-out of nuclear power in Germany. 
"Our goal is to stop the use of atomic energy," he said, "and the 
transport of waste is one possibility to show the politicians 
that this is not the right energy." 

*****************************************************************
 38  New Law Will Not Keep Us Quiet - Anti-Nuclear Group
 
[http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/] 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
By Alan Irving
 
A Cumbrian anti-nuclear group says it will not be gagged over the 
government's proposed anti-terrorist bill which will make it 
illegal to give details of sensitive nuclear issues.
 
Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core), which in 
the past has been the first to tell the world about BNFL 
transportation's - including the future armed Mox shipments from 
Barrow, says it will continue to inform the public even at the 
risk of going to prison. 

The new bill, expected to become law in a few weeks, bans 
publication of details about the security of nuclear sites, the 
transport of nuclear materials and sensitive nuclear technology 
such as uranium enrichment.
 
Under the act which will have catch-all powers to protect Britain 
from all sorts of terrorist activity, it will become a criminal 
off-ence carrying imprisonment to give details of nuclear waste 
train movements to Sellafield.
 
Core's campaign co-ordinator, Martin Forwood, said: "If we think 
there is a very good reason for informing the public about what 
is going on with nuclear transports we will find a way round it.
 
"At the end of the day, what is the national interest? We will 
judge everything on its merits.
 
"If we think it important to tell somebody or our world network 
of any particular circumstances then we would do so."
 
Core is lending its support to Greenpeace, who took a full-page 
advertisement in The Guardian on Monday urging the public to 
protest to the Home Secretary over what is described as "an 
outrageous" bill.
 
A large part of the advert is taken up with a map showing a 
nuclear waste transportation route through London ending up at 
Sellafield, with the headline: "In four weeks this advert will be 
ILLEGAL."
 
BNFL said its safety record for transporting spent nuclear fuel 
was second to none.
 
"At no time has there been an accident involving a release of 
radioactivity," said a spokes-man.
 
l The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary 
responsible for security at the country's nuclear sites is being 
given wider powers under new legislation.
 
At Sellafield, which holds one of the world's biggest plutonium 
stockpiles, the police have a special licence to carry and, if 
necessary, use firearms to protect the site. 

Home Secretary David Blunkett recently told the House of Commons: 
"I am determined to strike a balance between respecting our 
fundamental civil liberties and ensuring they are not exploited."
*****************************************************************
 39  MOX Case Goes To Appeal Court
 
[http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/] 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, November 22, 2001
 
The fate of the Sellafield Mox plant still has to go the extra 
mile through the courts.
 
Environmental groups Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are 
taking their action to halt Mox to the Appeal Court. A hearing 
date is expected to be November 27.
 
Last week there were celebrations in the nuclear industry after 
the High Court rejected the objectors' case against Mox.
 
BNFL are also watching developments in Hamburg this week where, 
according to Martin Forwood of the CORE anti-nuclear group, the 
United Nation's International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is 
being asked to impose a moratorium on Mox.
 
Mr Forwood said it was unclear whether the UK government would be 
bound by a ruling from the United Nation's Tribunal
 
*****************************************************************
 40  Editorial: Still Waiting - USEC needs decision on future
 
The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Sunday, November 25, 2001

Officials with USEC Inc. and the union that represents about 700 
workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant have settled their 
differences over an 18-month contract, but unfortunately the 
tentative agreement does not guarantee the future of the plant 
and its 1,500 jobs. 

The plant's future is riding on the outcome of a Bush 
administration review of the nation's nuclear fuel cycle. 

USEC management and workers are in the same boat: they can only 
wait for the results of the review, which involves top 
administration officials, including Bush's national security 
team. 

Still, it's encouraging that USEC officials and the leaders of 
Local 5-550 of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 
Workers International were able to break the contract impasse. 

Contract talks last summer bogged down on several issues. A key 
sticking point was USEC's insistence on tying the terms of the 
contract to a favorable decision from the Bush administration on 
allowing the company to continue as the sole agent for Russian 
uranium recycled from nuclear warheads. 

The union agrees the short-term financial viability of the plant 
depends on USEC's ability to mix Russian uranium with the 
higher-cost material produced by the outmoded enrichment 
technology at the Paducah facility. However, union officials 
didn't want to link the contract to the precarious status of the 
Russian deal. 

Union officials and USEC negotiators reached agreement on the 
contract not long after USEC dropped the Russian uranium from the 
contract. If PACE workers approve the contract Monday, the plant 
will add to its long record of avoiding strikes and labor 
disruptions. 

Obviously it was important for both labor and management to get 
contract matters out of the way so that both can focus on the 
future of the U.S. enrichment industry. 

But there's little either side can do without a commitment from 
the Bush administration to preserve the Paducah plant, the 
nation's lone remaining processor of nuclear fuel. 

Bush was expected to reach a decision on the future of the plant 
and USEC's Russian uranium deal in September. The terrorist 
attacks changed the timetable, but the administration needs to 
declare its position before the end of the year, when USEC's 
exclusive contract to process Russian uranium from old nuclear 
warheads and sell it as fuel for nuclear power plants expires. 

The administration reportedly is leaning toward retaining USEC as 
the exclusive agent — and not allowing utilities to enter the 
market — in exchange for the company producing a business plan 
that includes keeping the Paducah plant open for as long as 10 
years. 

Under this scenario, the company would open a European gas 
centrifuge facility within five years and develop U.S. centrifuge 
technology for a plant that would open in 10 years. The 
speculation is that the European centrifuge would be located in 
Portsmouth, Ohio, the site of a mothballed gaseous diffusion 
plant; and the new technology would be located in Paducah. 

As a backup plan, the federal government would operate the 
Paducah plant for 10 years if USEC faltered. 

This plan appears to hold the most promise for USEC workers in 
Paducah and the regional economy, which would be seriously 
damaged by the loss of the plant's 1,500 jobs. 

It also makes sense as a national security measure. If the 
Paducah plant shuts down, the U.S. nuclear power industry will 
have to rely totally on foreign enriched uranium. 

This is not a reassuring prospect given the current international 
turmoil and the multiple security threats posed by Islamic 
terrorists. 

Again, we're encouraged by reports the administration apparently 
is moving in the direction of salvaging the U.S. enrichment 
industry and allowing financially ailing USEC to shore up its 
bottom line. 

But USEC workers — and USEC stockholders, too — need concrete 
assurances that the Paducah plant will continue to operate for at 
least another decade. 

*****************************************************************
 41    Officials: Funds insufficient for Vermont Yankee emergency 

By Associated Press, 11/23/2001 18:29 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) The state of Vermont has been underfunding 
plans to respond to an emergency at the Vermont Yankee nuclear 
power plant, the state auditor said. 

''I have received information from people inside and outside 
government that there is a history of underfunding and 
understaffing readiness efforts,'' said Auditor of Accounts 
Elizabeth Ready. 

Documents show an ongoing struggle by emergency management 
officials to secure resources, with state officials often seeking 
and receiving funds from Vermont Yankee beyond the $400,000 that 
the utility is required by state law to pay, Ready said. 

''I have received documents from whistleblowers that indicate 
that state officials have asked for Vermont Yankee to pay for 
certain costs,'' she said. ''And (documents) from the company 
back to state government asking to be credited for the costs of 
those functions.'' 

Taken as a whole, she said, the documents demonstrate that state 
officials charged with radiological emergency preparedness have 
repeatedly questioned the state's readiness to deal with an 
accident at the plant. 

According to one document obtained by the Brattleboro Reformer, 
senior officials from Vermont Yankee and six state agencies and 
departments attended a July 1999 radiological response budget 
meeting, during which those concerns were clearly stated. 

''Most of the emphasis is placed upon passing the biennial 
Federal Emergency Management Agency exercise,'' read the 
Department of Emergency Management document. 

''Even though Vermont Yankee has been operating since 1972, the 
response plans and supporting organizations are not complete,'' 
it continued. ''Many pieces of the program still need to be 
implemented or expanded.'' 

Attendees at that meeting included Vermont Emergency Management 
Director Ed Von Turkovich, Secretary of Administration Kathleen 
Hoyt, and Commissioner of Health Jan Carney. 

Another document, a year 2000 draft budget proposal for the 
radiological response fund, proposed increasing the $400,000 fund 
to more than $700,000. Von Turkovich said the intensive emphasis 
on preparation for FEMA drills left the state in a strong 
position to respond to a real emergency. 

''I want to do more than that,'' Von Turkovich added. ''That's 
why I would suggest we need more money to be prepared.'' 

Ready, a longtime nuclear opponent, said her efforts to obtain 
state documents on emergency preparedness were motivated by a 
desire for accountability and open public discussion. And she 
expressed strong support and respect for state officials who have 
stepped forward at personal risk. 
*****************************************************************
 42    Regulators say disaster study on Yankee was 'misused' 

By Associated Press, 11/23/2001 16:05 

VERNON, Vt. (AP) A 1981 study saying a meltdown at Vermont Yankee 
could kill 24,000 people has been ''repeatedly misused and abused 
over the years,'' the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says. 

The study, brought up last week by the watchdog group Greenpeace, 
was commissioned by the NRC from Sandia National Laboratory. It 
was first publicized by the Washington Post in 1982. 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the Sandia study assumes a 
one-in-a-billion accident scenario and doesn't represent what 
would be expected to happen in the case of a nuclear power plant 
accident. 

However, Greenpeace is standing by the report. 

''If they want to try to walk away from their reports, that's 
fine,'' said Jim Riccio, the author of a Greenpeace report based 
in part on the Sandia material, which called for an end to 
nuclear power. 

It's not the first time the agency's own numbers have been turned 
against it - and the NRC has responded with more numbers. 

In 1982, U.S. Rep. Lindy Boggs wrote to the agency, expressing 
alarm at the Sandia report and its modeled nuclear catastrophe, 
which was predicted to immediately kill 96,000 people in the 
vicinity of Louisiana's Waterford III. William Dircks, the NRC's 
executive director, replied reassuringly that the New Orleans 
Times-Picayune article that had attracted her attention gave a 
''distorted and incomplete picture of nuclear accident 
probabilities, consequences, and modeling uncertainties.'' 

The study was not intended to analyze the probability of reactor 
accidents, Dircks wrote, but only worst-case consequences. The 
overall risk, he wrote, was infinitesimal. 

The study ''does not change our overall perception of reactor 
risk,'' Dircks wrote. ''On the contrary, the results presented in 
this report are consistent with those presented in (the agency's) 
Reactor Safety Study and later NRC and industry publications. The 
results in the Sandia study also give us assurance that our 
present reactor siting criteria are not flawed ... .'' 

The one-in-a-billion chance of such an accident happening, 
referred to by Sheehan, was examined in greater depth in the 1982 
letter. According to Dircks, the chance of the meteorological 
conditions used in the study actually occurring was one in 
10,000; the annual probability of a large-scale release resulting 
from a full-scale meltdown was one in 100,000; and the chance of 
both occurring at one time is one in one billion. 

The ''annual probability'' of a meltdown at a reactor, Dircks 
stated, is about one in 10,000. It was unclear from his letter 
whether this translated into a one-in-100 probability that a full 
meltdown would occur at one of the nation's 103 reactors in a 
given year. Phone calls to the Sandia National Laboratory Monday 
were not returned. 

Overall, Dircks said, someone who lived within a mile of 
Waterford III had a one-in-one million chance of dying in such an 
accident; by comparison, the average American has a one-in-2,000 
chance of dying in an accident and a one-in-500 chance of dying 
of cancer. 

Last week, Riccio countered that there have already been two 
partial meltdowns of U.S. reactors in less than 3,000 reactor 
years - not 10,000. In addition to Three Mile Island and Fermi, 
test reactors also failed. 

''If the NRC wants to get into a battle about how often their 
reactors melt down, why don't we get into reality?'' he said. 
''The reality is, core melts happen, reactors melt down, 
containment fails.'' 

He accused the NRC of ''circling the wagons around the industry'' 
and having been ''captured by the industry it purports to 
regulate.'' The agency has been practically level-funded since 
1996. 

Terrorist attacks, such as those of Sept. 11, have never been 
envisioned by the NRC as a credible risk, and have never been 
part of risk studies. 

The agency said in a Sept. 21 press release that the NRC ''did 
not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 
757s or 767s and nuclear power plants were not designed to 
withstand such crashes. 

''Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have 
not yet been performed,'' the NRC said. 
*****************************************************************
 43  NRC PROPOSES $3,000 FINE FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LABS, INC.
 
 Region IV -- 2001- 49 - 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011   

  No. IV-01-049     September 28, 2001   

CONTACT:   Breck Henderson
 Phone: 817-860-8128
 Cellular: 817-917-1227
 e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov [bwh@nrc.gov] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine 
of $3,000 against Construction Engineering Labs, Inc., of Pearl 
City, Hawaii, for failing to maintain required security over 
gauges containing radioactive material.
 
An NRC inspector identified the violation on March 7, and an 
investigation was conducted beginning March 28. The inspector 
found that a Construction Engineering Labs employee failed to 
secure and maintain constant surveillance over a moisture/density 
gauge containing cesium-137 and americium-241. The inspector 
later found that the company routinely used ropes, rather than 
bars or chains, to secure gauges, in violation of its NRC 
license. 

