Yucca Mountain News Clips - Monday, November 24, 2003

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, November 24, 2003
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 24, 2003

Law enforcement up for Bush's visit Tuesday

By Jace Radke
<jace@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN

Even though President Bush will be in Las Vegas for only a few hours Tuesday, federal, state and local law enforcement have been working for weeks to guarantee his safety and make sure that the shutting down of roadways doesn't paralyze the valley.

"When the president is in town it's not a normal day for us," said Doug Coombs, special agent in charge of the Las Vegas office of the Secret Service. "Obviously this is as busy as we can get. We've put a lot of preparation and advance work in with local law enforcement, and we'll rely heavily on their support."

Coombs' agents are charged with charting routes through the area, checking security at the president's planned stops and reviewing every aspect of the visit constantly. Meanwhile the FBI will be in contact with the Secret Service, passing on any intelligence information that concerns the president's visit.

Bush is to arrive in Las Vegas around 9:30 a.m. and is expected to be back on Air Force One headed for Phoenix by 1 p.m.

Bush is scheduled to give a speech focusing on Medicare to a group of seniors at Spring Valley Hospital and attend a fund-raising lunch for his re-election campaign at The Venetian.

The Secret Service does not reveal number's of agents protecting the president, but, including Metro Police officers and Nevada Highway Patrol troopers, there are expected to be more than 100 officers and agents involved.

When Bush arrives at McCarran International Airport Tuesday morning, he will be whisked away along a prearranged path of cleared roadways in a motorcade that will include about 30 police motorcycles and Secret Service sport utility vehicles.

"We'll shut intersections down before the motorcade gets to them and then reopen them after it has gone by," said Assistant Sheriff Mike Zagorski, who oversees Metro's patrol division. "We're actually getting a little bit lucky because he's coming on Tuesday, so we won't have to worry about weekend crowds."

Metro will use patrol cars to block intersections on surface streets, while motorcycles zoom ahead of the motorcade looking for any problems. While traveling on Interstate 215, Interstate 15 or U.S. 95 both on and off-ramps will be shut down by NHP troopers.

"We're hoping to use about 25 to 30 troopers to close down the ramps," NHP Lt. Steve Harney said. "Since it's the president, we'll shut down both sides at once."

There will also be about four troopers in the motorcade, Harney said. Metro expects to use about 30 motorcycle officers in the motorcade and several more officers to block intersections and provide added security at the planned stops.

The added security comes at a price, pulling troopers from normal duty and forcing Metro to dip into its overtime budget.

"I think we'll be able to just use our day-shift troopers, but if something happens and we need more bodies we'll call in people," Harney said.

The majority of the Metro officers involved in the security detail will be working overtime, and department officials estimate it could cost more than Vice President Dick Cheney's July visit to Las Vegas, which cost $22,473 in overtime, department spokesman Officer Jose Montoya said.

Fewer officers were used for Cheney's visit, but the vice president stayed overnight in Las Vegas, requiring round-the-clock protection.

Cheney's visit, which raised $300,000 in campaign funds, resulted in protesters outside Spanish Trail Country Club, where the fund-raiser was held, and protesters are also expected for Bush's visit. Officers will be pulled from Metro's southeast area command if there are any issues with protesters, police officials said.

The Bush administration has shown strong support for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Gov. Kenny Guinn will host the president and is on his re-election team for the state despite Bush's support of Yucca Mountain.

While in Las Vegas the Federal Aviation Administration will put a no-fly zone around the president.

"Generally a temporary flight restriction is placed around the president," FAA spokesman Don Walker said. "The restricted zone usually stretches 10 nautical miles and goes up 18,000 feet, and moves with the president.

"Military or government aircraft supporting the president and scheduled commercial flights can still fly through the zone," he said.

In addition the FAA usually puts a second zone of a 30-mile radius around the president in which all flight training, hang-gliding, balloons, crop dusting, parachuting and other flight activities are banned. General aviation airplanes can fly in and out of the zone, but they are not allowed to loiter and must file flight plans and have transponders so they can be tracked.

The visit will be Bush's first to Nevada as president, although he visited Lake Tahoe in June 2000 as a presidential candidate. President Clinton visited Las Vegas in April 2000 and raised $525,000 for the state and National Democratic Party.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 24, 2003

Columnist Jeff German: Nevada's GOP silent on Yucca as Bush's visit nears

WEEKEND EDITION Nov. 22 - 23, 2003

Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.

