urg:::Sydney's Nuclear Nightmare - the alarming story of Lucas Heights

[Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C2121F.6B03EA20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sydney's Nuclear Nightmare:=20

The Alarming Story Of Lucas Heights=20

8 June 2002
Australian Financial Review


By Julie Macken=20


Amid heightened global fears about security, Australia's only nuclear =
reactor has become the subject of serious risk-return analysis.=20

Deep in the southern shire of Sydney, nestled among the gum trees and =
quiet suburban streets, Australia's only nuclear reactor looks harmless =
enough. But when it comes to controversy, the Lucas Heights reactor has =
seen it all.=20

Built in 1956, it achieved fission power in 1958 and began operation in =
1960. For the past 40 years it has offered Australia a research facility =
for its scientific community and radioisotopes for its medical =
community, and has been a never-ending source of frustration and anxiety =
for its local community. It has seen protesters scale its towers, block =
its drains and wage campaign after campaign to shut it down. Yet it has =
survived. In 1997, the Federal Government announced that it would not be =
refurbishing the existing reactor but instead would build a new reactor =
on the same site, with twice the capacity, at an estimated cost of $300 =
million.=20

At the time, the Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, characterised the =
decision as being a matter of life and death. He said thousands of =
Australians depended on the certain supply of the facility's =
radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine.=20

Neither this nor the promise of the creation of 800 jobs in the =
construction of the reactor was enough to stop the roars of disapproval =
from the local community, the Democrats, the Greens and the ALP. While =
some organisations argued that the reactor was old technology and no =
longer necessary as a diagnostic tool, which is its main function in =
oncology, others said the real problem was the site of the reactor, in =
the suburbs of Australia's largest city.=20

And when the then industry minister, Nick Minchin, announced that =
Argentinian company INVAP had become the preferred tenderer for the =
construction of the new reactor, tempers reached boiling point. On =
August 15, 2000, the Senate decided to establish a committee of inquiry =
to examine "the need for a new reactor; the tendering process and the =
contract; health and safety matters and nuclear waste management =
issues".=20

Suddenly the local problem had gone national. The Senate committee's =
majority report concluded that the case for the new reactor had not been =
established and the potential risks had not been assessed. That was in =
May 2001.=20

Then came September 11.=20

These days the issue is no longer what could happen to the locals, it is =
what is happening to the science budget, what is happening to medical =
research, what is happening to the nuclear waste this new, larger =
reactor will generate and, last and most frightening of all, what could =
happen to Sydney if the rather exposed construction became a terrorist =
target.=20

Controversy rages over three key issues: that the installation is of =
questionable value; that it is a terrorist target and inadequately =
protected; and that there is no solution to the problem of nuclear =
waste. None of these questions is academic, and all are being asked by a =
range of experts.=20

First is the issue of whether the new reactor will supply good medicine =
and good science.=20

That depends, says Barry Allen, a former chief research scientist at the =
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation who now works at =
the St George Cancer Care Centre. He says the reactor will be "a step =
into the past, and it may well be the last of its kind ever built. The =
question is really what the taxpayers want. Do they want new therapies, =
or do they want the reactor to be the centre of all research?"=20

Allen's point is underscored in this year's Budget. Nuclear research and =
ANSTO in particular were the clear winners. They received $286 million, =
which includes $104 million to help build the reactor. McGauran says =
this is the largest single science project ever funded.=20

The fuss over the new reactor might have been confined to the =
environmental, scientific and medical communities had it not been for =
the events of September 11. When the two commercial airlines slammed =
into the World Trade Center towers, the issue of security, and =
especially security surrounding nuclear installations, came into sharp =
focus. Security experts were quick to warn that security needed to be =
tightened around all nuclear facilities. Furthermore, it soon emerged =
that the third plane hijacked on September 11, United Airlines Flight =
93, was headed for the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor outside =
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, when it crashed in a rural area nearby. =
American aviation officials declared a no-fly zone within 16 kilometres =
of all US nuclear facilities.=20

Ploughing a fully laden commercial jet into a nuclear facility would =
certainly produce the desired effect. According to US intelligence =
sources, nuclear medical facilities pose the greatest risk because of =
their routinely lax security.=20

Residents in the Lucas Heights area began asking what kind of security =
was in place around their reactor.=20

They didn't have to wait long to find out. On December 17, 2001, 51 =
Greenpeace activists stormed the grounds of the Lucas Heights nuclear =
research facility in a military-style exercise, taking Australian =
Protective Service and police officers by complete surprise.=20