The violation did not result in radiation overexposure of any 
workers or members of the public, but could have resulted in the 
gauge being stolen. The company has taken prompt and 
comprehensive corrective actions to assure that its workers 
secure gauges in accordance with regulations.
 
Construction Engineering Lab officials met with the NRC in 
Honolulu on August 20 to discuss the violation. The NRC has 
classified the violation as a Severity Level III problem, which 
carries a $3,000 fine. The agency uses a four-level scale on 
which Level I is the most serious. 

NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff said, in a letter 
to Construction Engineering Labs President Ronald A. Pickering, 
the fine is proposed ". . . to emphasize the importance of strict 
adherence with requirements to assure adequate security of 
licensed radioactive material . . ."
 
Construction Engineering Labs is required to respond to the 
letter and Notice of Violation with actions the company is taking 
to assure future compliance with all requirements of its license 
to possess radioactive materials. The company has 30 days to pay 
the fine or protest it. If the protest is denied, the company may 
request a hearing by the NRC.
 
Copies of the Notice of Violation sent to Construction 
Engineering Labs can be found on the NRC website at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/OE [http://www.nrc.gov/OE] 
*****************************************************************
 44  NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet December 5 - 
8 in Rockville, Maryland
 
  Press Release - 2001 - 132 - 

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov   

  No. 01-132     November 23, 2001   

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking qualified 
candidates for a new position of Interventional Cardiology 
Physician on its Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of 
Isotopes (ACMUI). Nominees should be interventional cardiologist 
physicians with experience in intravascular brachytherapy use of 
radiation sources. Committee members serve a 3-year term, with 
possible reappointment to an additional 3-year term. The ACMUI 
was established July 1, 1958, and advises NRC on policy and 
technical issues related to the regulation of the medical use of 
radioactive byproduct material. Responsibilities include 
providing comments on changes to NRC rules, regulations, and 
guidance documents; evaluating certain non-routine uses of 
byproduct material; providing technical assistance in licensing, 
inspection, and enforcement cases; and bringing key issues to the 
attention of NRC for appropriate action. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a meeting December 5-8 in 
Rockville, Maryland, to discuss, among other items, power uprate 
requests for the Quad Cities and Dresden nuclear power plants in 
Illinois, and proposed steam generator program guidelines. 

The meeting, most of which is open to the public, will be held in 
Room T-2B3 of the agency's Two White Flint North building, at 
11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. A 
complete agenda is attached.
 
For additional information on the meeting or schedule changes, 
please contact Dr. Sher Bahadur at 301-415-0138.
 
ACRS Meeting Agenda
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2001, CONFERENCE ROOM 2B3, TWO WHITE FLINT 
NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
 


  8:30 - 8:35 A.M.     Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 
(Open)
 
+ Opening statement
 
+ Items of current interest 

+ Priorities for preparation of ACRS reports 8:35 - 10:10 A.M.     
Dresden and Quad Cities Core Power Uprate (Open/Closed)
 
+ Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman
 
+ Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC 
staff 

+ and the Exelon Generating Company regarding the resolution of 

+ the open issues associated with the core power uprate requests 

+ for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3, and Quad 
Cities 

+ Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, in particular the issue of 
the
 
+ need for conducting large transient tests.   


[NOTE: A portion of this session may be closed to discuss General 
Electric Nuclear Energy Proprietary information applicable to 
this matter.]
 


  10:10 - 10:30 A.M.     ***BREAK*** 10:30 - 12:30 P.M.     
Discussion of Topics for Meeting with the NRC Commissioners
 
+ (Open)
 
+ Discussion of topics scheduled for the ACRS meeting with the 
NRC Commissioners. 12:30 - 1:30 P.M.     ***LUNCH*** 1:30 - 3:30 
P.M.     Meeting with the NRC Commissioners (Open)
 
+ The Committee will meet with the NRC Commissioners, 
Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, to discuss 
the following: + 
 
+ Regulatory Challenges for Future Plant Designs 

+ Reactor Oversight Process 

+ ACRS Activities Associated with Power Uprates and Related 
Matters 

+ Status of ACRS Activities on License Renewal 3:30 - 4:00 P.M.     
***BREAK*** 4:00 - 5:30 P.M.     Risk-Informed 10 CFR Part 50 
Pilot Program (Option 2) (Open) Remarks by the Subcommittee 
Chairman Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff regarding the proposed revisions to the special 
treatment requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 (Option 2), including 
proposed 10 CFR 50.69, industry guidance on NEI 00-04, and 
proposed Appendix T to 10 CFR Part 50. Representatives of the 
nuclear industry may provide their views, as appropriate. 5:30 - 
5:50 P.M.     ***BREAK*** 5:50 - 7:00 P.M.     Proposed ACRS 
Reports (Open)
 
+ Dresden and Quad Cities Core Power Uprate 

+ afety Research Program (Tentative)   


THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6
 


  8:30 - 8:35 A.M.     Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 
(Open) 8::35 - 10:00 A.M.     NEI 97-06, "Steam Generator Program 
Guidelines" (Open)
 
+ Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman
 
+ Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC 
staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding NEI 97-06 
and the proposed technical specification change package. 10:00 - 
10:15 A.M.     ***BREAK*** 10:15 - 11:30 A.M.     Proposed 
Rulemaking for Risk-Informed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.44
 
+ (Open) 

+ Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman
 
+ Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC 
staff regarding the draft rule and associated regulatory analysis 
for risk-informed revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, "Standards for 
Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water Cooled Power 
Reactors."
 
+ Representatives of the nuclear industry may provide their 
views, as
 
+ appropriate. 11:30 - 1:30 P.M.   ***LUNCH*** 2:00 - 6:00 P.M.     
ACRS/ACNW Office Retreat (Open)
 
+ The Committee will meet with the ACRS technical and operational 
staffs to discuss issues arising from the ACRS/ACNW Office 
retreat held on September 19-21, 2001. 6:00 - 6:15 P.M.   
***BREAK*** 6:15 - 7:30 P.M.     Proposed ACRS Reports (Open)
 
+ Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on:
 
+ Dresden and Quad Cities Core Power Uprate
 
+ Risk-Informed 10 CFR Part 50 Pilot Program (Option 2)
 
+ NEI 97-06, "Steam Generator Program Guidelines"
 
+ Proposed Rulemaking for Risk-Informed Revision to 10 CFR 50.44 

+ Safety Research Program (Tentative)   


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2001
 


  8:30 - 8:35 A.M.     Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 
(Open) 8:35 - 9:30 A.M.     Subcommittee Reports
 
+ Report by the Chairman of the Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena 
Subcommittee on matters discussed at the November 28, 2001 
meeting.
 
+ Report by the Chairman of the Joint Meeting of the ACRS 
Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic 
Phenomena, and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment on 
matters discussed on November 15, 2001.
 
+ Report by the Co-Chairman of the ACRS/ACNW Joint Subcommittee 
on matters discussed at the November 14, 2001 meeting. 9:30 - 
9:50 A.M.     ***BREAK*** 9:50 - 10:50 A.M.     Future ACRS 
Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee 
(Open)
 
+ Discussion of the recommendations of the Planning and 
Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for 
consideration by the full Committee during future ACRS meetings. 

+ Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters 
related to the conduct of ACRS business, and organizational and 
personnel matters relating to the ACRS. 10:50 - 11:10 A.M.     
Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)
 
+ Discussion of the responses from the NRC Executive Director for
 
+ Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent
 
+ ACRS reports and letters. 11:10 - 11:40 A.M.     Election of 
ACRS Officers (Open)
 
+ The Committee will elect Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 
ACRS and Member-at-Large for the Planning and Procedures 
Subcommittee for CY 2002. 11:40 - 12:45 P.M.     ***LUNCH*** 
12:45 - 7:00 P.M.     Proposed ACRS Reports (Open)
 
+ Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on:
 
+ Dresden and Quad Cities Core Power Uprate
 
+ Risk-Informed 10 CFR Part 50 Pilot Program (Option 2)
 
+ NEI 97-06, "Steam Generator Program Guidelines"
 
+ Proposed Rulemaking for Risk-Informed Revision to 10 CFR 50.44 

+ Safety Research Program (Tentative)   


SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8
 


  8:30 - 12:30 P.M.     Proposed ACRS Reports (Open)
 
+ Continue discussion of proposed ACRS reports. 12:30 - 1:00 P.M.     
Miscellaneous (Open) 

+ Discussion of matters related to the conduct of Committee 
activities and matters and specific issues that were not 
completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of 
information permit.   


NOTE:
 
Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time 
allocated for a specific item. The remaining 50 percent of the 
time is reserved for discussion. Thirty-Five (35) copies of the 
presentation materials should be provided to the ACRS. For 
further information, contact Dr. Sher Bahadur at 301-415-0138.
 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 New Scientist Picks Up 'Osama's Nuclear Joke' Story 
 
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:47:49 -0600 (CST)

 
New Scientist Picks Up 'Osama's Nuclear Joke' Story

Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit

New Scientist - Nov 20, 2001
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991584

Taliban 'Secret' Nuclear Documents Mirror 1979 Satire Article

By Nicola Jones

Documents found strewn on the floor of a Taliban recruitment centre
in Kabul, apparently describing how to build a thermonuclear device,
may not be as frightening as they first seem.

The papers were picked out by BBC correspondent John Simpson and
showed, he said, "how dangerous Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network aspired
to be".

But the sentences shown in focus by the camera also come from a
famous document called "Weekend Scientist: Let's Make a Thermonuclear
Device", which was first published in 1979 as a humour piece by
The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

The paper was written in response to US court decisions of the time
that restricted popular magazines from detailing how to make a
bomb.

Since all the information is freely available in public libraries
anyway, the author said, he decided to provide a humorous "ten easy
steps" proving how easy bomb building can be.

Written in jest

While the gist of these instructions may be accurate, for example
giving suggested relative proportions of plutonium and TNT, they
are written completely in jest.

The first instruction tells readers to obtain weapons grade plutonium
at their "local supplier". It continues: "A nuclear power plant is
not recommended, as large quantities of missing plutonium tends to
make plant engineers unhappy. We suggest you contact your local
terrorist organization."

The US Department of Energy generally refuses to comment on the
accuracy of such documents. But they do say that about five kilograms
of plutonium is theoretically enough to make a nuclear explosive
device, while the recipe in The Journal of Irreproducible Results
calls for 110 kilograms of plutonium.

Cloned wife

The BBC film only allows a few parts of the documents to be read,
but these few phrases are exactly as found in the 1979 paper:
"Theory of operation ... the device basically works when ... critical
mass then produces a nuclear chain reaction ... Plutonium (PU),
atomic number
... and is similar in ...".

"From what I've seen, this is certainly a shortened version of the
original article," says Marc Abrahams, former editor of The Journal
of Irreproducible Results.

Some of the more obviously absurd parts of the original are missing
from the document in Kabul, such as a paragraph starting "in next
month's column, we will learn how to clone your neighbor's wife in
six easy steps." The Kabul document also has paragraph returns in
odd places, as if someone had cut and pasted the text.

Even so, says Abrahams, "if you spend half a second scanning any
of this you should be able to tell it's a joke." He adds that if
the instructions were made more believable by removing the ridiculous
parts, there would be practically nothing left.

Simpson noted that the Afghan secret service had visited the centre
before him and removed documents. He also qualified his report by
saying that "maybe the really dangerous-sounding documents on
nuclear fission and missiles were just fantasy".

BBC press officer Chris Reed in London: "It's safe to say that he
chose his words with care. I need to get to the bottom of it."

=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems Since
1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York,
NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
=================================================================

nytcov-11.23.01-00:45:17-13651
*****************************************************************
 2  Japanese officials applaud Berkeley
 
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:27:31 -0800 (PST)

 
                                  SATURDAY  NOVEMBER
17, 2001

Japanese officials applaud Berkeley
By Judith Scherr, Daily Planet staff (11-17-01)

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on
justice and order, the Japanese people forever
renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and
the threat or use of force as means of settling
international disputes. 
– Article 9 

The Constitution of Japan

While some assert that there’s a boycott Berkeley
campaign – a reaction to a City Council resolution
asking for a halt to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan
as soon as possible – two Japanese parliamentarians
came to town this week to thank Berkeley
councilmembers first hand for the resolution. 

They are also hoping to meet with Rep. Barbara Lee,
D-Oakland, to thank her for being the lone Congress
person to oppose giving war powers to the president.

They are Tomon Mitsuko and Renko Kitagawa, both
members of the Japanese House of Representatives, the
lower house in the Japanese Parliament. Both are
members of the Japanese Democratic Socialist Party, a
political party that counts 19 members in the lower
house and 8 in the upper house.

“I was so impressed by the speech (Lee) gave to
Congress,” said Mitsuko, in an interview Friday
morning at the Shattuck Hotel. “In order to end
terrorism, I don’t think that force is the best way.
There should be some other way.” The focus should be
on eradicating poverty, she said.

The Democratic Socialist Party, which holds 19 out of
480 seats in the lower house and eight out of 252 in
the upper house is in the minority. Only the Japanese
Communist Party, which holds 20 seats in the lower
house, disagrees with the use of military force in
Afghanistan.