•••

PRESIDENT BUSH continues to work hard to make Nevada the nation's nuclear waste dumping ground and leave us vulnerable to catastrophe.

And now he's coming to the Land of Milk and Money to take our cash as he seeks another four years to accomplish that goal.

Not everyone apparently sees the ominous irony of the president's campaign visit to Las Vegas.

A number of well-heeled Las Vegans, including some in the casino industry, are parting with big bucks Tuesday to rub elbows with Bush at a fund-raiser for his reelection at The Venetian. The Bush campaign, I'm told, hopes to collect $250,000.

Democratic leaders -- who like most of us regard the Yucca Mountain Project, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the biggest threat to the state's future -- plan to let the president know they're not happy about the way he has treated Nevada.

They've scheduled a news conference on Monday to air their feelings, and a sidewalk demonstration is planned at The Venetian on Tuesday.

But what about the Republicans who also are opposed to Yucca Mountain? The only thing they're doing is running for cover.

Key GOP officeholders expect to attend the fund-raiser for the Republican president.

They include Gov. Kenny Guinn, who last year traveled to Washington to veto Bush's order designating Yucca Mountain as the site of the high-level waste repository, and Attorney General Brian Sandoval, who is leading the state's legal fight against the dump.

Sandoval chairs Bush's re-election committee in Nevada and Guinn is a member.

Aides to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter, both also R-Nev., said the only thing that would keep their bosses away from the Bush lovefest would be if Congress is still in session.

If they're smart, the Nevada Republicans will hope Congress remains deadlocked until Tuesday because that would give them an easy political out and save them much embarrassment with the voters, who are overwhelmingly opposed to Yucca Mountain.

There's no question that the Republicans are in a bind here. They are opposed to Yucca Mountain, yet they agree with Bush on many other issues.

And as GOP strategist Mike Slanker told me: "At the end of the day, he's the president of the United States, and he's going to be supported."

Still, it seems to me that this is one case where the Republicans shouldn't worry about being politically correct. The nobler action would be to take advantage of this presidential visit, like the Democrats, and let Bush know once more that they don't appreciate what he did to Nevada.

I find it interesting that seasoned GOP consultant Mark Brown -- whose Brown & Partners agency received $2 million from the state to lead a nationwide public relations campaign against the dump -- has been dead silent on the president's visit.

Brown & Partners, which works closely with Bob Loux, the governor's vocal Yucca Mountain watchdog, rarely misses a chance to needle the administration over the dump. I receive frequent news releases from the firm. But I've gotten nothing at all from Brown & Partners on the president's campaign visit. Even Loux has been unusually quiet.

If the Republicans want us to believe that they are committed to fighting Yucca Mountain, the most important issue affecting the state's well being, it would be a good idea to stop sending mixed messages.

They should tell President Bush on Tuesday that, if he continues to insist on sending deadly nuclear waste to Nevada, he risks drying up the Land of Milk and Money.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 24, 2003

Where I Stand -- Columnist Brian Greenspun: A reason to abstain

WEEKEND EDITION November 21, 2003ov. 22 - 23, 2003

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

•••

WELCOME to Las Vegas, Mr. President.

On Tuesday, President George W. Bush is coming to Las Vegas. It is appropriate that we welcome him to our city and wish him well in his travels.

It is also appropriate that we share with the president our thoughts about his presidency. I would have done it much earlier but this is the first time since his inauguration that President Bush has seen fit to come to Nevada.

And it doesn't really matter that he is not visiting the people of this state for a presidential purpose such as checking up on the Agassi Preparatory School, or attending last week's Nevada Cancer Institute fund-raiser, or just to share his vision of education in America with Clark County's teachers.

And even if all the president's men find a photo opportunity for him between the time this is written and the time this is published, there is little question what President Bush's motive is for coming here. It is to fill his campaign coffers with hundreds of thousands of dollars willingly thrown at him by our major industry and most of the people associated with it.

The trip is no surprise because we have come to know and understand the Republican fund-raising juggernaut and I, for one, have a grudging respect for its efficiency and success and only wish that the Democrats could be half as successful, not because they have all the answers either but, rather, so that our two-party system can remain viable. But enough about President Bush's reason for being here.

The invitation to attend the luncheon at The Venetian hotel was quite compelling and certainly welcome, at least to this editor. I always like to be asked, even if I choose not to attend. In this case, I have to decline.

