Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, September 22, 2003
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
September 19, 2003
Official grilled about shipments
Nuclear Waste Transport is Hot Topic at Amargosa Meeting
By Mark Waite
PVT
AMARGOSA VALLEY - Gary Lanthrum, newly hired transportation director for the U.S. Department of Energy, faced some tough questions about nuclear waste shipments during the quarterly meeting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board at the Longstreet Inn and Casino Wednesday. Unfortunately, Lanthrum said he was so new to the job he didn't have many answers. The first question from the panel and the crowd of scientists was about reports that there would an announcement by November on the route and more of transportation for nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain, about 25 miles northeast of Longstreet. Lanthrum said he wouldn't be able to give an answer on that. Lanthrum did note, however, that the environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain project recommended shipping the nuclear waste by both road and rail. "We'd have to use intermodal. We can't use rail to get all the way to the facility," Lanthrum said. He then qualified his remark by saying, "I have a strong gut feeling, but I don't have a good, technical basis." Intermodal refers to a plan to ship the waste on existing rail lines to Caliente, then transfer it to trucks for shipment the rest of the way to Yucca Mountain. The DOE has also outlined five new possible rail routes that would go directly to Yucca Mountain. Mark Abkowitz, a member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, questioned how a rail spur could be constructed in time for waste shipments to begin as scheduled in 2010. He said construction of a rail line couldn't begin until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves the license for Yucca Mountain, something that is not expected to happen before December 2007. Lanthrum guessed it could take two years to construct, meaning a rail line could be ready by December 2009 so long as there were no permitting problems. Lanthrum added that once a rail line is in place and has undergone a readiness review, it would be a short time before it would be ready for nuclear waste shipments. But Abkowitz urged Lanthrum to "at least acknowledge to the citizens of Nevada that there's a strong possibility you'll be trucking material into this facility if you start shipments in 2010." Lanthrum did not rise to the bait. Instead he said he will be evaluating what infrastructure nuclear power reactors have on site for shipping nuclear waste. "There's an awful lot of fuel in canisters that is not set up for disposal," he said. Threat protection is another issue, Lanthrum said. He referred to a recent shipment from Oak Ridge, Tenn., to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab, where armed guards accompanying rail shipments had to obtain weapons permits in each jurisdiction. Lanthrum said he'll be reviewing what contractors have priority with the DOE for shipping waste and look at potential shipments. "It's pretty important to realize that safety is a hallmark of what we're trying to do," Lanthrum said. The new director had worked at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard until the military cutbacks of the Reagan administration, when he went to work at the DOE working on shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. "I dealt with transportation and packaging for a long time in my career," Lanthrum said. He said there was a huge amount of controversy over getting the WIPP facility open, but since the first shipment of low level nuclear waste to that facility near Carlsbad, New Mexico, transportation hasn't been a focal point of the discussion any more. "Lessons learned from the WIPP project are lessons I want to take directly to heart," Lanthrum said. He said the DOE isn't reinventing the wheel when it comes to transporting high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain but merely connecting the dots from previous projects. Lanthrum said 2003 was "an ugly year" for funding, with a delay by Congress in approving the federal budget and cutbacks in the nuclear waste program. But he said, "It looks like 2004 is a great year" for funding Yucca Mountain. States and Indian tribes who were consulted raised a lot of transportation issues, Lanthrum said. "Our emergency responders, a lot of those people are volunteers, particularly in the rural areas," Lanthrum said. The various training they have to undergo could become a burden on them, he said. Abkowitz expressed a concern that local emergency responders may not have enough time to review shipment plans before the nuclear waste begins arriving. The states will have the opportunity to present their preferred highway routes to the DOE as long as they meet U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, Lanthrum said. Another question Lanthrum couldn't answer, involved whether any potential rail lines constructed for Yucca Mountain would be solely for shipping nuclear waste, or available for dual use. Pahrump resident Grant Hudlow, in his remarks under public comment, reminded the audience each fuel rod had enough radioactive material for a Hiroshima bomb. "The public senses this Chernobyl-size accident that we're dealing with and the possibility of it," Hudlow said. Pahrump resident Sally Devlin urged the NWTRB to hold a nationwide teleconference on Yucca Mountain. She also questioned the permitting fees for shipping waste charged by various states. "I hope I've given you a hint not to ignore us, because we will not be ignored," Devlin said.