The Japanese government has thrown its support behind
the United States, despite what Mitsuko says is a
clear mandate in the constitution not to use force to
settle international disputes.

In his statement of support Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi reportedly emphasized that Japan regards
terrorism as “its own security issue.” The Japanese
government pledged to help the U.S. in intelligence
collection, shipment of supplies, medical services and
humanitarian relief and to strengthen protection of
U.S. bases in Japan. 

Mitsuki’s party issued a resolution expressing
condolences for the loss of lives in the World Trade
Center and called for those who participated in the
crime to be judged in an international court of law,
according to international laws and treaties. “When
(the crime) is avenged (by) violence, it causes chains
of violence without end and it would not solve the
problems essentially,” the resolution says. “It is not
forgiven to use military force to deprive people of
the right to life, which is the same as terrorism.”

Both Mitsuko and Kitagawa have been members of
parliament for one year only. In addition to working
for peace, their party is working to promote growing
food without pesticides, fighting against
discrimination against Korean-Japanese people and
strengthening laws against child abuse and domestic
violence.

Mitsuko has been working for some time on eliminating
the U.S. military from Okinawa, where she was formerly
vice governor. There are about 25,000 U.S. military
personnel. She said they have been a source of crime,
including rape, drunken driving and arson. They have
also been the source of a number of aircraft
accidents, according to a booklet prepared by the
Military Base Affairs Office.

“We are not anti-American. We are anti military,”
Mitsuko said.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Attachment Converted: "c:\lib\news\attach\BDP11.17.01Japan.doc"
*****************************************************************
 3  From the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  

Omaha.com

November 25, 2001

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Scientists in New York said they are overwhelmed 
by the response from adults who donated their baby teeth for a 
survey about radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests and now 
wish to participate in a follow-up survey. 

Close to 1,000 people have called or e-mailed the scientists 
since the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story Nov. 9 about 
a new study trying to determine whether teeth donors developed 
cancer and other health problems years later as a result of the 
fallout. 

About 85,000 baby teeth collected from 1959 to 1970 were 
discovered only recently. 

The teeth from the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey determined that 
From the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  

Omaha.com

November 25, 2001

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Scientists in New York said they are overwhelmed 
by the response from adults who donated their baby teeth for a 
survey about radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests and now 
wish to participate in a follow-up survey. 

Close to 1,000 people have called or e-mailed the scientists 
since the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story Nov. 9 about 
a new study trying to determine whether teeth donors developed 
cancer and other health problems years later as a result of the 
fallout. 

About 85,000 baby teeth collected from 1959 to 1970 were 
discovered only recently. 

The teeth from the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey determined that 
From the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  

Omaha.com

November 25, 2001

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Scientists in New York said they are overwhelmed 
by the response from adults who donated their baby teeth for a 
survey about radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests and now 
wish to participate in a follow-up survey. 

Close to 1,000 people have called or e-mailed the scientists 
since the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story Nov. 9 about 
a new study trying to determine whether teeFrom the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  

Omaha.com

November 25, 2001

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Scientists in New York said they are overwhelmed 
by the response from adults who donated their baby teeth for a 
survey about radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests and now 
wish to participate in a follow-up survey. 

Close to 1,000 people have called or e-mailed the scientists 
since the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story Nov. 9 about 
a new study trying to determine whether teeFrom the mouths of baby boomers: Teeth help in study  

Omaha.com

November 25, 2001

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Scientists in New York said they are overwhelmed 
by the response from adults who donated their baby teeth for a 
survey about radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests and now 
wish to participate in a follow-up survey. 

Close to 1,000 people have called or e-mailed the scientists 
since the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a story Nov. 9 about 
a new study trying to determine whether teeth donors developed 
cancer and other health problems years later as a result of the 
fallout. 

About 85,000 baby teeth collected from 1959 to 1970 were 
discovered only recently. 

The teeth from the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey determined that 
children were absorbing radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb 
tests by the United States and the Soviet Union. The study 
received international attention and helped persuade the nation 
to adopt a 1963 treaty banning atmospheric bomb tests. 

The teeth were found in May in hundreds of boxes by Washington 
University officials cleaning out a school bunker where the teeth 
had been stored since the 1970s. They were in small envelopes 
fastened by rusty paper clips to cards with details about the 
children who gave the teeth to science instead of to the tooth 
fairy. 

"We flipped out when we heard about the 85,000 teeth," Joseph 
Mangano, national coordinator with the independent, nonprofit 
Radiation and Public Health Project research group, told the St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch. "It was like an early Christmas present." 

Researchers in New York are hoping to find more owners of the 
teeth and determine whether they have experienced health 
problems, such as thyroid cancer. 

Mangano wants anyone born and living in St. Louis from the late 
1940s through the 1960s - especially if they believe they 
submitted teeth - to contact his group. If matched with any of 
the baby teeth, the person would be mailed a health 
questionnaire. 

"I see no reason not to join in a study like that, to be part of 
history," said Eric Pickles, whose baby teeth were in the find. 
Pickles, 43, said he hasn't had health problems. 

After World War II, the U.S. government set off about 100 nuclear 
bombs in aboveground tests in the West. Public concern about 
radioactive fallout rose as scientists began to find it in the 
environment and milk supply downwind from the explosions. 

The survey, which began in late 1958, became so well-known that 
letters addressed simply "Tooth Fairy, St. Louis" got to the 
committee's office. By the time it ended in 1970, the project had 
collected nearly 300,000 baby teeth, mostly within a 150-mile 
radius of St. Louis. All seemed forgotten until this spring, when 
the teeth were found. 

©2001 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright | Terms 
of Use | 
*****************************************************************
 4  What if Terror Went Nuclear?
       
November 25, 2001

The Specter of Nuclear Terror (November 19, 2001)

o the Editor: 

Re "The Specter of Nuclear Terror" (editorial, Nov. 19):

The possibility that Al Qaeda operatives might obtain atom bomb 
materials from Russia and former Soviet republics is a matter of 
grave concern. But so is the availability of these materials from 
the growing British, French and Japanese plutonium industries and 
from a new German research reactor to be operated on bomb-grade 
uranium. National and international controls against undetected 
losses and outright thefts of these materials remain weak. 

The report you refer to by five American nuclear weapons experts, 
prepared for the Nuclear Control Institute, provides a wake-up 
call on the folly of allowing "civilian" atom bomb materials to 
pile up anywhere in the world. India and Pakistan built their 
nuclear weapons programs on such materials. Iraq tried. Iran may 
be next.   

STEVEN DOLLEY Research Director Nuclear Control Institute 
Washington, Nov. 19, 2001 • 

To the Editor:

You point out the possibility that terrorists could steal Russian 
highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon (editorial, Nov. 
19). But such uranium may be even more vulnerable to theft 
elsewhere. 

Germany is about to commission a new reactor that by the year 
2010 will use 800 pounds of bomb-grade uranium fuel, enough for 
16 rudimentary Hiroshima-style bombs. The reactor sits at a 
university less protected than most Russian weapons facilities. 
Similarly, most of the world's medical-isotope producers still 
employ bomb-grade uranium at commercial facilities less secure 
than Russia's weapons sites.

Russian nuclear material can and should be better protected. But 
if American officials acquiesce to bomb-grade uranium commerce at 
even less secure facilities in other countries, we will not be 
much safer.   

ALAN J. KUPERMAN Venice, Calif., Nov. 19, 2001

The writer is a visiting scholar, Center for International 
Studies, University of Southern California. • To the Editor:

The need to vastly improve the security of materials that could 
be used to make nuclear weapons is immediate and of paramount 
importance to global security ("The Specter of Nuclear Terror," 
editorial, Nov. 19.) Before Sept. 11, the Bush administration, 
citing budget concerns, planned to cut financing for joint 
Russian-American efforts to do just that. 

If money is the issue, the billions now being spent on missile 
defense should be redirected to address this far more immediate 
nuclear threat. There can be no excuse for failing to act 
aggressively. 
  
MICHAEL CHRIST Exec. Dir., International Physicians for the 
Prevention of Nuclear War Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 20, 2001

• To the Editor:

Besides beefing up measures to prevent nuclear theft, two other 
matters should be addressed by United States policy makers ("The 
Specter of Nuclear Terror," editorial, Nov. 19): ¶Support the 
International Atomic Energy Agency's new initiatives. The 
agency's governing body will meet soon to receive the director 
general's report on ways to prevent terrorism involving nuclear 
materials. There should be swift support for the recommended 
measures.

¶Get moving on international legal instruments. Since 1998, a 
draft convention on suppressing acts of nuclear terrorism has 
been languishing in the Legal Committee of the United Nations 
General Assembly. That draft not only addresses terrorism in the 
form of trying to acquire nuclear material to build a nuclear 
explosive device. It also deals with the use of other radioactive 
material that could be used with a conventional device ("dirty 
bomb") to terrorize and spread radiation. 

  LARRY D. JOHNSON Davis, Calif., Nov. 19, 2001

The writer was legal adviser at the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, 1997-2001.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information 
*****************************************************************
 5  Antinuclear activists criticize Bush

Japan Today Japan News - 

Saturday, November 24, 2001 at 20:00 JST

NAGASAKI:  Japanese experts on nuclear disarmament criticized 
U.S. President George W Bush at a gathering in Nagasaki on Friday 
for his government's apparent backpedaling from a trend toward 
abolishment of nuclear weapons.

At a meeting organized by an antinuclear group held at the 
Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, scholars and civic group members 
criticized Bush for Washington's opposition to ratifying the 1996 
nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and its reported 
plan to step up efforts to virtually nullify the pact at various 
diplomatic venues. (Kyodo News)

Japan Today Discussion

Post Your Opinion!

Anti Le royal  (Nov 25 2001 - 02:08) Hippies they're always 
protesting at something, do they not realize we need nukes to 
protect ourselves. They should stop those activists they don't 
know anything!

Hippie's Admiral  (Nov 25 2001 - 14:32) What do you expect when 
they Live in the Smell of their own Filth. But Seriously, Your 
Momma Taught You Better. Right! They are Ignorant, & that's 
Educatable. You, Sir, are merely Stupid, & That's for Life! 
Without them, Who need's You? Yadah,Yadah,Yadah,Blah,Blah,Blah. 
What are you really trying to Say? The World Wonder's!

#;/<

yo admiral....
norainu  (Nov 25 2001 - 15:07) Dude, how drunk are you? You wrote 
'what are you trying to say,' but maybe you should apply this 
kind of criticism to yourself. Your post in the discussion about 
Kamei's stance on WWII was also a bunch of blathering, but this 
takes the cake.

As for the anti-nuke protesters...don't they realize that Bush 
just signed an agreement with Putin to reduce each nations 
stockpile of nuclear weapons by more than half? Sure you can 
bitch about this treaty or that, but surely this is a major step 
forward that shouldn't be denied.

Noraino
Admiral  

(Nov 26 2001 - 04:57) Don't Drink. I think You Just Applied That 
kind of Criticism to Me, & I am Proud of You. I Choose to 
Scrutinize Myself, rather than Criticize Myself. Le royal does 
not even Know what a Hippie is. I suspect that you have no Clue, 
either. I agree with you more than you Know. I Live for the Day 
that "Nuclear" is PreEminately a Peaceful thing. Even if you 
Eliminated all Nuclear Weapon's, The Demonstrater's would still 
be there. And I, & people Like me, will Guarantee their Right to 
be a Fly, continuously buzzing in the Ear of Humanity! Please, 
excuse My Outburst.

It was a Poor Combination of Sarcasm & English that Possibly 
only an a Primary English Speaker
might Understand.
I am Sorry you disagree about

"Apology's", But I will Guarantee your Right To Do that, to!
Good Dat to You!
*****************************************************************
 6  Pakistan Continues Probe of Nuclear Scientists

washingtonpost.com: 

By Susan B. Glasser and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, November 24, 2001; Page A13 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 23 -- Pakistan's military intelligence 
service continues to detain two nuclear scientists for 
questioning about their alleged connections to Osama bin Laden 
and his al Qaeda terrorist group, senior Pakistani intelligence 
sources said today.

"We want to be absolutely sure before giving a clean chit to 
nuclear scientists who had confessed to having met Osama Bin 
Laden, Mullah Omar and several al Qaeda leaders last year," said 
a senior Pakistani official.

Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majid have acknowledged 
meeting bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar during at 
least three visits to Afghanistan last year, the sources said. 
But the scientists have insisted throughout the six-week 
investigation that those meetings were in connection with a 
relief agency they founded in 1999. 

"We are still not satisfied with their answers," said an 
intelligence official when asked why the two scientists have not 
been allowed to return to their homes. President Pervez Musharraf 
"has ordered an extensive investigation in this matter and we 
can't let them go before we get to the bottom of this," the 
official said.

In an effort to allay international concerns about the security 
of Pakistan's nuclear program, Pakistani officials recently 
briefed a senior U.S. official on the status of the investigation 
of the scientists and their purported connections with bin Laden 
and al Qaeda, the sources said.