And, since it is the president of the United States to whom I am saying "no," as well as to a great many of my friends for whom I have the deepest respect, I believe I have a responsibility to tell them why they will break bread without me.

I don't think any honest American can deny that an endgame that has Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the fundamentalist leadership in Iran, the terrorist-supporting dictatorship in Syria and the terrorist-banking, two-faced government in Saudi Arabia finding something else to do for the rest of time is a goal worth seeking. In fact, it is abundantly clear that life would be better for everyone if the deck in the Middle East is shuffled sufficiently to give the people who live there a more democratic and prosperous life.

To that end, President Bush's instinct that Saddam had to go is on target. By the same token, I would suggest that any American president in the aftermath of 9-11 would have reacted similarly in search of the same ends. If there is argument, it would be about the means we have used to seek that end.

So in regard to his conduct of the war in Iraq, my only complaint is that he hasn't gone far enough, fast enough and safely enough for our men and women in uniform to clean up the entire mess. And I am afraid he has been constrained for reasons that aren't necessarily in our country's best interests.

But that disagreement alone is not enough reason to pass up a lunch with the president of the United States.

I could use his single-minded effort to dismantle the environmental successes we have achieved in this country ever since President Richard Nixon determined that clean air and water were essential to America's well being. But that wouldn't keep me from lunch and a picture, either!

And, I suppose, I could point to President Bush's unwavering commitment to remove from this country a women's right to privacy by imposing upon every American a federal government determined to inject itself into our bedrooms and doctor's examination rooms, all for the sake of granting a fundamental wish list to a minority of Americans. As a husband and a father of a young woman, that could be enough to keep me away. But, if the people are stupid enough to allow a return to the days of back alley abortions and government creep into our personal lives, who am I to forgo a meal over such a petty concern as individualism in America?

No, I have chosen to miss lunch because our president has lied to us and failed to either say "I am sorry" or explain why he did so. And I choose not to break bread with a liar when I believe the consequence of his untruthfulness could have a devastating effect on my family, friends and community. To be blunt, this is personal.

Yes, I am talking about Yucca Mountain and candidate George W. Bush's commitment to not choose Yucca Mountain as the site for the nation's high-level nuclear waste unless sound science determined that it was the best place for the job.

As we knew before President Bush singled us out and even the most naive among us has learned since, there is no sound science that can prove Yucca Mountain capable of containing high level radioactive waste for the 10,000 years required by the law. Heck, the government can't even guarantee that there won't be a catastrophic accident the day the first of thousands of trucks start rolling across America toward the Silver State.

And, yet, candidate Bush assured us that he would would act only on science. It was his decision, and his alone, that sealed the fate of Nevada as the repository for everything evil and dangerous in this country. It was his decision, and his alone, that has placed in jeopardy our families, our businesses, our futures and our hopes and dreams for our progeny for more years than man has previously recorded history.

It was President Bush who lied to us about what his decision would be -- a decision, I might add, that would not have been made by a president named Al Gore -- and a decision that he has yet to explain to Nevadans.

In short, President Bush did not lie about sex, may not have lied about his reasons for making war and probably didn't lie about his motivation for turning the environmental world on its ear. He lied about something far more basic and fundamental in Nevadans' eyes.

He lied about our futures, our health and the life and promise we hold out for our children. That is the kind of lie that may be unforgivable. But a good place to start would be to face us like a man and tell us the truth.

Once that happens, I would be delighted to consider having lunch with the president of the United States. And like my misguided friends in Nevada, I would be happy to buy.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
October 21, 2003

BATTLE LINES

Commission at odds over YMP transports

TRUMMELL'S OPPOSITION TO RAIL ROUTE THROUGH PAHRUMP REJECTED BY PEERS

By Mark Waite
PVT

Nye County Commissioner Candice Trummell Tuesday urged the commission to exercise strong, local leadership and draft a resolution in opposition to a rail route that would transport nuclear waste through Pahrump Valley to Yucca Mountain.

Her suggestion drew concerns from the two commissioners named as liaisons on nuclear waste issues, Henry Neth and Joni Eastley, who worried it might muddy the waters on transportation studies currently underway - or even affect funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The proposed "Jean" rail route would go through Pahrump Valley linking Yucca Mountain with rail lines along the Interstate 15 corridor. A Valley Modified Corridor would connect Yucca Mountain with the I-15 corridor through Las Vegas. They are two of the five proposed rail routes for the Yucca Mountain project. Two more rail routes would connect Yucca Mountain from Caliente in the east; another lengthy rail line would extend from Carlin in the north.