---------------------------
Washington Post
September 22, 2003
In Session : Congress
Houses Apart on Money Matters
By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
With Congress facing momentous issues such as how to reform Medicare and pay for Iraq's reconstruction, next year's budget for the Bureau of Prisons or proposed spending on education for the disabled have earned few headlines.
But down in the legislative weeds, a tussle has begun that will affect dozens of agencies and government programs. House and Senate Republicans are trying to reconcile differences over appropriations bills for 2004, and they don't always agree.
An example is the $27 billion bill that funds the Department of Energy, nuclear weapons programs and federal water projects. The bills passed by the House and Senate reflect the markedly different priorities -- and parochial interests -- of the subcommittee chairmen who drafted them.
While Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) uses his power to direct funds to his state's two national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia, Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio) is more interested in the energy concerns of consumers and electrical utilities in the Midwest.
Hobson's top priorities are improving the reliability of the nation's power supply and expediting work on the Yucca Mountain, Nev., nuclear waste disposal project. Yucca eventually is to store the radioactive wastes now building up at the nation's nuclear power plants.
Hobson's version of the bill would provide $765 million for the site, $174 million more than President Bush asked. But the Senate bill cut the amount almost in half, well below what Bush wanted. The White House warned that the shortfall could delay by a year the Energy Department's applying for a permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That isn't the only significant difference. The Senate-passed bill contains $15 million for research on a new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, or "bunker buster." Hobson's bill has only one-third of that. "I don't want them to do the research -- the next step will be they will want to build one as a 'model,' " Hobson said. He wants to direct more money to supercomputer and nanotechnology research at universities, such as Ohio State, and national laboratories. These technologies, he says, hold the key to maintaining U.S. economic competitiveness.
That the Senate bill totals $300 million more than the House version doesn't help the negotiations. Hobson is limited to the allowance he got from the House Appropriations Committee. "We're going to have a difficult conference because philosophically and money-wise, we have our differences," Hobson said.
Other House-Senate negotiations could be even tougher. The Senate bill funding the Justice Department proposes to limit the FBI to $3.9 billion in fiscal 2004, $700 million less than the House allocated. A report accompanying the Senate bill suggests much of the discrepancy can be attributed to accounting differences. But House GOP sources say the Senate's lower figure for the Bureau of Prisons could have a real-world impact, perhaps resulting in the closing of 10 to 15 prisons if the Senate prevails.
OBEY'S BOOK: Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, reports he hopes to finish the first draft of a book on his life and career in politics by the end of the year. Possible title: "Like Hell."
Obey, 64, said those two words were his reaction to a book by former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson (a Republican who now is health and human services secretary). Thompson's book, "Power to the People: An American State at Work," suggested that Republicans were the rightful heirs to the tradition of Wisconsin's late, great Progressive senator Robert La Follette.
Democrats, said Obey, are fighting against the same thing La Follette battled a century ago: domination of government by big business, fostered by the Republican Party.
His book, Obey said, will be "about my life in politics and will include some observations about Congress, this town, the country -- and journalism."
"I don't give a damn if the only people who read it are my two sons," he said.
WEEK AHEAD: The Senate will take up the 2004 Interior appropriations bill and other spending measures. The House may consider conference reports on 2004 appropriations for homeland security, the legislative branch and the Pentagon.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 21, 2003
Letter: Quality control problems at Yucca Mountain
To the editor:
I am quite sure that Brian Sandoval, Nevada's attorney general, does not need me to defend him or his position on Yucca Mountain, but I was so outraged by W. John Arthur III's letter to the editor in the Sept. 14 Review-Journal that I had to respond.