In comments to reporters Thursday, the chief government 
spokesman, Gen. Rashid Qureshi, confirmed that the investigation 
was continuing, but would not discuss the details. "We will 
continue to investigate for as long as it is deemed necessary," 
he said. Asked whether the scientists were being held, he said, 
"I don't think they are in continuous detention," but he would 
provide no details about their status.

Senior intelligence sources said that neither scientist had been 
formally arrested while the investigation continues. Mahmood 
helped lead Pakistan's efforts to enrich uranium, while Majid 
worked for Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission until 1999.

Senior Pakistani officials said Mahmood is at the center of their 
investigation, which seeks to reconstruct his days since he 
resigned to protest a transfer in March 1999. "Mahmood's 
personality profile, combined with his meetings with Osama bin 
Laden, make a lethal blend," said a senior intelligence official. 
After 28 years of working in key jobs at Pakistan's three most 
crucial nuclear facilities, Mahmood was transferred to a less 
important desk job after he had vigorously advocated extensive 
production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium enrichment with 
a view toward equipping other Islamic countries with nuclear 
capabilities, government officials said.

Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency argued 
that the transfer was necessary because Mahmood's beliefs were 
too dangerous for him to be allowed to continue as head of the 
country's plutonium-producing plant near Khoshab in the Punjab 
region.

"Mahmood was the strongest advocate of the view that only nuclear 
weapons could provide ultimate security to Muslim nations against 
infidel powers," said an MIT-trained Pakistani nuclear scientist 
who spoke on condition of anonymity.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company 
*****************************************************************
 7  OFF CENTRE: Why it's time to worry about the bomb: The September 
11 attacks have raised the spectre of nuclear terrorism - and 
questions over the US government's response. 

Financial Times; Nov 24, 2001 By VICTORIA GRIFFITH

US schoolchildren in the 1950s were regularly asked to hide under 
their desks for "nuclear-war drills". The images, caught on 
camera, were mocked by later generations, whose complacency 
allowed them to see humour in the situation. The absurdity of 
thinking a thin shield of wood would protect someone against a 
nuclear blast was funny only as long as the threat of nuclear war 
appeared remote.

People are not laughing any more. Despite pledges by the US and 
Russia to slash their nuclear arsenals, the September 11 attacks 
have raised the spectre of nuclear terrorism of some sort - and 
questions over the US government's response.

A nuclear bomb attack would certainly render the health system 
virtually useless.

"The ability to help victims of a nuclear bomb blast is very 
limited, which is why the focus has to be on prevention," says 
Ira Helfand, a Massachusetts emergency room physician and 
co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, which argues 
against nuclear proliferation.

Scientists are concerned, however, that the US is not preparing 
itself better for other types of nuclear attacks, specifically a 
"dirty bomb", or terrorism at a nuclear power plant.

"If you were unhappy with the government's response to 
bio-terrorism, just wait till you see the government's response 
to a nuclear attack," says Bill Hoehn, Washington director for 
the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a 
research group. "They are even less prepared for such an event."

Unlike a nuclear bomb, which generates an atomic chain reaction 
to create a huge explosion, "dirty bombs" and nuclear power 
accidents can and should be addressed by public health 
authorities. A dirty bomb is a normal explosive device - such as 
dynamite - laced with radioactive material.

Apart from the victims in the immediate area of the explosion - 
who are likely to be killed in any case - a dirty bomb poses 
little threat from radioactive fall-out.

Victims close to the bomb who survive the blast would risk 
ingesting radioactive materials such as plutonium, which, if 
lodged in the lungs, could cause severe internal damage. The 
impact on people in the surrounding area would be similar to 
their receiving a few too many X-rays - not ideal, but unlikely 
to cause long-term damage.

The government's main concern in the event of a dirty bomb would 
be in treating injuries from the explosion itself, cleaning up 
the area and reassuring the public. Precisely which agencies 
would assume these duties is unclear.

The health effects from a nuclear plant accident are potentially 
far more grave. Leaking radiation can change the genetic makeup 
of the body. Radiation sickness in the immediate surrounding 
area, causing burns, internal bleeding and other severe 
reactions, is possible.

For those farther downwind, cancer later in life is a high risk, 
while cataracts, infertility and other maladies are also 
possible. In the past five years, long-term studies of ageing 
Hiroshima victims have begun to show an above-normal incidence of 
stroke and heart disease.

There are 103 nuclear plants operating in the US. The Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says the US government's 
response plan focuses largely on evacuation, but it is unclear 
how quickly that could occur, particularly if the radiation 
disperses over a large area.

Even before the September 11 terrorist attacks, there was concern 
over the federal government's failure to stockpile a substance 
that can prevent some of the most serious effects from a nuclear 
plant leak: potassium iodide.

Many nuclear facilities contain radioactive iodine, a substance 
particularly dangerous to humans because it is readily absorbed 
by the thyroid gland. According to the World Health Organisation, 
the Chernobyl disaster may end up causing 50,000 new cases of 
thyroid cancer.

Potassium iodide is a potent weapon against thyroid cancer 
because it takes the place of radioactive iodine in the thyroid. 
An over-the-counter medicine, potassium iodide is commonly used 
in household items such as iodised salt.

Polish authoritiers administered the compound in the wake of the 
Chernobyl crisis and probably prevented thousands of cases of 
thyroid cancer, say scientists. In Ukraine, where the substance 
was not given out, thyroid cancer is a serious health concern.

Potassium iodide might guard against thyroid cancer, but it 
probably has no effect on other radiation hazards. The drug is 
also difficult to distribute quickly as it must be taken not much 
more than half an hour before exposure to radiation. Physicians 
therefore recommend anyone living near a nuclear plant to keep 
the medicine in their home in case of an emergency.

Since nuclear plant accidents can spew radiation for thousands of 
miles from the site, however, it is possible that millions of 
others would benefit from taking the substance in the event of a 
disaster.

There is also the potential for acute shortages. Following the 
Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown in the US in 1979, authorities 
immediately ordered potassium iodide for possible distribution. 
When none could be found, the Food and Drug Administration tried 
to manufacture some. The medicine, poor in quality and possibly 
unsafe, arrived six days later, just as the immediate crisis was 
ending.

Physicians warn against using household substances, such as 
iodised salt, as a substitute for the medicine. Doses are so 
diluted that a person would have to take five cups of salt a day, 
risking life-threatening dehydration. "Don't even think of it," 
says the website for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 
non-profit group concerned with environmental issues.

Last December the US government asked local and state authorities 
to consider stock-piling potassium iodide and promised to foot 
Dollars 800,000 of the estimated Dollars 3m bill. Because the FDA 
has not yet approved appropriate dosing of the drug, none of that 
money has been spent. The agency, which has accelerated its 
review following September 11, expects to release its decision 
within two weeks.

The available money will not fully cover even those residents of 
a 10-mile radius of the plant. It is unclear, however, how 
quickly the health system could be geared up to reach a wider 
population. "The government should have adequate supplies of 
potassium iodide in case of an attack. But it doesn't," says 
Helfand.

The NRC points out that a Chernobyl-type accident is unlikely, 
because US plants are better reinforced against leaks. They have 
"containment" facilities designed to keep radiation inside the 
plant. However, the agency admits the plants are not designed to 
withstand terrorist threats such as a jet crash, group sabotage 
within the facility, or even a truck bomb.

The threat of nuclear terrorism in the wake of September 11 seems 
far more real and the debate over precautions is growing. Popular 
demand is that an effective response to a catas-trophe should 
entail more than hiding under desks.

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-1998
*****************************************************************
 8  Former atomic minister plays down possibility of passing nuclear 
secrets abroad 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Nov 23, 2001

Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS

Moscow, 23 November: 

Viktor Mikhaylov, former atomic energy minister who heads Russian 
closed nuclear research centre in Sarov (former Arzamas-16) has 
fully ruled out the possibility of nuclear secrets being passed 
abroad by Russian physicists. "It is not only Arzamas-16, but all 
the other 10 closed nuclear centres which are at issue," 
Mikhaylov told ITAR-TASS on Friday [23 November].

"Professional secrets of nuclear research workers are thoroughly 
protected, and the bearers of these secrets are not likely to 
confide them to anyone," Mikhaylov said. None of Russian nuclear 
experts, or the so-called bearers of top secret information about 
"the bomb", has gone abroad in order to stay there permanently, 
Mikhaylov said. He admitted that approximately 15-20 per cent of 
nuclear experts, "who are not elite in nuclear science", changed 
their jobs and moved to commercial structures.

In the past two-three years, the situation around the state 
financing of closed nuclear centres has stabilized, Mikhaylov 
said. "Although we are not given much, the money comes regularly 
and we can plan this or that research," Mikhaylov said.

The average salary paid to workers of the Sarov nuclear centre, 
where the first Soviet nuclear bomb was created at the end of the 
1940s, is R4,500 (150 dollars) a month with a pay rise expected 
in the near future up to R6,000 roubles (200 dollars), Mikhaylov 
said.

Nuclear experts, including experts from closed nuclear centres, 
cooperate with foreign colleagues from the United States, France, 
China, but this cooperation deals with the peaceful use of atomic 
energy and security in the nuclear industry only, Mikhaylov said.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1306 gmt 23 Nov 
01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter
*****************************************************************
 9  Press Briefing by Spencer Abraham and Tom Ridge
   
U.S. Newswire 
15 Nov 16:05 
Press Briefing By Secretary Of Energy Spencer Abraham, Director 
Of Office Of Homeland Security Governor Tom Ridge 
To: National Desk 
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a transcript 
of a press briefing by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and 
Director of Office of Homeland Security Governor Tom Ridge: 
Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 11:04 A.M. EST 

SECRETARY ABRAHAM: Thank you all very much. And I want to begin 
by obviously welcoming Governor Ridge to the Department of 
Energy. We've just seen some of the technological wonders the men 
and the women of this department have developed for homeland 
security and the war on terrorism. And I think you can see, 
Governor, why I'm so proud to be the Secretary of this 
department. 

I want to just start by acknowledging and paying special thanks 
to two individuals who help us make this all work so well; one 
who couldn't be here today, General John Gordon, who heads up the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, doing an outstanding on 
just a variety of fronts, in addition to overseeing our lab work 
and our nonproliferation programs. Linton Brooks, our Deputy 
Administrator for National Nuclear Proliferation is here on 
behalf of NNSA. Thank you. 

And to Jim Decker, who is the head of our programs in the science 
division, I want to welcome Jim as well. He's the acting director 
of programs that are leading funders of basic research, as well 
as the largest government sponsor of the physical science 
research programs in the United States. We saw examples of the 
specific wizardry that this funding has created. And, Jim, I want 
to thank you for a great job. 

I also want to just say that we are also joined by the heads of 
three of our national labs -- Paul Robinson, John Brown, Bruce 
Tarter. Thank you all for being with us and for the great work 
done at these facilities. Our other labs are represented here, 
and we're proud of all of them. 

As Governor Ridge and I have discussed over the last several 
weeks, our national laboratories are probably among America's 
best-kept secrets. They are the source of unparalleled 
technological progress, and they're going to help us win this war 
against terrorism. 

In the weeks since September the 11th, Americans have been asking 
where we will get the technology we need for the detection of 
chemical, biological or nuclear attacks. Who will develop the 
means to protect us against terrorist threats, and who is looking 
over the horizon so we're prepared for tomorrow's threats as 
well. 

Well, the answer to those questions is very often these national 
laboratories. Just consider what we have seen today: 
decontamination foam from the Sandia Laboratory, which can rid 
buildings of anthrax. A Palm Pilot computer that can be 
transformed into a nuclear detection device, which comes from the 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. A joint program between Los 
Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore, which has 
developed a network of sensors that can be placed in the vicinity 
of large public gatherings, or even large areas, a system that 
can detect biological attack with great speed, that gives us the 
time for swift countermeasures. And the list goes on and on. 

And I just have to tell you, when I was helping lead this little 
tour today, I felt a little bit like Q in those old James Bond 
movies, with Governor Ridge as our James Bond. (Laughter.) I 
don't know that the labs have the capabilities of transforming me 
into the James Bond figure, but if you could go to work on that, 
I'd be appreciative. (Laughter.) 

But I know many of you will want to know which of these 
technologies that we've seen today are currently in use or ready 
for deployment. And I want to just say up front, as you can 
appreciate information about how and when and where these 
technologies are used is often very sensitive. We are not in a 
position, obviously, to answer the specific questions which 
relate to the deployment of the technology; although our Office 
of Public Affairs will do its best to help where it's 
appropriate. And I would direct any questions along those lines 
to them. 

The bottom line, Governor, is that we have many of the tools for 
homeland security, and to help this nation fight the war on 
terrorism. Staying one step ahead of our adversaries has never 
been as important as it is now. Everything shifted, new battle 
lines have been drawn. The administration and this Secretary 
recognize and appreciate the work which our labs do. And we want 
the American people to realize it and appreciate it as well. This 
department and our national labs will spare no effort to provide 
the nation with the instruments it must have to defeat terrorism 
and to defend our citizens in this difficult time. So, Governor, 
I want you to think of the men and women of this department as 
one of your most important assets in this battle. And, again, I 
want to welcome you to the Department of Energy. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Governor Tom Ridge. (Applause.) 