When the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency =
responded by promising a review of their security measures, Michael =
McKinley, senior lecturer in international relations and strategy at the =
Australian National University, with a specialist interest in =
international terrorism, said: "Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to both =
accidents and attack. All round the world we are seeing a boost in =
security measures around what are essentially undefendable targets. The =
safety and security review proposed by ARPANSA is a farce. To really =
assess the risks of building a new reactor in Sydney, an independent =
body should run the review."=20

The embarrassing security breach came as former Lucas Heights engineer =
Tony Wood told an ARPANSA forum the facility "didn't have adequate =
protection for anything".=20

"Our procedures are so cumbersome, and they'd take so long to implement, =
they'd be ineffective," Wood said.=20

Undeterred, John Loy, ARPANSA's chief executive, announced on April 5 =
that he had given ANSTO a licence to construct a new nuclear reactor. In =
the five-page summary of why he gave ANSTO the licence, Loy touches on =
the issue of security, saying: "There has been very close examination of =
scenarios for attack upon the reactor and measures are to be included in =
the design to reduce greatly the likelihood of the success of any such =
attack."=20

He adds: "Clearly it is very difficult to talk about these issues in the =
public arena, as to do so would provide a blueprint for such an attack." =


Chair of the Sutherland Emergency Management Committee, Genevieve =
Rankin, is not convinced.=20

"The threat of a terrorist attack on Lucas Heights is a very real one," =
she says. Not only because it is a nuclear facility, but because such an =
attack would also carry great symbolic significance. The information =
given and the precautions taken are ludicrous in light of the threat =
potential."=20

Rankin accuses ARPANSA of slipping around the tough question of security =
in this way.=20

"When ARPANSA issued a site licence, they looked at a reference accident =
in this case, a controlled radiation leak that doesn't involve a core =
meltdown or sabotage and they asked ANSTO if they would be able to =
handle that scenario. Not surprisingly, ANSTO passed with flying =
colours.=20

"They used the same reference accident example when ANSTO applied for =
the construction licence. Once again, they passed with flying colours."=20

However, Rankin believes that Loy did not model the full impact of a =
commercial jet being flown into the reactor, because "Loy never accepted =
that was a credible threat. So he gives lip service to saying he took it =
into account, but the licence to construct the reactor was not given =
because ANSTO was seen to be able to deal with that eventuality."=20

The Federal Government appears not to have heard, or not to be listening =
to, either locals' or experts' concerns. Construction of the new reactor =
continues, but there is one obstacle yet to be overcome.=20

Three weeks ago, Greenpeace asked the NSW Federal Court to overturn the =
construction licence issued by ARPANSA to ANSTO for the new Lucas =
Heights reactor.=20

"We believe that ARPANSA failed to take into account 'international best =
practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety' as =
required by the law, especially in relation to spent nuclear fuel and =
radioactive waste management," said Greenpeace campaigner Stephen =
Campbell.=20

In response, ANSTO claimed "the management, handling, processing and =
storage of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is not, and was not, =
a matter required to be taken into account in the making of the decision =
to issue the facility licence".=20

The matter is before Federal Court judge Bryan Beaumont.=20

Whatever the outcome of the proceedings, one thing is clear: the issue =
of what to do with the spent nuclear fuel produced by the reactor has =
not been resolved.=20

McGauran believes France or Argentina will eventually accept the waste =
for reprocessing. "Both governments are confident they will be able to =
provide the service for Australia," he says.=20

Greenpeace's Campbell acknowledges that the French and present =
Argentinian governments have given those agreements. However, he says =
"the contract has been given to the French company Cogema, and that =
company has no authorisation to process our waste. The French =
Environment Minister has so far refused to give Cogema the licence."=20

On the question of Argentina picking up the slack, Campbell says: "The =
current government has not yet ratified the agreement with Australia. =
And we understand that if they do so, the contract will be challenged in =
court, because it is specifically mentioned in the Argentinian =
Constitution that no government can authorise the importation of nuclear =
waste."=20

With the new reactor expected to last another 40 years, its annual =
budget of $160 million will tie vast amounts of money to the one field =
of research and make nuclear medicine the dominant player in diagnosis =
and treatment options.=20

Helen Garnett, the chief executive of ANSTO, says this will be money =
well spent: "The new reactor will give Australians access to the level =
of health they have become used to, and it will provide research and =
training for young people working with new materials in a range of =
areas."=20

Not true, says Bill Williams, a Victorian GP and member of the Medical =
Association for Prevention of War. "The Government runs this scare =
campaign saying the reactor is a life or death issue for those suffering =
with cancer. Absolute nonsense. Most cancer is treated through surgery, =
chemotherapy and deep x-ray therapy, and you don't need a reactor for =
any of that.=20