Apparently, Mr. Arthur only wants us to get the "spin" being fabricated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the nuclear industry. The findings that he purports to have been done are, in fact, still being worked on. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission still has no position on this project because the application has not yet been submitted by DOE and the National Academy of Sciences has just now created a panel to study the transportation aspect of this project.
Yes, there are indeed scientists who claim the project is safe. But there are also those who believe this is a dangerous proposition.
Perhaps Mr. Arthur was unable to attend the hearing held by our U.S. senators, Harry Reid and John Ensign, to hear from whistleblowers who unfortunately did not attend because of coercion. One of the panelists, Dr. Allison MacFarland, who heads the Yucca Mountain Project study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that Yucca Mountain was not scientifically sound. And there are whistleblowers from DOE as well as private contractors involved in the project who have come forward with disturbing reports of quality control problems.
So, the department is proud of its "safe and secure record of transporting spent nuclear fuel"? We at Citizen Alert find that to be a fascinating statement, since we have documented facts from DOE of numerous incidents in past shipments and the concession of DOE that they expect that yes, there will be accidents.
Perhaps Mr. Arthur doesn't know that the casks have yet to meet design standards and have not yet been subjected to full scale testing.
I know that Mr. Sandoval definitely has the expert opinions that will question the integrity of DOE's scientists. And, Mr. Arthur should read the reports that have been published on his Yucca Mountain Project as well as what others are saying. Only then can he can say that he has a "full picture of Yucca Mountain."
Peggy Maze Johnson
Las Vegas
Peggy Maze Johnson is executive director of Citizen Alert, www.citizenalert.org.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 20, 2003
Yucca Mountain lawsuits rescheduled
By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A federal court has set Jan. 14 as the new date for oral arguments in lawsuits challenging the Yucca Mountain Project, a Nevada official said Friday.
The cases will be argued before three judges representing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: David S. Tatel, who was appointed by President Clinton; Karen Henderson, seated by the first President George Bush, and Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Carter.
It is not yet clear how much time the judges will allocate to each of the four major lawsuits from the state, Clark County and the city of Las Vegas, according to Bob Loux, head of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects.
Also part of the proceedings is a Nuclear Energy Institute lawsuit contesting radiation standards for the proposed repository set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The lawsuits had been scheduled to be heard on Oct. 3, but were pulled from the docket in August and reclassified as "complex" cases.
"I'm relieved we have a court date and not one that's way out there in the future," Loux said.
The lawsuits challenge actions taken by the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department that led to President Bush's declaration in February 2002 that Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable for burial of radioactive spent fuel from commercial power plants.
The state also has declared in a lawsuit that Bush's declaration and a follow-up resolution approved by Congress violated Nevada's rights under the U.S. Constitution.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Letter: Yucca benefits
To the editor:
Sorry, I'm just tired of the claptrap over Yucca Mountain. Let's look at a few things:
Yucca Mountain is near the Nevada Test Site which is already a nuclear wasteland from testing, has been for decades. There is currently no other useful purpose for this area (other than resumption of underground testing). Storage of the waste is a moot point, as the government owns the land and can make decisions as it sees fit.
Why don't you all wise up and look at the income, tax relief, jobs and economic base this could provide and tax the transport across the state?
Next time one of the politicos tries to run and hide behind Yucca Mountain, ask him or her to address something closer to home, like your tax bills, you health care, your court systems, your roads, your schools, public safety, and other areas they are running and hiding from because they are failing miserably.
John Howell
Las Vegas
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
September 18, 2003
Oral arguments set in fight over Yucca
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN
WASHINGTON -- Oral arguments for the state's legal fight against the Energy Department and its proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump are set for Jan. 14, according to the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The clerk called Joe Egan, the attorney hired by the state to handle the legal challenges, late Wednesday night to tell him of the new date.
Egan and attorneys from his firm Egan, Fitzpatrick and Malsch, will argue several cases brought by the state challenging various aspects of the Yucca Mountain project.