The commission decided to table taking a position on the rail route until current studies are completed.

Trummell said with oversight funding of Yucca Mountain being reduced, leaving a Jean route open for consideration would allow "the big dogs" in Clark County to claim more oversight funds than they might be entitled. She said people involved in the project don't believe the Valley Modified Route is still on the table due to strong opposition from Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who has pledged to lie down on the tracks to block the shipments.

But Commissioner Eastley said Nye County just accepted a $100,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy for a transportation assessment of all the routes.

She said commissioners, as part of that agreement, pledged to continue a "dispassionate and unbiased view of each one of those routes."

Trummell said the public supports her position on the issue She released a survey by Voter Consumer Research that showed 57 percent of Nye County residents surveyed opposed the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository and 73 percent opposed shipping it by railroad through urban areas like Reno or Las Vegas.

County Manager Mike Maher questioned the depth of that survey. Trummell said it included 680 registered voters statewide, but didn't know how many were surveyed in Nye County.

Commissioner Neth noted U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, sponsored language this year in a Yucca Mountain bill in the House of Representatives to delete the Jean route and the Valley Modified Route, but that language is no longer included in the bill. He noted members of the Nevada congressional delegation didn't argue in favor of that provision.

Neth said the Valley Modified Corridor would also be a favorable option for Nye County, as the rail route wouldn't touch Nye County communities and would involve the shipments from being in Nye County the least amount of time.

"If you want to take a look at the possibility that rail dictates the possibility of economic development in a community, you look at the community of Caliente and rail has cone nothing for them," Neth said.

If there is a possibility a Yucca Mountain rail route could contribute to economic development in Pahrump, then Nye County should demand money to study the impacts of that infrastructure.

Neth said he was struggling with the county taking a position rejecting any of the transportation routes.

"Our position has always been neutrality and according to our latest resolution, has been one of constructive engagement for the protection of Nye County. The result of that position over the years has been mind boggling to the tune of over $100 million," Neth said. He was referring to DOE funding in Payment Equal to Taxes and oversight.

Commissioner Patricia Cox said, "It is also our responsibility to not only protect our interests but to protect the most populated area of Nevada. Why would we want to have it transported through these areas? The only reason I could come up with is economic development reasons and that is not a good enough reason to have it go through Pahrump."

Trummell differed with Neth's interpretation of the county's stance on Yucca Mountain as one of neutrality, pointing out in a 2002 resolution the county agreed to "constructively engage" with DOE. She said constructive is defined in Webster's dictionary as "promoting improvement or development."

The oversight funding lost to Clark County could offset any gains in infrastructure by having a rail route through Pahrump, Trummell said. She added, "We are trying to protect our health, safety and economic interest by removing routes that probably aren't going to happen and would endanger the most citizens of the State of Nevada."

While Neth reiterated his opinion that, "Nye County has made great inroads with its position" and has received "a tremendous amount of benefits" due to being a player in the game with DOE, Trummell said the Nuclear Waste Policy Act dictates the county would receive payments equal to taxes from DOE regardless of what position it takes.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
October 21, 2003

Greber fails to rally anti-repository troops

By Mark Waite
PVT

Pahrump resident Dave Greber on Tuesday put an item on the agenda asking Nye County Commissioners to take a stand in opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project.

But commissioners, long resigned to the fact Yucca Mountain would eventually become a reality, affirmed a 2002 resolution to "constructively engage" with the U.S. Department of Energy as the project proceeds to final licensing.

Greber, the former general manager of the Longstreet Inn and Casino in Amargosa Valley, said county commissioners should be the first line of defense for residents of Nye County, yet they've taken a neutral position.

Greber said the high-level nuclear waste is coming from 131 storage sites in 39 states, and the federal government has mandated all of the material to be stored at Yucca Mountain, 50 miles north of Pahrump and 20 miles east and north of Beatty and Amargosa Valley, respectively. He said the 77,000 tons of spent nuclear rods equates to 154 million pounds.

Greber quoted U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who described Nye County Commissioners as "minor players" for refusing to join the fight against the repository. Greber described visits to Washington D.C., by Commissioner Henry Neth and former Commissioner Jeff Taguchi as harmful to Nevada's interests.

A September 2002 news article revealed 67 tanks have leaked more than 1 million gallons of waste at a U.S. Department of Energy site in Washington State, where 53 million gallons of liquid nuclear waste is stored.