GOVERNOR RIDGE: Thank you very much. Actually, Spence, that was 
quite a tour. I think we could have stayed there for hours 
longer, and I suspect that the national labs would have had many 
other exhibits available to us if we would have had a little bit 
more time. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to spend a 
little time both with you and the extraordinary group of people 
with whom you work and whom you lead. 

I said shortly after I was given the opportunity to serve my 
President and my country in this capacity as Director of Homeland 
Security, that America should be reassured on a daily basis that, 
literally, hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans, even 
prior to September 11th, had been going to work every single day, 
trying to devise ways to make our homeland more secure. 

And now that I've had the opportunity to serve in this capacity 
for now all of five weeks and have had an opportunity to see with 
great clarity and specificity the kind of work that hundreds of 
thousands of Americans have been doing every single day, I'm 
absolutely confident -- I'm absolutely confident of our ability 
to rise to the challenge that the President has given us, an that 
is create a national strategy for homeland security. And you have 
to know, at the heart of that strategy, to detect, to prevent, to 
respond to terrorism attacks, at the heart of that technology, at 
the heart of that effort, at the heart of that strategy, will be 
technology. 

When I was governor, we invested hundreds of millions of dollars 
in technology to enhance certain capacities that the state of 
Pennsylvania needed: communications and information systems, 
public health. But we take the technology we have available to us 
in the national labs and configure it to provide for homeland 
defense. And I assure you and I assure the public generally, we 
will be investing substantial dollars in technology to help 
enhance our domestic security as well. 

Today, you've shown the American public, Mr. Secretary, and me 
some of the technological wizardry that has been or will soon be 
put to use to protect and defend our country. We are a very 
welcoming country. We're a very trusting country. We allow 
millions and millions of people who are not citizens to come in 
on a regular basis and visit, and even live and take up residence 
here. 

We are an incredibly open country -- open borders, open cities, 
open society. We can't, nor do we ever want, to change this. It 
is truly one of the unique characteristics of this great country. 
However, we are now facing an unseen foe that has proven it will 
take advantage of our openness whenever it can. So the challenge 
is fairly straightforward: How do we preserve our openness. How 
do we preserve the unique qualities of America and protect 
ourselves at the same time. How do we enhance security at 
airports without discouraging people from flying. How do we keep 
the United States Mail flowing smoothly. How do we expedite the 
flow of people and goods across international borders. How do we 
secure the homeland. How do we become safer. 

The answer, in large measure, across a wide possible spectrum of 
applications, is technology. Later this morning, I'll be 
addressing the Fletcher Conference to lay out the framework for 
how we are developing a comprehensive national homeland security 
plan. In the months and years ahead, technology-based solutions 
will be a huge component of that plan. You've given me a great 
deal of insurance; and more importantly, I think you've offered 
to the public today, all of America, a great deal of assurance 
that American ingenuity is already at work developing that 
technology. 

And so, on behalf of the President of the United States, I want 
to thank everyone at the Department of Energy, the national labs, 
that has worked so hard. You've got the qualities that guarantee 
that we will prevail in our war against terrorism. Ingenuity, a 
relentless spirit to get things done, a commitment, a resolve. 
And I'm absolutely confident, through the application of 
technology, both from the public and private sector, we will 
dramatically enhance in a very short period of time our goal to 
make our homeland more secure than it has ever been before. So I 
want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I want to thank the 
Department of Energy employees for giving me the opportunity to 
spend a little time with you this morning. 

The Secretary and I would be happy to take any questions. 

Q Governor Ridge, the Bush administration has consistently said 
that a strong national energy policy cannot occur -- a strong 
national security cannot occur without a strong national energy 
policy. Earlier this week, the administration announced that it 
would fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect against 
future supply disruptions. But that process is going to take 
three years, under the current plan. 

If the administration is serious about filling this reserve and 
protecting U.S. consumers and this economy from a supply 
disruption, why doesn't the administration go out and purchase 
this oil now, fill up their reserve in three or four months, now 
that prices are low. Would you recommend if prices keep dropping 
that they go ahead and do that, and not wait three years? 

GOVERNOR RIDGE: Well, first of all, I think the President's goal 
is to fill up the Strategic Reserve over the next three years. 
The prices are low; indications are that they may continue to go 
lower. And it's just part of a scheme of things that the 
President is asking, and the administration is doing, in order to 
secure the energy security that we require. 

I think it's pretty clear -- and I'll let the Secretary speak to 
this -- but we feel strongly about the ability to start drilling 
more domestically as well. So I think as you take a look at the 
national strategy, whether it's energy security, economic 
security, there are many pieces to that puzzle. And just a 
ramp-up of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a piece of the 
energy puzzle. 

SECRETARY ABRAHAM: Well, Tom, you've asked me that question many 
times in the period that led up to it. As I told you, we were 
engaging in a very deliberate review of the process and what the 
considerations, the pluses and minuses were, what was the nature 
of the threat, if any, that we perceived. 
  
    We concluded that it was in the long-term interest of the 
country to have the reserve filled. At the same time, we did not 
see the kind of immediate threat to disruption that would 
necessitate taking action that was too precipitous. 
  
    At the end of the day, we have right now about 540 million 
barrels of oil in the Reserve; that's somewhere in the vicinity 
of 53 days worth of reserves. If we fill it entirely, that 
expands the number to about 68 days. I think we can do it at the 
pace we're talking about. If things change, we can reconsider the 
policy. 
  
    But we're trying to do it in a way that balances all the 
issues, that range from energy security and cost considerations 
to implications on markets and a variety of other factors. But I 
think we're doing it the right way. 
  
    Q    Governor, there are some people who specialize in 
studying al Qaeda who think that perhaps Osama bin Laden and his 
followers might be more apt to take terrorist action because of 
the way the military campaign is going on the ground in 
Afghanistan. 
  
    I'm wondering how you would gauge the threat level at this 
point, and if it's different than it was, let's say, one week 
ago? 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: I think it is -- it makes a great deal of 
common sense to conclude that if you are putting pressure on your 
enemy in one area or one venue, they may choose to act out in a 
separate area or a different venue. And so that is one 
consideration that obviously is in play. 
  
    But I think our state of readiness and wariness is as high as 
it has ever been, and will remain that high until we have 
apprehended bin Laden and dismantled al Qaeda. That is not to say 
that once that bin Laden and al Qaeda have been dismantled and 
apprehended, that we would not continue to work very aggressively 
toward enhancing our homeland security. 
  
    Q    Yes. The Times of London and other publications today 
have reported that forces have invaded a safe house in Kabul 
where nuclear secrets or blueprints, I believe was the term used, 
were recovered; Osama bin Laden's blueprints for some sort of 
nuclear device or nuclear technology. 
  
    It has been reported widely and he, himself, has admitted 
that he would like to use nuclear weapons. There has been lots 
and lots of evidence that he has certainly tried to acquire them, 
at least a dirty nuke. 
  
    One of the exhibitors here has nuclear bomb detection 
material here. What kind of assurance or reassurance can you give 
citizens of this city and of New York and perhaps other places as 
well that they are safe from a nuclear attack? 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: Well, one of the challenges as we have faced 
a bioterrorist threat over the past four or five weeks is the 
notion that our responsibility as a country is to be prepared for 
biological and chemical and radiological and nuclear. And the 
mission of providing homeland security is to enhance our capacity 
to detect, prevent and even respond to those kinds of events. 
  
    And I would say the fact that we have discovered that one of 
the safe houses that bin Laden's associates or al Qaeda had some 
materials relative to a nuclear threat is certainly consistent 
with his statements that he would like to acquire that capacity. 
It is not to say, it does not confirm that he has the capacity, 
it just says that whether it's bin Laden or some other potential 
foe of this country, we have to be prepared for all 
eventualities, including a nuclear threat. 
  
    Q    Governor Ridge, you've seen a lot of technology today, 
but there are also technologies which could be used or may be 
already used at NASA, at NIH, at the EPA, a lot of agencies. How 
can you kind of integrate those technology departments and 
technologies to make them more effective and useful? 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: I'm not sure I quite understand the question. 
We have seen a variety of technologies that have applications at 
different parts of the national security plan. 
  
    Q    In this department; there are technologies all around 
the other agencies as well. And you have a lot of projects 
running, possibly some of them similar, some of them different. 
How are you going to integrate to make them more effective and 
useful? 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: The challenge to pool all of the public 
research and private research, I might add, is one of the more 
significant ones for the Office of Homeland Security. And the 
President's scientific advisor, as well as the leadership at the 
national labs, as well as leadership in the private sector, help 
us determine which technology has the greatest potential for 
immediate application to reduce the most pressing threat. 
  
    So I think the assessment of capacity -- technology capacity 
and application will be done by the scientists in conjunction 
with what we perceive to be immediate threats. 
  
    One of the biggest challenges we have right now and one of 
the reasons that I believe you saw so many exhibits out there 
with regard to biological and chemical, is that in enhancing the 
capacity of our first responders, the policemen, the firemen and 
others who arrive at a scene to determine the kind of environment 
that they and those who would follow on have to work in. So these 
assessments are ongoing, and they're done both with the resources 
and capacity of the public sector, the federal government; but 
our friends in the private sector help us as well. 
  
    And I just wanted to add, you know, the information that I've 
been told this morning that was gleaned from that house related 
to al Qaeda, was, much of that information could have been taken 
right off the Internet some years ago. So there was nothing 
unusual about that information; it was available to the public 
through other sources other than through the al Qaeda network. 
  
    Q    Have you come up with a plan for coordinating security 
at privately-owned energy facilities -- pipelines, refineries? 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: I know that the Secretary of Energy -- and 
I'm going to let him talk more specifically to it -- but I will 
tell you that the Secretary of Energy and everyone in this 
government, in every department, in every agency, since September 
11th, has been moving forward, working with the private sector 
where appropriate, to enhance security at public facilities; and 
I'll let the Secretary talk about the energy facilities. 
  
    SECRETARY ABRAHAM: Thanks, Governor. One of the issues that 
we tried to begin addressing, literally our first month in 
office, was emergency preparedness. And, obviously, the nature of 
threats changes, the magnitude of threats can change. But having 
a significantly enhanced and aggressive emergency response 
operation at the department has been one of our priorities this 
year. And I'm happy to report we've made great progress on that 
even before September 11th. 
  
    What we're trying to do, obviously, is to work with the 
private sector, because other than in the area of the nuclear 
reactor industry, the control and responsibilities are 
exclusively in the private sector. But we've been working very 
closely with -- on a very coordinated basis with the various 
sectors of the energy industries, from the gas and petroleum 
industry, oil, pipeline industries, electricity generation, 
electricity transmission and so on. 
  
    And what we've been doing is trying to do several things: One 
is to identify priorities. Certainly, all of us can sit around 
and speculate about possible areas in which problems could occur. 
Our job has been to set those priorities, working with the 
private sector. 
  
    The second thing we've done is to dispatch teams and to work 
in the ground, which we've already begun doing in key parts of 
the country based on those priorities with the private sector, 
with the states and local authorities, to determine what adequate 
security protection might mean. 
  
    Finally, we're working with Congress and within the 
administration to identify some additional authorities that we 
think would help make this process more effective. You've heard 
some of that debate already, I think. It ranges from the need to 
perhaps modify some of the antitrust laws to allow for the 
pooling of information so that people can share information that 
relates to security matters, without running afoul of those laws. 
  
    We also are concerned about making sure that the disclosure 
requirements that might be involved don't put us in a more 
vulnerable position because we have to make available to the 
public through FOIA, or more specifically, people in the world 
who might wish to do evil, information that could allow that to 
happen. 
  
    So we're working on it on a priority basis, I think with a 
little bit more authority to work on a basis more like that which 
exists in some sectors we can get this job done. I'm very pleased 
with the progress we've made since September 11th. 
  
    GOVERNOR RIDGE: Just one final comment. You should know that 
the Office of Homeland Security has received -- it's fair to say 
-- dozens if not hundreds of ideas relative to the application of 
technology. And we are going to channel them through the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy, and some of them may end up in 
these national labs. 
  
    So as I say, the country's desire and willingness to respond 
and to use technology to enhance our security is robust, it's -- 
and it's that kind of creative genius that I think we can count 
on to -- in making our homeland more secure in the years ahead. 
  
    Q    Secretary Abraham, could you comment on yesterday's OPEC 
cut, and what impact that will have on the domestic U.S. economy 
in the near term? 
  
    SECRETARY ABRAHAM: Yes. I'm not sure that there was a cut 
made yesterday, actually. As I interpreted the actions that were 
taken, it was, I think, a decision to make a decision at a later 
time. We have said from the first day of this administration that 
we believe markets should be allowed to work in the oil sector. 
We haven't changed from that position. That has been my private, 
as well as public, message to both OPEC and non-OPEC producer 
countries. We think that's the best way for prices to be set and 
we also think it's the most consistent way for us to ensure that 
we have a growing world economy; and that's a priority. 
  
    I would just say that the other night, I think Alan 
Greenspan, in a speech, made a very interesting point. He said 
that since the 1970s, the overwhelming and profound message with 
respect to the oil sector is that it's been a story of market 
power, rather of the power of markets rather than market power. 
And I share that view, and I think that will continue to be the 
prevailing way by which the oil sector operates in the future. 
(Applause.) 
  
 Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire 
*****************************************************************
 10  Security barriers to stay at Richland Federal Building
 
This story was published Fri, Nov 23, 2001
 By Nathan Isaacs Herald staff writer 

The concrete barriers around the Federal Building in Richland are 
likely to remain indefinitely as city and federal officials work 
to develop a permanent security perimeter.
 
The 3-foot-tall barriers, often called Jersey barriers, were 
placed around the building shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist 
attacks to provide a wider circle of security.
 
The building houses the Department of Energy's Richland 
headquarters, a U.S. District Court court room and clerk's 
office, a post office and a handful of other federal employees.
 
The city has issued a temporary permit for the barriers, which 
block Mansfield Street and some parking spaces in front of the 
building. The permit is the same type used for temporary street 
closures or parades, said Stan Arlt, public works director.
 
Earlier this week, he and city staff met with officials from the 
General Services Administration, which is responsible for the 
building, to talk about plans for the surrounding property.
 
"We discussed looking at some permanent options while providing 
the space they need for their security," Arlt said.
 
"Our engineering staff are going to look into some things," he 
added.
 
Among the possibilities is moving Mansfield Street north a few 
feet, which would require using some of the federal building's 
adjoining parking lot. Arlt said engineers also will explore 
widening the sidewalk along Jadwin Avenue in front of the 
building and planting trees in the space that formerly was 
parking spaces.
 
"This is still certainly a work in progress," Arlt said.
 
He said he expects to meet with GSA representatives early in 2002 
to discuss the plans and their costs to federal government. 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 11  Russian Submarine Heads for Disposal
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
November 23, 2001 
 
MOSCOW (AP) - The Kursk nuclear submarine, salvaged from the sea 
floor, should be ready for disposal in the next three to four 
months, officials said Friday. Igor Spassky, chief of the Rubin 
submarine design bureau, told Interfax news agency that the 
submarine will be "sealed up to be transported" to the Nerpa 
plant in the northern Murmansk region, where it will be scrapped. 
The plan includes cutting out the submarine's reactor. 

"The most important thing today is to prepare and implement the 
disposal project," Spassky said, according to Interfax. 

He called on the Atomic Energy Ministry, which is coordinating 
the submarine's disposal, to "speed up its efforts." 

Officials have said the Kursk will be sent to the plant only 
after prosecutors complete investigations inside its hull. 

The Kursk, one of Russia's largest and most modern submarines, 
sank when explosions shattered its front section during naval 
maneuvers in the Barents Sea on Aug. 12, 2000. The entire 
118-person crew died. All but the submarine's front section was 
lifted from the sea floor last month and brought to a dry dock in 
Murmansk. Plans are being developed to lift the front of the 
submarine, Spassky said. 

Russian officials say the disaster was triggered by the explosion 
of a practice torpedo, but they have not determined what caused 
the blast, saying it could have been an internal flaw in the 
torpedo, a collision with another vessel or a World War II mine. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 12  Oak Ridge groundbreaking set

Uranium storage facility first priority in modernization plan

By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer

OAK RIDGE - Groundbreaking on a new storage complex for 
bomb-grade uranium is tentatively set for April at the Y-12 
nuclear weapons plant. The 130,000-square-foot facility is 
expected to cost about $150 million. It is the first priority in 
a large-scale, long-term modernization program at the Oak Ridge 
warhead plant, where many of the buildings date back to the World 
War II Manhattan Project. 

Officials are anxious to move ahead with the work, perhaps even 
more so after the events of Sept. 11. 

"It's very important to indicate that the project is funded, 
supported and under way,'' said Bill Brumley, Oak Ridge chief of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration is the 
semi-independent agency within the U.S. Department of Energy that 
oversees the nuclear weapons complex, including the Oak Ridge 
facility that makes warhead parts from uranium and other 
materials. Besides its manufacturing role, Y-12 dismantles old 
warhead components and serves as the nation's principal 
repository for weapons-usable uranium. 

An environmental impact statement issued recently outlines the 
preferred plans for the storage facility and a Special Materials 
Complex, the next priority on the agenda. The overall 
modernization of Y-12 may cost up to $4 billion over the next 
decade or so. 

The site proposed for the uraniumstorage facility is currently a 
parking lot at Y-12's West Portal. 

According to the environmental impact report, the new facility 
would provide the capacity to store approximately 14,000 cans and 
14,000 drums of highly enriched uranium - some of which is nearly 
pure U-235, the fissionable isotope. The facility also would 
include a special storage area accessible to international 
inspectors - as required by arms-reduction treaties. 

"By consolidating (highly enriched uranium) in a new modern 
facility, Y12 would be able to meet its ... storage mission in a 
more efficient manner; improve nuclear security and 
accountability; and enhance worker, public and environmental 
safety,'' the review of potential impacts said. 

"DOE's action is needed because existing ... storage facilities 
at Y-12 are in buildings that already are 35-55 years old and 
require significant maintenance and funding to maintain -----End 
Of Story-----operations and security protocol. In addition, some 
of the buildings ... do not meet current standards for natural 
phenomenon events (such as tornadoes and earthquakes). 

BWXT, the contractor that manages Y-12 for the federal 
government, already has chosen a company to complete the design 
for the new facility, but a contract will not be awarded until 
after a record of decision has been signed on the modernization 
effort. Officials declined to name the design firm because of 
"procurement sensitivity.'' 

R.T. Brock, a federal official at Y-12, said the design contract 
probably will be awarded in February. Officials decided earlier 
to separate the design and construction contracts, and a 
construction contractor will be named later, probably while the 
design effort is still under way, he said. 

Early conceptual designs had a storage facility covered by an 
earthen berm, but Brumley said officials have decided to do away 
with the berm - partly because of the weight load. 

The last cost estimate on the project was $144 million, but 
Brumley said the cost probably will go up because of 
security-related changes. The actual price-tag won't be known 
until the architectural and engineering design has been 
completed, he said. 

Officials would not discuss details of the design and have 
declined to say if the storage facility will be "hardened'' for 
protection. Brumley said the design has continued to evolve but 
has not changed significantly because of the Sept. 11 terrorist 
attacks. 

Asked if the new storage facility could withstand an airplane 
crash, he replied, "No.'' 

"Realistically, you'd have to put it underground'' to protect 
against the crash of a fuel-loaded, 757 airliner, he said. 

Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or 
twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. 


Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.               
*****************************************************************
 13  Baz calls on Israel to give up its nuclear program
 
 Egypt-Regional, Politics, 11/24/2001 

Egyptian President Mubarak's Political Advisor Osama Al-Baz said 
that there are three conditions to achieve peaceful coexistence 
between Israel and Arab people.
 
He highlighted that Israel should relinquish the concept o 
expansion at the expense of Arab, to drop the concept of 
supremacy against Arabs and to give up its military.
 
Moreover, Al-Baz underlined necessity of drawing a line between 
struggling against occupation on one hand and terrorism on the 
other hand. He added that struggle is a legitimate right agreed 
by the international law against occupied nations.
 
He said that the Arab nation faces many challenges mainly 
Israel's practices against the Palestinian people.
 
He added that in order to have peaceful co-existence with Israel 
all the Arab rights must be restored in implementation of the 
international legitimacy resolutions.
 
A large number of Syrian politicians and men of economy and 
thought were present.
 
On the other hand, Al Baz underlined the importance of the role 
played by the human and economic resources in peoples' future.
 
In a lecture he gave at Al Assad Library in Damascus on the 
occasion of the 31st anniversary of the rectifying movement, Baz 
said that the Arab national product is being in danger as it does 
not exceed at present $ 700 billion, a figure that is not 
adequate to the areas of the region.
 
He added that the Arab exports are not more than 3.8 % of the 
volume of the exports of the whole world.
 
He expressed regret over humble volume of inter-Arab trade. He 
said that attention should be paid to human resources in order to 
improve this situation. Major countries are no longer paying 
attention to natural resources as much as they do to human ones.
 
He said that the Arab nation possesses a lot of potentials and 
abilities that enable it to play an important role in the 
formation of the new world. A large number of Syrian politicians, 
economists and thinkers were present.
   
Copyright © 1995-2001 Arabic News.com, All Rights 
*****************************************************************
 14  The Real Threat to America 
			 			 			 			 			 					
  Why the House Appropriations Committee rejected efforts to 
expand funding for safeguarding loose nukes—and why one of its 
members is scratching his head     
 
Nov. 23 —  The threat of a nuclear attack is not something that’s 
likely to slip through the cracks. Not something that’s hard to 
get people to focus on, post-September 11. Not something that a 
determined congressman would have any trouble putting on the 
national agenda.         

NOT TRUE. Rep. Chet Edwards, a Democrat from Texas, has been on 
Capitol Hill for 11 years. He’s a moderate, respected in both 
parties, and a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee. 
His district encompasses Waco and a little town called Crawford. 
But President Bush’s congressman describes himself as “incredibly 
frustrated.” 

        “Congress can find $256 million to protect itself, but 
can’t find one additional dime to protect Americans from the real 
threat of nuclear terrorism,” Edwards says. “It borders on the 
criminal.”

         Edwards is talking about the decision of the 
Appropriations Committee to reject efforts to expand funding for 
safeguarding loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. On a 
straight party line vote, the Committee, at the behest of the 
White House, decided it was business as usual on controlling the 
possible sale of nuclear materials to terrorists.      
  
       Everyone agrees the Department of Energy program is 
working well and is not wasting money. Everyone understands that 
only a third of the dangerous Russian nuclear facilities have 
been secured. No one denies the seriousness of the threat. 

        In fact, President Bush himself said on November 6: “We 
will not wait for more innocent deaths. We will not wait for the 
authors of mass death to gain the weapons of mass destruction. We 
act now, because we must lift this dark threat from our age and 
save generations to come.”

         But we are not acting fast enough. Or so people like 
former Sen. Howard Baker, the Tennessee Republican, and former 
White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler believe. They authored a report 
last January that said that the possibility of stolen or diverted 
nuclear material from Russia was “the most urgent national 
security threat facing the United States today.” 

        The facts are terrifying. More than 600 tons of enriched 
uranium are in “urgent need” of immediate safeguards. That’s 
enough to build 41,000 nuclear bombs. Thousands of Russian 
nuclear scientists remain unemployed. Scores of Russian nuclear 
facilities remain unsecured, despite considerable progress on 
that front since the mid-1990s. Since 1992, there have been 14 
documented cases in which highly enriched uranium was stolen from 
the former Soviet Union, and later seized by Russian officials. 
Eight of those seizures took place outside of Russia,

        in places like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. None of 
the cases involved enough material to make a bomb, but that’s 
hardly reassuring. What about the seizures that were never made? 

        Baker and Cutler recommend spending $3 billion a year on 
State, Defense and Energy department programs to address these 
threats. The reaction from the White House? In its first budget, 
the Office of Management and Budget proposed cutting $100 million 
from the $850 million devoted to such efforts. After a broad 
internal review and the events of September 11, the 
administration agreed to keep funding flat instead of slashing 
it.

         But why should it be flat? Why shouldn’t it be expanded 
at least to what Baker and Cutler recommended in January?       
      
       On “Meet the Press” last week, Tim Russert asked 
Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, why 
this program was facing the budget ax. Rice said the program was 
working well and “the money is a function of how much money is 
needed in any given year to actually carry out the programs that 
are planned.”

         Look at that answer closely. Rice is a talented 
government official with much on her plate. But on nuclear 
threats, she may still be living in a pre-September 11 world. The 
“programs that are planned” were planned in the 1990s, before we 
realized that terrorists would actually use these weapons if they 
got them. If those programs cannot accommodate more money now, 
they need to be “planned” differently—accelerated and expanded to 
meet the threat. And pronto.

         The Bush administration, which, like the Clinton 
administration, has been working hard on non-proliferation 
issues, raises some reasonable objections. The Russians don’t 
admit they have a problem with loose nukes, so we can’t make too 
much noise in assessing the threat. Quiet cooperation has worked 
much better, and this fall the Russian government agreed to 
provide even more access to its facilities than in the past. 
Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget is concerned about 
how fast any new money could be used. “You can always spend more 
money, but there’s the issue of what can be absorbed 
efficiently,” says one senior administration official.

         Even so, Chet Edwards was stunned when he heard Rep. Tom 
DeLay say in the Appropriations Committee last week that we 
should “wait until next year” to increase funding of these and 
other programs. “Everyone agrees in theory that we ought to do a 
lot more,” Edwards says. “But then there’s no action.”

         The congressman intends to keep pressing the issue, 
maybe even paying a visit to his famous constituent (whom he’s 
known for 20 years) at his Crawford ranch. “Say that one morning 
I woke up and saw that two million had been killed in Chicago or 
Los Angeles or somewhere,” Edwards says. “I would literally never 
be able to sleep again if I thought I hadn’t done all I could to 
prevent it.”       
    