"Nor do you need an Australian reactor to create the isotopes used for =
diagnosis. Canada currently provides 60 per cent of the world demand for =
these isotopes, and we could do what the US and Japan do and simply =
import them at far less [than] the cost of a nuclear reactor."=20

Garnett responds: "We are so far down the supply chain, we can't be sure =
we would have a regular supply of these isotopes. And if a plane =
carrying this material suddenly has an animal as cargo, the isotopes =
have to be taken off. That's an international requirement."=20

Back to Williams: "ARPANSA has just given the nod to a $300million and =
it may blow out to $500 million nuclear facility and they are justifying =
it on the grounds that an animal may get on a plane carrying technnetium =
99 [the most common isotope]. That's absurd."=20

While many in the medical community are keen to have a secure domestic =
supply of radioisotopes from Lucas Heights, not all doctors agree. Alan =
Zimmet, a Victorian cancer specialist, says importation would not pose =
any real problems. "Many radioisotopes are imported and some hospitals =
are able to produce their own with nuclear accelerators. I don't believe =
it will make much difference to patient treatment whether we have a new =
reactor or not."=20

Which begs the question: if the reactor cannot be justified as a medical =
necessity, will never become financially viable and poses a serious =
threat to the safety of those living within a 10km radius, why have it?=20



LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2002


------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C2121F.6B03EA20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: =
12.0pt">Sydney's=20
Nuclear Nightmare:</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">=20
<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 18pt; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The =
Alarming=20
Story Of Lucas Heights</SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 16pt; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">=20
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><B><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>8 June=20
2002</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: black"><BR>Australian =
Financial=20
Review</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black"><BR><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG>By</STRONG>&nbsp;Julie Macken =
<BR><BR><BR>Amid=20
heightened global fears about security, Australia's only nuclear reactor =
has=20
become the subject of serious risk-return analysis. <BR><BR>Deep in the =
southern=20
shire of Sydney, nestled among the gum trees and quiet suburban streets, =

Australia's only nuclear reactor looks harmless enough. But when it =
comes to=20
controversy, the Lucas Heights reactor has seen it all. <BR><BR>Built in =
1956,=20
it achieved fission power in 1958 and began operation in 1960. For the =
past 40=20
years it has offered Australia a research facility for its scientific =
community=20
and radioisotopes for its medical community, and has been a never-ending =
source=20
of frustration and anxiety for its local community. It has seen =
protesters scale=20
its towers, block its drains and wage campaign after campaign to shut it =
down.=20
Yet it has survived. In 1997, the Federal Government announced that it =
would not=20
be refurbishing the existing reactor but instead would build a new =
reactor on=20
the same site, with twice the capacity, at an estimated cost of $300 =
million.=20
<BR><BR>At the time, the Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, =
characterised the=20
decision as being a matter of life and death. He said thousands of =
Australians=20
depended on the certain supply of the facility's radiopharmaceuticals =
for=20
nuclear medicine. <BR><BR>Neither this nor the promise of the creation =
of 800=20
jobs in the construction of the reactor was enough to stop the roars of=20
disapproval from the local community, the Democrats, the Greens and the =
ALP.=20
While some organisations argued that the reactor was old technology and =
no=20
longer necessary as a diagnostic tool, which is its main function in =
oncology,=20
others said the real problem was the site of the reactor, in the suburbs =
of=20
Australia's largest city. <BR><BR>And when the then industry minister, =
Nick=20
Minchin, announced that Argentinian company INVAP had become the =
preferred=20
tenderer for the construction of the new reactor, tempers reached =
boiling point.=20
On August 15, 2000, the Senate decided to establish a committee of =
inquiry to=20
examine "the need for a new reactor; the tendering process and the =
contract;=20
health and safety matters and nuclear waste management issues". =
<BR><BR>Suddenly=20
the local problem had gone national. The Senate committee's majority =
report=20
concluded that the case for the new reactor had not been established and =
the=20
potential risks had not been assessed. That was in May 2001. =
<BR><BR>Then came=20
September 11. <BR><BR>These days the issue is no longer what could =
happen to the=20
locals, it is what is happening to the science budget, what is happening =
to=20
medical research, what is happening to the nuclear waste this new, =
larger=20
reactor will generate and, last and most frightening of all, what could =
happen=20
to Sydney if the rather exposed construction became a terrorist target.=20
<BR><BR>Controversy rages over three key issues: that the installation =
is of=20
questionable value; that it is a terrorist target and inadequately =
protected;=20
and that there is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste. None of =
these=20
questions is academic, and all are being asked by a range of experts.=20
<BR><BR>First is the issue of whether the new reactor will supply good =
medicine=20
and good science. <BR><BR>That depends, says Barry Allen, a former chief =