Located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the site is the potential federal repository for 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. Congress and President Bush approved the storage site last year and the department anticipates submitting a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2004.
Egan said the almost four-month delay in starting the oral arguments will not make much difference in the case and will not affect the legal costs for the state. The briefs are done and the firm is almost completely ready, he said.
"It is much more important that we got on the complex docket," Egan said.
Last month the court postponed the Oct. 3 date and reclassified the case as "complex." The court designates only a few cases this way each year.
Because of the reclassification, both sides will get longer time to aruge the cases. Egan said he is waiting to find out if the court has granted a full-day for each side yet.
Nevada has sued the department over the environmental impact statement, the recommendation and the guidelines used to determine the site's suitability to hold the waste. These cases have been lumped together with challenges against the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standards for the site and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rules for licensing the it. A constitutional challenge against the site filed in January is also part of this case.
Judges Harry Edwards, Karen Lecraft Henders
---------------------------
Las Vegas Mercury
September 18, 2003
Knappster: Republicans can't have it both ways
By George Knapp
Years of hyperbole and fear-mongering surrounding the Yucca Mountain project may finally be coming home to roost for Nevada political leaders. Readers were warned this would happen back in early 2002 when President Bush gave the green light to the storage of 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in Nevada, and now the moment has arrived.
There is little question that Bush put the Yucca plan on a fast track, even though he promised during the presidential campaign that he would act only on the basis of "sound science." True, this was similar to pledges made by the Clinton administration, but the difference is Bill Clinton kept the project bottled up for eight years, while Bush barely paused to catch his breath before signing on the dotted line. Nevada critics noted the current president's close ties to the energy industry as a likely factor in his quick decision.
Do Nevada politicians really believe the stuff they've been saying about Yucca all these years? We all know the mantra by now. If nuke waste comes to Nevada, we're all toast. Yucca can't possibly restrain tons of radioactive garbage, described as the most dangerous and toxic substance in the history of the world. In time, we have been told, nuke waste would infect our land, poison our water, kill and mutate our children, destroy our property values and turn Las Vegas into a ghost town. To this day, every politician who runs for public office in our state, from governor to city councilman, must pass the Yucca litmus test by faithfully reciting his or her opposition to this terrible project. But do they really believe it?
Last week, Nevadans witnessed the predictable spectacle of Nevada GOP leaders gathering to announce their support for the re-election of George W. Bush. Among the Republican magillas who showed up to sing Bush's praises were Gov. Kenny Guinn, Attorney General Brian Sandoval and Rep. Jon Porter. Sen. John Ensign and Rep. Jim Gibbons weren't there in person, but you can bet they will have prime seats on the Bush bandwagon. Guinn, Sandoval and Porter are all pretty good guys, but based on public statements made by each of them, any reasonable observer would conclude that they've allowed partisanship to take precedence over concerns for public safety. How else are we to explain it? These three men, along with their colleagues, have told us over and over again, year after year, that Yucca Mountain is a life or death issue for Nevada. Life or Death. If the nuke waste comes to Nevada, we will DIE. That's what they have said.
And yet, when asked about the conflict between their opposition to Yucca and their support for Bush, each deftly sidestepped the issue. Guinn said we need to look "at the totality of the man," not just one issue. Porter said Bush and Nevadans "do not agree on all issues, and I don't expect we always will." And Sandoval noted that his support for the president's re-election won't stop him from suing the administration over the Yucca decision.
Fine and dandy, but these mild statements really don't jibe with the incendiary, anti-Yucca rhetoric all three of these fellas have dished out to we common folk the past few years. Looking back at newspaper accounts, it's easy to see how we members of the rabble might get confused.