© 2001 Newsweek, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 15  Bin Laden's Nuclear Ambitions And Fears

NEWSWEEK  

         Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said it 
was “unlikely” that Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network had a 
nuclear weapon. But U.S. officials are leaving nothing to chance. 
NEWSWEEK has learned that over the last several years, Customs 
inspectors who check cargo at U.S. entry ports have been quietly 
equipped with pagers containing a special feature: a Geiger 
counter that sounds whenever an inspector is near a source of 
radioactivity.

         About 4,000 inspectors have been given the belt-mounted 
beepers. So far, no wayward nukes have been discovered entering 
the country. But American Customs officials have also distributed 
pagers to officers in several former Soviet republics. On at 
least one occasion, foreign cops used the beepers to spot an 
illicit shipment of radioactive cobalt to Iran.

         Although no specific threat of atomic terror against the 
United States has been received, Customs Commissioner Robert 
Bonner says, “I think we have to take the nuclear threat 
seriously.” His inspectors are on what he calls “Level One” 
alert. Within the last month, they got a tip that a sea container 
was headed into a U.S. port carrying weapons of mass destruction. 
Inspectors descended on the container, Geiger counters at the 
ready, but came up empty.

         Despite the discovery of purported nuclear manuals in Al 
Qaeda safe houses in newly liberated Kabul, U.S. intelligence 
officials say there is still no persuasive evidence that the bin 
Laden network has acquired the know-how to explode a nuclear 
bomb. They are, however, worried that Al Qaeda operatives could 
build a “dirty bomb,” in which they would try to contaminate a 
wide area by blowing up a cache of chemical, biological or even 
nuclear materials with conventional explosives, spreading 
radioactive fallout, germs or nerve gas to the four winds.

         One former Qaeda member testified earlier this year 
about repeated attempts by bin Laden to purchase uranium on the 
open market. Officials say the former Soviet stockpile remains a 
particular source of concern: about 60 percent is not properly 
safeguarded.

         During the 1990s, quantities of “weapons usable” nuclear 
materials sufficient to irradiate a significant area (but too 
small to make a bomb) were seized from would-be smugglers in 
Russia and other European countries including Germany, the Czech 
Republic and Bulgaria, U.S. intelligence officials say. Among the 
materials targeted by smugglers are various grades of uranium, 
including bomb-grade material, and small quantities of deadly 
plutonium.

         According to intelligence sources, bin Laden has also 
been preparing for a chemical or biological attack. German 
intelligence officials have told the United States that right 
before September 11, bin Laden ordered 200 gas masks and another 
200 spacesuits designed to protect against attacks with chemical 
or biological weapons. The suits were supposedly delivered to bin 
Laden by one of his sons-in-law about a week before the 11th at a 
hideout near Milava, Afghanistan.

         Western intelligence officials believe that bin Laden 
bought the suits because he feared a chemical or biological 
onslaught by the United States or its allies, not because he is 
planning to launch such an attack on Western forces. Some U.S. 
officials warn that the story about bin Laden’s gas-mask purchase 
should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

         —Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman 
       
        © 2001 Newsweek, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 16  Afghans glad to see fall of Taliban -

DAWN - 

QUETTA, Nov 26: Many exiled Afghans in Pakistan will be glad to 
see the back of the Taliban, saying the militia has blackened the 
name of Pakhtoons with its hardline interpretation of Islam. 

The Taliban's insistence that women could not work and their 
reluctance to share power with other ethnic groups was not a 
reflection of most Pakhtoons vision for their country, some 
Pakhtoons told AFP. 

Mustafa Nawabi, who was originally from Uruzgan province in the 
Taliban's one-time heartland in southern Afghanistan, said the 
end of the militia's rule would be a chance to show the world the 
real face of Pakhtoons. 

"It is not fair to think that all Pakhtoons are Taliban. They 
have given us a bad name," said the 18-year-old who left 
Afghanistan two years ago but still regularly returns to his home 
province." They beat women and closed schools. This is not 
allowed by Islam. Many people who have worked with the Taliban do 
not agree with their ideas but they have had no choice. "We are 
not a stupid people who are against civilization." 

According to Abdullah Azizi, a former engineer with Afghanistan's 
national airline, Ariana, the Taliban's treatment of women was a 
disgrace which had little backing from ordinary Pakhtoons. 

"It was not fair that they took away the rights of women. We 
should give them those rights again," said Azizi, 60, who used to 
live in Kabul. "They should be able to work in schools and the 
hospitals. That is how things used to happen." 

Azizi also criticized the Taliban's reluctance to share 
government with other ethnic groups, such as the Tajiks and the 
Uzbeks. "They just wanted to control everything by themselves. 
That is the cause of their problems. That is why they are now 
having to throw away their weapons. We need a country where 
everyone can be represented." 

Kandahar exile Khufrow Popal, who runs a convenience store here 
in Quetta, said he regarded himself as an Afghan more than a 
Pakhtoon. 

"Pakhtoons want unity for Afghanistan. Most understand that we 
cannot ignore the Hazaras or the Tajiks. Islam is about unity," 
he said. But not everyone appears to have such a liberal 
attitude. 

Mohammed Azim, a butcher from the remaining Taliban stronghold of 
Kandahar, said he fully supported the Taliban's policy of keeping 
women at home and forcing them to wear burqas to cover their 
face. "Women should not come out of their home and ... they 
should cover their face." Azim also had little time for talk of a 
multi-ethnic government to ensure unity in Afghanistan. "We 
should not be giving power to the Uzbeks or Tajiks. This is 
Afghanistan, not Uzbekistan or Tajikistan," he said. 

"The Taliban made Afghanistan a safe place to live. I only left 
(a month ago) when I became afraid for my life because of the 
American bombing."-AFP 


© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001
*****************************************************************
 17  DOE not funding K-25 water project 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 3:02 p.m. on Friday, November 23, 2001

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

For the time being, the Department of Energy apparently has no 
interest in continuing an investigation of the Oak Ridge K-25 
site's water system even though findings thus far have indicated 
contaminations did exist in the past.

 The fate of the project has been in question for almost three 
months, ever since a draft progress report was issued and initial 
funding for the effort ran out.

 DOE spokesman Steven Wyatt says the investigation remains on 
hold because the federal agency is currently devoting its 
attention to "higher priority projects." However, he didn't 
provide any specifics on those projects.

 The investigation into K-25's water systems began after 
employees voiced concern in July 2000 that cross-connecting water 
lines could have resulted in exposure to hazardous materials at 
the plant, which formerly enriched uranium through a gaseous 
diffusion process.

 Soon afterward, DOE launched an inspection of the current 
drinking water systems at K-25, also known as the East Tennessee 
Technology Park. Tests concluded the water was safe to consume 
and that no levels of contaminants were present that exceed 
Environmental Protection Agency and state-regulated levels.

 The investigation into historic water contaminations began in 
late 2000, and a draft progress report was released this August 
indicating the following:
 
  + Storm sewers were known to be used for discharge of 
laboratory wastes, water used in fire drills and wash down of 
spills.
 
  + Firefighting and recirculating cooling water systems were 
used as backup to each other and at times these systems were 
cross-connected with the sanitary system.
 
  + Cross-connections with the firefighting and recirculating 
cooling water systems were identified and corrected, but it is 
not known how long these existed or what the associated hazard 
might have been.

 Right as the progress report was released, it was announced that 
funding for the project had run out. And DOE doesn't appear to be 
funneling any additional money into the project.

 "It's frustrating," said Mike Russell. He was one of the K-25 
workers who voiced concern about the cross-connected water lines 
as well as a member of the community-staffed team that provided 
input for the investigation into historic contaminations.

 Russell said he hasn't heard anything about the investigation 
since the input team met on Sept. 10. He added that it's typical 
of DOE to start a project, invest a lot of money into it and not 
see it to fruition.

 While it was taking place, the investigation into historic water 
contaminations was hit with a couple of controversies. In fact, 
some members of the project's Community Input Team unsuccessfully 
tried to get a legal investigation started because computer hard 
drives have turned up missing and no information was saved 
following the demolition of Building K-1001, a facility several 
sick workers say they worked in.

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 18  Terror’s dirty secret (

11/23/01)
usnews.com: 

Terror’s dirty secret

 Radioactive material, loosely guarded, makes a cheap weapon            

         By David E. Kaplan and Douglas Pasternak 

The cesium was missing. From a hospital in Greensboro, N.C., 
someone had pilfered 19 vials of radioactive cesium-137. It was 
March 1998, and in just weeks the city would host the regional 
NCAA basketball finals. Might a terrorist use the stolen material 
to disrupt the games? As FBI agents moved in, the U.S. Department 
of Energy quietly dispatched its antinuke teams, complete with 
radiation-detecting vans and helicopter. For days they scoured 
the city, but the vials were never found. 

Officials had good reason to worry--then and now. Back in 1987, 
in Goiania, Brazil, a theft of cesium-137 from an abandoned 
clinic spread the radioactive metal across an entire 
neighborhood, killing four, contaminating 249 others, and forcing 
the destruction of 85 homes. The amount of cesium was 
minute--only 20 grams--but potent. More than 112,000 Goiania 
residents had to be tested; moon-suited workers hauled away 
125,000 drums of contaminated refuse. And that disaster was 
unintended--scrap-yard workers had come upon the discarded stuff 
and passed some of it on to friends and family.
 
It may have been an accident, but the Goiania disaster suggests 
what can happen if such substances fall into the wrong hands. 
Osama bin Laden has long harbored nuclear ambitions, intelligence 
sources say. His al Qaeda operatives have tried to buy 
weapons-grade uranium, and they have sought expertise from 
Russian and Pakistani nuclear scientists. Notebooks found in al 
Qaeda houses in Kabul, Afghanistan, contain data on building an 
atomic bomb. While the terror chieftain boasted last month that 
he possesses a nuclear weapon, intelligence analysts doubt that 
al Qaeda has actually fashioned a fission device. (That success 
managed to elude the oil-rich Iraqis, who tried to build one for 
a good decade.) And even if bin Laden obtained a Soviet nuke, the 
weapons require complex arming codes that are highly secret and 
are not kept with the bomb. Figuring them out, says a 
knowledgeable U.S. official, "would be tough for our own people 
to do." 

Explosive mix. Far easier, experts say, would be for bin Laden’s 
wily operatives to fashion a crude radiological weapon. "He is 
going to build what we call a radiological dispersal device or 
‘dirty bomb’ and mix it with explosives," predicts Edward 
Badolato, former director of security at the Department of 
Energy. Such a weapon would not produce a nuclear reaction; 
rather, radioactive particles, like those stolen in Goiania or 
Greensboro, would be scattered by something like TNT. With these 
threats in mind, the Department of Energy’s elite antinuclear 
strike force--the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, or NEST--has 
"forward deployed" its members to key cities, U.S. News has 
learned. In addition, DOE scientists are modeling the impact of a 
range of terrorist nuclear attacks on big U.S. cities: everything 
from a 10-ton nuclear blast to a dirty bomb. 

Dirty devices are not unheard of overseas. In 1998, officials in 
Chechnya defused a booby-trapped explosive attached to a 
container of radioactive material, according to Russian press 
reports. Three years earlier, Chechen separatists buried a 
30-pound box of radioactive cesium near the entrance to a busy 
Moscow park and later threatened to blow up 167 pounds of the 
stuff. Nor would a dirty bomb be new to Islamic militants. Some 
terrorism experts, including former FBI deputy director Oliver 
"Buck" Revell, believe that al Qaeda associate Ramzi Yousef 
searched for radioactive waste to add to the explosive mix for 
the 1993 World Trade Center bomb.
 
Sources for radioactive material are plentiful. Two weeks ago in 
Siberia, for example, Russian police arrested two men attempting 
to sell radioactive cobalt stolen from an industrial plant. In 
the United States there are more than 2 million devices that use 
radioactive materials. Large amounts of radioisotopes are used in 
medicine to fight cancer and for diagnosing various diseases. 
They are used by industry for moisture sensing, to examine pipe 
welds, and to irradiate food (and now anthrax-tainted mail). They 
are in smoke alarms, pacemakers, even exit signs. No terrorist 
will cause much damage with smoke alarms and exit signs. But more 
dangerous radioactive materials are abundant and, say critics, 
government regulators have failed to ensure they are not misused. 
Since 1986, the NRC has recorded over 1,700 instances in which 
radioactive material has been lost or stolen. "Security of 
radioactive materials has traditionally been relatively light," 
says Abel Gonzalez, a top official at the United Nations’ 
International Atomic Energy Agency. "There are few security 
precautions on radiotherapy equipment, and a large source could 
be removed quite easily." 

In the United States today, there are thousands of lost, stolen, 
or discarded radioactive sources--dubbed "orphans" by regulators. 
No comprehensive registry exists of radioactive devices, but the 
NRC estimates that in America one new radioactive source is 
orphaned every day. About 50 of them are found by the public each 
year, along roadsides, in dumps, and at recycling centers, and 
many more may be on the way. Fully a quarter of America’s 2 
million radioactive devices are no longer needed or wanted by 
their owners, says former NRC health physicist Joel Lubenau. The 
situation is even worse overseas; former Soviet republics like 
Georgia and the region of Chechnya are littered with radioactive 
garbage, say officials. "We need to get these orphaned sources 
off the street," says Lubenau.
 