research scientist at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology =
Organisation=20
who now works at the St George Cancer Care Centre. He says the reactor =
will be=20
"a step into the past, and it may well be the last of its kind ever =
built. The=20
question is really what the taxpayers want. Do they want new therapies, =
or do=20
they want the reactor to be the centre of all research?" <BR><BR>Allen's =
point=20
is underscored in this year's Budget. Nuclear research and ANSTO in =
particular=20
were the clear winners. They received $286 million, which includes $104 =
million=20
to help build the reactor. McGauran says this is the largest single =
science=20
project ever funded. <BR><BR>The fuss over the new reactor might have =
been=20
confined to the environmental, scientific and medical communities had it =
not=20
been for the events of September 11. When the two commercial airlines =
slammed=20
into the World Trade Center towers, the issue of security, and =
especially=20
security surrounding nuclear installations, came into sharp focus. =
Security=20
experts were quick to warn that security needed to be tightened around =
all=20
nuclear facilities. Furthermore, it soon emerged that the third plane =
hijacked=20
on September 11, United Airlines Flight 93, was headed for the Three =
Mile Island=20
nuclear reactor outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, when it crashed in a =
rural=20
area nearby. American aviation officials declared a no-fly zone within =
16=20
kilometres of all US nuclear facilities. <BR><BR>Ploughing a fully laden =