Back in April 2002, Guinn described the anti-Yucca effort as "the fight of our lives." That same month, he told Congress that "a single [transportation] accident could produce thousands of latent cancer fatalities and billions of dollars in cleanup costs." Guinn's administration has accused the Bushies of harboring "dirty little secrets" about Yucca's safety, of stifling whistleblowers, of distorting science. The governor was so concerned about nuclear imagery that he killed an innocuous plan to honor Nevada Test Site workers with a license plate. Before Bush's decision on Yucca, Guinn described the president as "a man of his word." After the decision to cram Yucca down our throats, Guinn said he was "outraged." So where is the outrage now? Sure we need to look at the "totality" of Bush, but how can we if we are dead? Guinn has repeatedly told us that nuclear waste will KILL us if it comes here, yet he still supports the man who is sending it our way.
Porter has taken a similar position. During the last congressional campaign, he jumped through hoops to convince us he was as opposed to Yucca as anyone. He reminded voters that he has been "an ardent opponent since signing a resolution in 1985." Porter also has been adamant in his opposition to any negotiations with the feds, saying "we can't sell out." Sensitive to criticism that his campaign accepted money from Yucca supporters, Porter said, over and over, that "the state must send a consistent message of opposition" to Yucca. Is it consistent, then, to offer words of support and encouragement for the man who has done the most to get nuke waste packed up on Nevada-bound trucks?
Sandoval is the chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election effort in Nevada. And while he is a relative newcomer to the anti-Yucca jihad, he's made up for lost time by leading the state's legal efforts against the project. In April of this year, Sandoval characterized the Yucca project as a threat to "the health, safety and welfare" of the people of Nevada. He believes a pile of nuke waste in the desert would be irresistible to terrorists and would create "the largest nuclear target in the world." His legal briefs have accused the Bush administration of violating the Constitution and of subverting science. He alleges the Yucca study has at least 300 scientific and technical flaws that have been ignored by Bush's Department of Energy. How can he argue these things but still tell Nevada voters, as he did last week, that "President Bush leads our country by principle and by doing what is right"? Is the Yucca project right?
Something's got to give on this. This isn't just any issue, we've been told, it is THE issue. If nuke waste gets here, we will die. Do they really believe this, or has it all been political gamesmanship? Is it possible that these and other politicians have merely been telling us whatever it takes to get themselves elected, whipping us into a frenzy about nuke waste for years, then downplaying the danger when it is politically expedient to do so? Is it even possible that they have--gasp--exaggerated the dangers of Yucca?
Perhaps the politicos could argue that since just about everyone in Washington seems to be pro-Yucca, Bush is no worse than any alternatives. It is true that both Republicans and Democrats have helped promote the project, but it's also true that Yucca was stalled in its tracks during the Clinton years, and that without ardent, active support from Bush, it still would be stalled. There is a difference, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
This isn't just a matter of gamesmanship. Our state is spending millions of public dollars to oppose the Yucca project. Mr. Guinn and Mr. Sandoval voted to pay up to $4 million to a single out-of-state law firm for the fight. Mr. Porter, Ensign and Gibbons have marshalled other resources for the ongoing tussle. This is an expensive battle, and the stakes are high. We need to know now if they really believe what they've been telling us.
---------------------------
Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 18, 2003
Letter: GOP turncoats
To the editor:
Nevada's leading Republicans seem to have no trouble turning their backs on the state. Gov. Kenny Guinn, U.S. Sen. John Ensign, U.S. Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter, and state Attorney General Brian Sandoval all seem to have no problem being part of the team that will try to deliver Nevada's five electoral votes to President Bush next year -- despite Mr. Bush's support for making Yucca Mountain, only 90 mile miles away from Las Vegas, the nation's nuclear dump.
As governor, Mr. Guinn has tried to block the high-level waste dump, but he still says he could "very easily" be part of the Bush re-election team in the state.
Mr. Sandoval, who is suing the federal government to block the Bush administration's efforts to store nuclear waste here in Nevada, is the chairman of Bush-Cheney re-election effort.
Also it was Sen. Ensign who once claimed that Nevada would be better off having a Republican representing the state in the Senate so he could urge his Republican colleagues to vote against Yucca Mountain. But when time came, Sen. Ensign could gather no more than two or three Republican senators to vote with him. Now he is backing the same man who signed into law shoving 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste down our throats.