Greber's five-page statement noted the next Sept. 11 tragedy could happen on Highway 373 in Amargosa Valley, on U.S. Highway 95 in Beatty or where commissioners were meeting at the Pahrump Community Center.

"If you continue to think this is about the money, consider this: The federal government is projecting a federal deficit for the current fiscal year that will approach one-half trillion dollars," Greber said. "How much money do you think is going to be allocated to Nye?

"As county commissioners for Nye County ... you do not have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up," Greber said.

Nye County Commissioner Candice Trummell said she'd be happy to have a question on Yucca Mountain placed on the November 2004 ballot. She noted 78.4 percent of Nye County residents in a recent survey were in favor of negotiating with the federal government for benefits on Yucca Mountain.

'By and large the public feels this project is going to happen. There's a long history in Nye County of things that we don't want happening, happening anyway," Trummell said.

"My feeling is we should be violently against Yucca Mountain, having attended these meetings, with their presentations and their bungling," resident Sally Devlin added. "You've got to stand up and be counted, not be neutral because this is a devastating project."

County Commissioner Patricia Cox said she feels the state's stance opposing the project is a correct one because nobody wants nuclear waste in his or her back yard. But she said the reality is the federal government is only studying Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. Congressman from the 39 states who want to ship nuclear waste here vastly outnumbers Nevada's two senators.

Cox said, "If the county does not step up to the plate and take the responsibility to be constructive and look at how we're going to protect our citizens and their future, you cannot do that while you are constantly fighting against it."

Greber said the only way to overcome superior odds is to stand up and fight.

"If these canisters are so incredibly safe that they can be dropped 500 feet to the ground and crash and not even open up, why are they not maintained and stored in the canisters in those states that are producing them?" he asked.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
October 21, 2003

Too much at stake

How ironic that a pair of A-10 Wart hogs collided near Mercury. Too bad the one that the pilot ejected from didn't land on Yucca to finally awake the people of Nevada.

(Bill) Vasconi (PVT letters to the editor, Wednesday's edition) talks of safe shipments, like you would really hear about accidents?

I'm sorry, all the nuclear plants and the DOE can't be trusted with our lives. Profit is their only concern.

One terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile could create a mess that could never be cleaned up.

Oh yeah! Should the people of Pahrump be exposed to radiation, they could all jump on the helicopter and go to Las Vegas for treatment.

Richard A. Brown

---------------------------

CNN
November 22, 2003

Democrats: Bush broke promise on nuclear waste repository

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- President Bush broke his campaign promise to Nevadans and rushed ahead with plans to develop a national nuclear waste repository in the state, the speaker of the Nevada Assembly said Saturday in the weekly Democratic radio address.

The decision by the Bush administration to move forward on the Yucca Mountain project has serious consequences not only for Nevada, but for the 38 million Americans who live within a mile of the nation's highways and rail lines, Speaker Richard Perkins said.

"There are a host of questions about the safety of shipping nuclear waste thousands of miles, questions about the safety of the canisters, rail and truck routes and their vulnerability to terrorist attacks," said Perkins, who is also a deputy police chief in the city of Henderson.

"There are serious questions about burying nuclear waste ... when exposure to even small amounts will result in almost certain gruesome death."

Bush signed legislation last year tapping Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the nation's sole nuclear waste repository. The plan is to transport 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste through 43 states to the underground repository beginning in 2010 .

The president and the Energy Department contend the waste can safely be transported and stored at Yucca Mountain.

Perkins said Bush reneged on his promise during the 2000 campaign that he would rely on "sound science" to make a decision.

"President Bush broke his promise to us here in Nevada with a speed and arrogance that is astounding," Perkins said. "He short-circuited the research going on at Yucca Mountain. He ignored the concerns of independent scientists and rushed to judgment."

Perkins called on Bush, who is making his first visit to Nevada next week as president, to "rebuild his credibility" by reconsidering his decision.

"You can't build trust based on breaking promises and misleading people," he said.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 23, 2003

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Yucca activists planning Bush protests

President making first visit to Las Vegas since approving plans for nuclear repository here

By Erin Neff
Review-Journal

A coalition of local groups is hoping President Bush's visit to Las Vegas next week is noted for the same types of raucous protests that greeted Bush last week in England.

The group won't be toppling a statue of Bush a la Saddam Hussein as the Brits did, but they will have "Yucca Man" and a mock nuclear cask parading along the Strip outside the Venetian, where Bush will stump at a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser.

