Christine Puente wrote:Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537; ncohen12@comcast.net UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
Some more of the truth about how safe and secure we really are....
http://www.thenation.com/failsafe/index.mhtml?bid=2&pid=72 (full text is below)
False Advertising? 06/13/2002 @ 2:01pm
Ever since President George Bush announced that Al Qaeda has been
scheming to attack our nuclear power plants, the industry has
proclaimed itself ready--with full-page ads in newspapers and
magazines talking up its investment in the hiring and maintaining
of crack security forces.Nuclear power's private security teams are "highly
committed...highly trained...well-compensated professionals," one
such ad asserts, under a photograph of a bald, no-nonsense
character in a gray uniform and black gloves, who cradles an M-16
with a high-power scope. "Their training is intense, exacting,
and continuous. They are expert marksmen, annually certified in
an array of weaponry. In short, they're professionals! Nuclear
power plant security--we've got what it takes."But buyer beware. Such assertions were challenged one by one at a
June 5 Senate hearing to explore how well our nuclear plants are
guarded--especially during the testimony of Danielle Brian,
executive director of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).POGO works with insiders at all kinds of government agencies to
improve public policy. Because of POGO's reputation for dealing
fairly with whistleblowers, Brian said, it has since September 11
been contacted by frustrated security guards from commercial
nuclear plants across the country. Consider how the guards'
concerns clash with the industry's ads:THE ADVERTISEMENTS show guards on duty with automatic weapons.
THE REALITY, as described in Brian's testimony: "Many guard
forces around the country are equipped only with shotguns and
revolvers.... Contrary to the full-page ads in the Washington
Post and other newspapers, they do not normally wear flak jackets
or their communications gear, nor do they carry their
semiautomatic weapons. Sometimes, the guards are more than a
football field's distance away from their weapons and flak
jackets.... At one-third of nuclear power plants, the guards only
have access to shotguns, and they are locked up at a central
location. In case of a [terrorist] attack, the guards would have
to go to that location, unlock the cabinet, get their shotguns
and protective gear, and return to their post. By that time, the
terrorists would have achieved their goals and caused
catastrophic damage."THE ADVERTISEMENTS speak of "expert marksmen, annually certified
in an array of weaponry."THE REALITY as per POGO: "Guards from several of the power plants
have registered complaints with POGO about inadequate
training.... For example, one facility hired a new class of
guards after September 11. The vast majority of the new recruits
had never fired a gun before. During their training, they were
limited to firing ninety-six rounds with their handgun, and far
fewer with their shotguns.... Other guards with decades of
experience protecting nuclear power plants bemoaned the lack of
training outside the classroom, as well as the lack of modern
tactical training. For example, their firearms training requires
only that they be capable of standing and hitting a stationary
target twenty-five yards away--they have no training shooting on
the run at a moving target."THE ADVERTISEMENTS: "Highly committed...highly trained..."
THE REALITY as per POGO: "Two guards quit after two months on the
job believing they couldn't protect the plant in the case of a
terrorist attack. They told POGO, and other guards have admitted
to NRC inspectors, that their training is so inadequate, in the
face of a real terrorist attack, many guards would use their guns
simply to protect themselves while they escaped from the plant."THE ADVERTISEMENTS: "Well-compensated..."
THE REALITY as per POGO: "Currently, security guards who are
risking their lives are among...the lowest compensated employees
at many plants. Also, people working at nuclear power plants,
including NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and utility
employees as well as contractor and subcontractor employees,
should be given whistleblower protections. In the current climate
of fear and whistleblower retaliation, it has been our experience
that people have been deterred from coming forward with important
information that could help fix security problems."THE ADVERTISEMENTS: "Nuclear power plant security--we've got what
it takes."THE REALITY as per POGO: "Security forces do not have enough
authority to carry out their mission. Currently, guards are
prohibited from using deadly force unless an intruder wields a
gun, or they feel their life or the life of someone else is in
imminent danger...In other words, if an attacker jumps over the
fence with a backpack and runs towards the reactor building or
spent fuel pool, the guard can only attempt to chase down the
attacker. We have been told of an instance when an NRC inspector
observed a guard follow a mock terrorist during a force-on-force
drill as he destroyed critical target sets in the reactor
complex. When asked why he wasn't doing anything to stop him, the
guard explained that he didn't have the authority to shoot an
intruder who was only destroying property."The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is supposed to be looking
over the industry's shoulder. So one would have expected NRC
chairman Richard Meserve to have something to say about all of
this. Yet as he testified June 5, Meserve hardly struck the pose
of an indignant reformer. On the contrary: He backed the status
quo and argued against federalizing nuclear plant security on the
grounds that it addressed "a nonexistent problem."Instead, the NRC chairman urged senators to think about the
larger issue of security for all dangerous infrastructure,
including chemical plants, oil refineries and dams--and the cost
of that overall security to society. "We have limited assets we
need to spend on security," he pointed out. Senators stared back,
bug-eyed. (After all, think about it: Your agency's fiefdom is
singled out in the President's State of the Union address as
targeted by formidable terrorists; you're at a Congressional
hearing where others are testifying that you are probably not
ready for this challenge; and your offhand reply is roughly:
Yeah, but what about the dams?)New York's Hillary Clinton suggested the nation's top nuclear
regulator worry less about balancing some macrobudget for all of
America's energy security needs, and more about good nuclear
security. California's Barbara Boxer expressed similar
consternation. At one point, she asked Meserve, "Why don't you
want to be a model for safety?" Good question.
**************************Close Indian Point NOW!!!!Get involved, or
get more info at:http://www.closeindianpoint.org