This goes to show just how much loyalty state Republicans have to Nevada -- not much.
Mr. Bush carried Nevada in 2000 by only 4,000 votes, following a campaign during which he promised to ensure that "sound science" would be triumph over politics when it came to Yucca Mountain. But it wasn't sound science, it was pure greed from the nuclear energy companies and their hefty donations that made Mr. Bush's decision so easy. Also, to him Nevada is just a desert state with few electoral votes.
President Bush doesn't give a darn about Nevada. So wake up, fellow Nevadans, and take a good look at the GOP leaders who represent our beloved state.
John Marchese
Henderson
---------------------------
St. Louis Post Dispatch
September 18, 2003
Still angry after all those years . . . of tilting at windmills
By Sylvester Brown Jr.
Leo Drey apologizes. His memory isn't what it used to be. Leo, 86, refers most questions to his wife, Kay. I don't notice Leo's lapses. Perhaps it's because the Dreys speak with the syncopation of shared passions, shared struggles and shared years.
"I'm disappointed right now. You strive and strive to push that rock to the top of the hill and now it's rolling back," Leo explains. "You think we've made progress and now things are reversed."
President George Bush has given many environmental groups reason to be disappointed. They charge that no other president has weakened the nation's environmental laws like his administration.
The Dreys have long been critics of conservatives like Bush and for four decades have fought on behalf of trees, streams, animals, air quality and planet Earth.
"The Bush administration is helpful to industries," says Kay. "Any industry, oil, paper, timber. It's all about people making money without any constraints or consideration for future generations. And a lot of what they're doing is irreversible."
The Dreys have been married for 48 years. Leo, heir to the Schram Jar Co. fortune, is the largest landowner in Missouri with more than 150,000 acres. He has spent decades protecting trees, endangered species and natural rivers from loggers and the chip mill industry. In southeast Missouri, 35 miles of Ozark National Riverway remains in its natural state because of Leo Drey. Much of the land is leased to state departments for continued federal protection.
Kay, 70, is a "tree hugger." Literally. She was arrested in 1981 when a road-widening project called for the removal of 200 trees along Big Bend Boulevard. When the chopping began, Kay plopped down in front of a tree and was hauled off by police. The main focus of her activism, however, involves nuclear power and radioactive waste issues.
Bush's administration recently relaxed the rules for power plants and refineries. Now many utilities and companies can upgrade facilities without adding new pollution controls. Bush has also opened millions of acres of wilderness to logging, mining and oil and gas drilling. Another plan frees the federal government from regulating carbon dioxide - a known contributor to global warming.
Of course there's another way of looking at the issue. In a speech this week, Bush contended that regulatory rules create "too many hurdles" and hurt "working people."
The Dreys believe that the president's policies are putting everyone in jeopardy. "Ronald Reagan was the worst environmental president. Now Bush is the absolute worst," Kay says.
A sticker on the Dreys' front door reads: "Warning radioactive waste transport site." It's a reminder that 45,000 tons of nuclear waste are stored at various sites throughout the country. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommends Yucca Mountain, Nev., as a location for the nation's nuclear waste.
Transporting the waste to Nevada poses a threat to everyone, Kay says.
"To get it from the Eastern states, it would come through St. Louis. One shipment every other day by truck or by train for the next 30 years opens us up to terrorism or some hideous accident."
The Dreys are disappointed. They believed this generation would be much more educated and involved with environmental issues than theirs. "The environment is so terribly important," Kay said. "We can't replace our oceans or our atmosphere. Much of what they're doing we can't go back and redress it."
In the basement of the Dreys home a statue of Don Quixote sits atop one of the many file cabinets. Quixote provides inspiration to the couple in their life's work.
"He went out to make the world a better place but left with everything in worse condition," Kay says. "He's my hero because he reminds me that these battles are all uphill battles."
E-mail: sylvesterbrown@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8374
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------