commercial jet into a nuclear facility would certainly produce the =
desired=20
effect. According to US intelligence sources, nuclear medical facilities =
pose=20
the greatest risk because of their routinely lax security. =
<BR><BR>Residents in=20
the Lucas Heights area began asking what kind of security was in place =
around=20
their reactor. <BR><BR>They didn't have to wait long to find out. On =
December=20
17, 2001, 51 Greenpeace activists stormed the grounds of the Lucas =
Heights=20
nuclear research facility in a military-style exercise, taking =
Australian=20
Protective Service and police officers by complete surprise. =
<BR><BR>When the=20
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency responded by =
promising=20
a review of their security measures, Michael McKinley, senior lecturer =
in=20
international relations and strategy at the Australian National =
University, with=20
a specialist interest in international terrorism, said: "Nuclear =
reactors are=20
vulnerable to both accidents and attack. All round the world we are =
seeing a=20
boost in security measures around what are essentially undefendable =
targets. The=20
safety and security review proposed by ARPANSA is a farce. To really =
assess the=20
risks of building a new reactor in Sydney, an independent body should =
run the=20
review." <BR><BR>The embarrassing security breach came as former Lucas =
Heights=20
engineer Tony Wood told an ARPANSA forum the facility "didn't have =
adequate=20
protection for anything". <BR><BR>"Our procedures are so cumbersome, and =
they'd=20
take so long to implement, they'd be ineffective," Wood said.=20
<BR><BR>Undeterred, John Loy, ARPANSA's chief executive, announced on =
April 5=20
that he had given ANSTO a licence to construct a new nuclear reactor. In =
the=20
five-page summary of why he gave ANSTO the licence, Loy touches on the =
issue of=20
security, saying: "There has been very close examination of scenarios =
for attack=20
upon the reactor and measures are to be included in the design to reduce =
greatly=20
the likelihood of the success of any such attack." <BR><BR>He adds: =
"Clearly it=20
is very difficult to talk about these issues in the public arena, as to =
do so=20
would provide a blueprint for such an attack." <BR><BR>Chair of the =
Sutherland=20
Emergency Management Committee, Genevieve Rankin, is not convinced. =
<BR><BR>"The=20
threat of a terrorist attack on Lucas Heights is a very real one," she =
says. Not=20
only because it is a nuclear facility, but because such an attack would =
also=20
carry great symbolic significance. The information given and the =
precautions=20
taken are ludicrous in light of the threat potential." <BR><BR>Rankin =
accuses=20
ARPANSA of slipping around the tough question of security in this way.=20
<BR><BR>"When ARPANSA issued a site licence, they looked at a reference =
accident=20
in this case, a controlled radiation leak that doesn't involve a core =
meltdown=20
or sabotage and they asked ANSTO if they would be able to handle that =
scenario.=20
Not surprisingly, ANSTO passed with flying colours. <BR><BR>"They used =
the same=20
reference accident example when ANSTO applied for the construction =
licence. Once=20
again, they passed with flying colours." <BR><BR>However, Rankin =
believes that=20
Loy did not model the full impact of a commercial jet being flown into =
the=20
reactor, because "Loy never accepted that was a credible threat. So he =
gives lip=20
service to saying he took it into account, but the licence to construct =
the=20
reactor was not given because ANSTO was seen to be able to deal with =
that=20
eventuality." <BR><BR>The Federal Government appears not to have heard, =
or not=20
to be listening to, either locals' or experts' concerns. Construction of =
the new=20
reactor continues, but there is one obstacle yet to be overcome. =
<BR><BR>Three=20
weeks ago, Greenpeace asked the NSW Federal Court to overturn the =
construction=20
licence issued by ARPANSA to ANSTO for the new Lucas Heights reactor.=20
<BR><BR>"We believe that ARPANSA failed to take into account =
'international best=20
practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety' as =
required by=20
the law, especially in relation to spent nuclear fuel and radioactive =
waste=20
management," said Greenpeace campaigner Stephen Campbell. <BR><BR>In =
response,=20
ANSTO claimed "the management, handling, processing and storage of spent =
nuclear=20
fuel and radioactive waste is not, and was not, a matter required to be =
taken=20
into account in the making of the decision to issue the facility =
licence".=20
<BR><BR>The matter is before Federal Court judge Bryan Beaumont.=20
<BR><BR>Whatever the outcome of the proceedings, one thing is clear: the =
issue=20
of what to do with the spent nuclear fuel produced by the reactor has =
not been=20
resolved. <BR><BR>McGauran believes France or Argentina will eventually =
accept=20
the waste for reprocessing. "Both governments are confident they will be =
able to=20
provide the service for Australia," he says. <BR><BR>Greenpeace's =
Campbell=20
acknowledges that the French and present Argentinian governments have =
given=20
those agreements. However, he says "the contract has been given to the =
French=20
company Cogema, and that company has no authorisation to process our =
waste. The=20
French Environment Minister has so far refused to give Cogema the =
licence."=20
<BR><BR>On the question of Argentina picking up the slack, Campbell =
says: "The=20
current government has not yet ratified the agreement with Australia. =
And we=20
understand that if they do so, the contract will be challenged in court, =
because=20
it is specifically mentioned in the Argentinian Constitution that no =
government=20
can authorise the importation of nuclear waste." <BR><BR>With the new =
reactor=20
expected to last another 40 years, its annual budget of $160 million =
will tie=20
vast amounts of money to the one field of research and make nuclear =
medicine the=20
dominant player in diagnosis and treatment options. <BR><BR>Helen =
Garnett, the=20
chief executive of ANSTO, says this will be money well spent: "The new =
reactor=20
will give Australians access to the level of health they have become =
used to,=20
and it will provide research and training for young people working with =
new=20
materials in a range of areas." <BR><BR>Not true, says Bill Williams, a=20
Victorian GP and member of the Medical Association for Prevention of =
War. "The=20
Government runs this scare campaign saying the reactor is a life or =
death issue=20
for those suffering with cancer. Absolute nonsense. Most cancer is =
treated=20
through surgery, chemotherapy and deep x-ray therapy, and you don't need =
a=20
reactor for any of that. <BR><BR>"Nor do you need an Australian reactor =
to=20
create the isotopes used for diagnosis. Canada currently provides 60 per =
cent of=20
the world demand for these isotopes, and we could do what the US and =
Japan do=20
and simply import them at far less [than] the cost of a nuclear =
reactor."=20
<BR><BR>Garnett responds: "We are so far down the supply chain, we can't =
be sure=20
we would have a regular supply of these isotopes. And if a plane =
carrying this=20
material suddenly has an animal as cargo, the isotopes have to be taken =
off.=20
That's an international requirement." <BR><BR>Back to Williams: "ARPANSA =
has=20
just given the nod to a $300million and it may blow out to $500 million =
nuclear=20
facility and they are justifying it on the grounds that an animal may =
get on a=20
plane carrying technnetium 99 [the most common isotope]. That's absurd." =

<BR><BR>While many in the medical community are keen to have a secure =
domestic=20
supply of radioisotopes from Lucas Heights, not all doctors agree. Alan =
Zimmet,=20
a Victorian cancer specialist, says importation would not pose any real=20
problems. "Many radioisotopes are imported and some hospitals are able =
to=20
produce their own with nuclear accelerators. I don't believe it will =
make much=20
difference to patient treatment whether we have a new reactor or not."=20
<BR><BR>Which begs the question: if the reactor cannot be justified as a =
medical=20
necessity, will never become financially viable and poses a serious =
threat to=20
the safety of those living within a 10km radius, why have it?=20
<BR><BR><BR><BR><STRONG>LOAD-DATE:</STRONG> June 7,=20
2002</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_012D_01C2121F.6B03EA20--