The NRC is playing catch-up. Having found in the mid-1980s that 
15 percent of users could not account for their radioactive 
devices, the NRC this year ordered that its licensees keep better 
records. The Environmental Protection Agency has also begun a 
pilot project to collect orphaned materials, but critics call it 
too little too late. "The genie really is out of the bottle," 
says Pennsylvania antinuclear activist Scott Portzline, who for 
years has urged federal officials to tighten over­ sight on the 
orphans. 

Good news. While it may be easy to obtain radioactive materials 
and to fashion a device with them, therein lies some good news. 
Although recent press reports suggest the impact of a dirty bomb 
would be disastrous, with thousands killed and downtowns rendered 
uninhabitable, scientists say such scenarios are wildly 
exaggerated. "It is most likely that only a small area of a few 
city blocks would be involved," concludes a just released report 
by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 
Casualties would be low, limited largely to those hurt by the 
blast itself and those nearby who ingest radioactive particles. 
Most dirty bombs would lack the kind of long-lived elements like 
plutonium that a nuclear blast releases. And the isotopes--in 
most cases heavy metals--would fall to the ground, where they 
could be cleaned up with common detergents. The cleanup would be 
monitored with Geiger counters. "It would not harm a lot of 
people from a human health perspective," says David Lochbaum, a 
nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But it 
would cause a lot of terror." 

Terror, indeed, appears to be a dirty bomb’s greatest attraction. 
The image of moon-suited crews with Geiger counters in a big city 
downtown is bound to cause panic. The economic costs would also 
be considerable. In the end, though, the sheer lethality of 
radioactive devices may be what stops terrorists from using them. 
To create an effective dirty bomb, one must extract the 
radioactive material from its shielding, exposing the terrorists 
to far worse radiation than their victims would receive. "That’s 
why we wear dosimeters and use glove boxes and robots," says a 
NEST veteran. "The guy’s going to irradiate himself, and we’ll 
find him dead four days later."
   
© 2001 U.S.News &World Report Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19  Secret Soviet atomic cities fuel nuclear nightmares 

- 11/23/2001 - ENN.com
 
Friday, November 23, 2001 By Clara Ferreira-Marques, Reuters 

MOSCOW — Russia's nuclear cities were once elite centers of 
military research hidden in dark corners of the Soviet Union, 
fenced off from the outside world and painted out of ordinary 
road maps. 

Now, their underpaid specialists fuel Western nightmares of 
nuclear leaks, thefts, and terrorism. Tales of suitcases filled 
with weapons-grade uranium are more often fiction than fact, 
experts say. But the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan has 
boosted demand for weapons of mass destruction — and the 
marketability of the brain power to operate them. 

"One of our biggest problems is the brain-drain, and we know many 
scientists have left the closed cities,'' defense analyst 
Alexander Pikayev said. "Fortunately we know they left for the 
West and Israel, but if the (global) situation continues to 
develop in this way, we cannot rule out that they will move to 
other states.'' 

Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in September's hijacked airliner 
attacks on America, says he possesses nuclear and chemical 
weapons, a claim Russian leader Vladimir Putin has cast doubt on. 

Moreover, analysts argue, drastic cuts to programs funding the 
cities' conversion to civilian life could upset an already 
delicate balance. 

"How could a group or a country fabricate a nuclear or 
radiological device out of materials they have acquired?'' asked 
Jon Wolfstahl, a Washington-based associate of the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. "I don't think they can 
produce a very small compact nuclear weapon without a lot of 
assistance, which raises the important question: Are we doing 
enough to protect or prevent Russian nuclear experts from 
providing that assistance?'' 

POST COLD WAR CHALLENGES 

The Nuclear Cities Initiative, announced in March 1998, was a 
concrete step toward addressing Russia's post#150Cold War nuclear 
challenges and intended to promote conversion in the dozen or so 
nuclear cities through private investment and development. 

In its three pilot cities, the initiative opened business 
development and computer centers and funded training on career 
changes and city leadership. But the cash attributed to the 
initiative by the U.S. government has dwindled, sliding to an 
all-time low of around $6 million planned for 2002 from a peak of 
$30 million. 

"The risk of a brain-drain is quite real and unfortunately it can 
grow, given that some U.S. programs like the Nuclear Cities 
Initiative have been cut back,'' Pikayev said. 

During Soviet rule, security concerns kept the closed cities off 
the map, hiding them under the names of postboxes in nearby towns 
— Cheliabinsk-70, Tomsk-7 — their interior unknown even to 
neighboring villages. In return, their inhabitants lived lives of 
relative luxury. The sealed enclaves tucked away in Russia's most 
remote regions were home not only to the heart of Russia's 
nuclear weapons industry but also to chemical and biological 
research. 

The closed cities are still out of bounds for foreigners, but 
many are slowly beginning fresh, civilian lives with new names, 
new purposes, and the right to a spot on the map. And some say 
life in these cities — showered with privileges at the height of 
the Soviet arms drive but forgotten in the breakup of the Soviet 
Union — is now little different from that in the rest of Russia. 

SIBERIAN CITY 

"The situation in our closed cities, particularly in MinAtom 
(Atomic Energy Ministry) cities, is getting better,'' said Dmitry 
Kovchegin, an analyst with the Moscow-based Center for Policy 
Studies in Russia. "I was in (the Siberian city of) Tomsk and I 
spoke to people from the chemical combine just one day after 
Sept. 11, and they said there is no human leakage from their 
city,'' he said. Instead of leaving for better-paid jobs abroad, 
students were competing to get positions at the plant, he said. 

But others say there is still little to celebrate. Valentin 
Tikhonov, a sociologist affiliated to the Russian Academy of 
Sciences, published a survey of five nuclear cities showing that 
62 percent of employees earn less than $50 a month. Unofficial 
figures place the wages of top nuclear workers at between 
$100-$300. 

The lifeline, experts say, is private initiative and foreign 
investment. Wolfstahl quotes Intel as an example. The world's 
largest computer chip maker has a software and microchip design 
center in Sarov (formerly Arzamas-16). "You no longer need to 
have large factories or mass migration of individuals to take 
advantage of their talent,'' he said. 

But there is little to keep foreign investors interested: 
Obtaining a simple authorization to visit any of the closed 
cities (military or otherwise) can take up to two months. And 
security following the Sept. 11 attacks has only increased the 
obstacles. 

"The Russian government could do more — maybe one thing is to 
give (the cities) a more open status,'' Kovchegin said, adding 
regional leaders keen to cash in taxes from the cities, which 
still enjoy tax perks, are stepping up pressure on Moscow. 

Will the closer friendship between Russia and the West lead to a 
brighter outlook for these cities? "I would like to believe the 
good relationship between Russia and the West would help us 
decide what to do with these cities,'' Pikayev said. "But at the 
same time it would help if the Americans raised their 
assistance.'' 

Copyright 2001, Reuters
*****************************************************************
 20  Gauging Fallout From Baby Teeth 

November 25, 2001 

Research: Follow-up to a Cold War study explores if nuclear tests 
caused health problems in survey donors over time.

By STEPHANIE SIMON, TIMES STAFF WRITER


ST. LOUIS -- The study was designed to stir alarm and did it ever 
succeed: As the U.S. tested nuclear bombs with scores of 
explosions in Nevada, researchers here--four states away in the 
nation's heartland--found radioactive fallout in local kids' 
teeth.

No one knew at the time how the radiation might affect the 
children's health. No one attempted to find out. The study simply 
documented that as nuclear tests intensified through the late 
1950s and early 1960s, kids were absorbing ever more radiation. 
Its goal was to help lobby for an end to above-ground tests.

The strategy worked. The St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey gained 
worldwide fame. Scientists collected nearly 300,000 teeth--most 
from the St. Louis area, a hot spot for fallout from the tests. 
And their findings helped build public pressure for the ban on 
atmospheric atom bomb tests that President Kennedy signed in 
1963. Now researchers hope to revive the tooth study--and the 
public activism it sparked--by exploring whether the fallout 
those Cold War kids absorbed has caused health problems over the 
years.

The follow-up is possible because of a chance discovery. Workers 
cleaning out an old ammunition bunker at Washington University 
here in May came across a cache of small envelopes secured with 
rusty paper clips. Inside were 85,000 baby teeth left over from 
the 1960s, each matched with a card identifying the donor.

The university was about to throw them out when a biology 
professor recommended donating the teeth to the Radiation and 
Public Health Project, a private research group in New York. 
Elated, scientists from the radiation project this month launched 
an effort to track down the donors so they can collect 40 years 
of health data.

Project director Jay M. Gould calls the opportunity "priceless."

But the study's splashy revival--featured on CNN, National Public 
Radio and in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch--has raised the hackles 
of some scientists.

"The short story? It's unabashed junk science," said Steve 
Musolino, a health physicist specializing in radiation at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. "It's a study 
designed to scare people. It will never be able to reveal 
anything conclusive."

Even the biologist who engineered the original tooth study has 
his doubts about the new project. "It's going to be very 
difficult" to get any valid results, said Barry Commoner, now a 
professor at Queens College in New York. Not only that, the study 
will destroy the teeth, which Commoner would prefer to see 
preserved as a historical archive.

In objecting to the modern study, critics point out that there's 
no way to compare the tooth donors' health with that of 
contemporaries who did not absorb nuclear fallout. There's also 
no way to measure other sources of radiation the donors may have 
been exposed to over the years--from medical procedures, perhaps.

Gould insists he will be able to draw valid conclusions. He plans 
to divide his subjects into three groups according to how much 
radioactive contamination is found in their decades-old teeth. He 
will then compare health statistics from each group to determine, 
for instance, whether those with the most contaminated teeth have 
suffered more cancer. "We might get a tremendous amount of 
information," he said.

Musolino counters that any information gleaned will amount to 
"guilt by association," nothing more.

It's well established in scientific literature that exposure to 
radiation increases an individual's risk of cancer. It's equally 
well established that nuclear fallout sprinkled radiation around 
the globe.

But it's almost impossible to extrapolate an individual's 
exposure based on an analysis of his tooth. So while subject A 
may have twice as much of a contaminant in his teeth as subject 
B, it doesn't mean he was exposed to twice the amount of fallout.

"If you wanted to design a study to measure how much cancer the 
fallout was causing, [analyzing] baby teeth would be the most 
ridiculous way you could go about it," Musolino said.

Yet such criticism has been drowned out by a rush of enthusiasm 
for reviving the tooth study.

In the first five days after Gould went public with his plans, he 
received more than 1,000 e-mails from people who remember 
contributing their teeth and who are willing to answer health 
questionnaires. "The interest has been quite extraordinary," 
Gould said. "We're flabbergasted."

One volunteer is 39-year-old Julie Fleck of St. Louis, who 
remembers that when she put her baby teeth under her pillow as a 
kid, the tooth fairy would leave her a quarter but would not take 
the tooth. "Our teeth are going to a study," her mom would 
explain, "and our tooth fairy is smart enough to know that." 
Fleck remembers too the buttons she got as a thank you for each 
donation. They featured a cartoon kid with a gap in his smile, 
and the boast: "I gave my tooth to science."

Now a pediatric nurse, Fleck is thrilled to think her old teeth 
could help advance medical science. "Isn't it amazing? What a way 
to have a long-term study."

Her older brother, Doug Collinger, is also willing to 
participate, but he's doubtful that strontium 90, the radioactive 
byproduct of nuclear fission, in his baby teeth can be linked to 
any specific health risk. "Considering all the other pollutants 
in the atmosphere, I'm not sure it was any worse than what we 
breathe today."

The original Baby Tooth Survey was a groundbreaking effort. It 
marked one of the first times the public mobilized en masse to 
aid scientific research. The hoopla spread far; researchers 
received baby teeth from children around the world, some in 
envelopes addressed to "Tooth Fairy, St. Louis."

Most teeth from remote locales were laid aside, however, to focus 
on kids from St. Louis. Though the bomb tests were conducted in 
Nevada, wind patterns pushed much of the byproducts here, where 
it fell to the ground with the rain. Animals grazing on that 
ground would absorb radioactive elements, which could be passed 
to people consuming local milk or meat.

The high levels of strontium 90 in St. Louis affected mostly 
fetuses, whose fast-growing bones and teeth readily absorbed any 
radioactive elements their mothers had ingested through 
contaminated food.

Thus, the Baby Tooth Survey found the levels of strontium 90 in 
kids' teeth varied dramatically by birth year. Children born in 
1950, when there had been just a few small-scale atom bomb tests, 
had barely perceptible levels of the element in their teeth. By 
1957, when powerful hydrogen bomb tests were underway, they 
averaged 2.6 picocuries of strontium 90 per gram of dental 
calcium.

That ratio more than quadrupled for babies born in 1964, when 
atmospheric testing had ceased but remnant fallout was at its 
peak over St. Louis, said Joseph Mangano, an epidemiologist with 
the radiation project.

Gould hopes he can use the cache of forgotten teeth to find out 
what those numbers really mean. Many donors are pulling for him 
to succeed.

"We really thought we were making a big contribution to science," 
said Sandy Rosen, 69, who sent her four children's baby teeth to 
the project. "We never forgot about it." 

For information about reprinting this article, go to 
http://www.lats.com 

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************