Peggy Maze Johnson of Citizen Alert has been an active player in the "November 25th Committee," a hodgepodge of environmental and union activists, seniors and Democratic Party faithful planning the protest.

"Yucca Mountain is the main area we're interested in," Johnson said, referring to Bush's approval of the nuclear repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The group didn't protest recent visits by two Democratic presidential candidates who have been soft on Yucca, from Nevada's perspective.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, an ardent proponent of the repository several years ago, said in Las Vegas that "I've seen the light." He didn't, however, say that he'd throw out plans for the site.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said last week during a stop in Las Vegas that he wouldn't move forward if he didn't feel the facility was safe. "Sound science and progressive thinking need to examine this," Lieberman said.

In 1999 he wrote a letter to the chairman of the committee governing Yucca policy and requested that an accelerated time frame be established once the repository was approved.

"I guess I have to say that I understand where they were coming from," Johnson said of the Democrats. "I'm sure maybe if I were governor of Vermont, then I would have felt the same way."

Johnson said even Nevada's politicians have "evolved" on the nuclear waste issue, going from considering support for the repository in exchange for benefits to outright opposition.

Democrats are using the Yucca issue in a series of attacks on Bush leading up to Tuesday's appearance.

Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, gave the Democratic National Committee's radio address Saturday, in which he decried the president's quick decision to approve Yucca and ignore safety.

"Later this week, on Tuesday, President Bush is traveling to Las Vegas for the first time since breaking his promise to the people of Nevada and he will be met by folks from across our state urging him to reconsider his decision, not just for the safety of the people of Nevada, but for Americans all across the country," Perkins said.

A group of Democrats including Perkins, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., former Gov. Bob Miller, Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley and Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, both D-Las Vegas, will hold a news conference Monday morning.

The group will stand on the top of the Main Street Station parking garage downtown to point out the routes nuclear waste would take through the city.

Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault and Review-Journal writer Michael Squires contributed to this report.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 23, 2003

Perkins criticizes Bush Yucca Mountain stand

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Nevada Democrats were given national radio time Saturday to criticize President Bush's choice of Yucca Mountain for burial of nuclear waste.

The Democratic National Committee picked Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins of Henderson to deliver the party's weekly radio address. It was timed to coincide with President Bush's visit to Las Vegas on Tuesday, his first trip to Nevada as president.

The speech also served to spotlight Perkins, a rising figure among Democrats and possible candidate for governor in 2006.

In a roughly five-minute address, Perkins charged Bush broke a campaign promise to Nevadans by selecting the mountain site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas for a waste repository.

During the close 2000 election, Bush told Nevada he would let science guide his decision on nuclear waste, Perkins said. Yet in July 2002, he signed legislation cementing Yucca Mountain as the repository site.

"President Bush broke his promise to us here in Nevada with a speed and arrogance that is astounding," Perkins said.

Questions remain about the safety of nuclear waste storage canisters, the mountain's ability to contain radioactive particles and the vulnerability of shipping routes. Bush and Energy Department managers say the waste can be safely transported and stored.

The Bush administration plans to ship 77,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel through 43 states beginning in 2010.

"What is so disturbing about President Bush's conduct is the distrust that he has personally brought to the process," Perkins said.

Bush is set to attend a $2,000 per person fund-raiser at The Venetian and spend about an hour at Spring Valley Hospital speaking about volunteerism and Medicare.

---------------------------

Bloomington Pantagraph
November 23, 2003

Pantagraph Editorial

Do we need another nuclear power plant?

By Sandra Lindberg

A few autumn trees in my neighborhood still glow with gold as I begin to write these words. The cawing of crows peppers the air. One remaining rose blooms at a neighbor's fence. Though the Earth seems balanced, whole and beautiful this morning, plans for a second nuclear reactor in Clinton threaten the quality of life in this region.

How, then do I write about a poison in the air and the water that none of us can see, smell, taste or feel? How do I put words on paper so that all of us living in Central Illinois protest plans for a second nuclear reactor in Clinton?

Exelon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Bush administration's plans for new nuclear reactor construction rely on Central Illinois citizens to blindly trust that nuclear energy is safe, clean and green. Yet all recent news about nuclear energy exposes one unanticipated danger after another.

In 1990, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences admitted in its BEIR V report that there is no safe dose for radiation exposure. But few of us realize that the NRC has refused to change its safety standards to reflect this information. Workers at nuclear reactors are still exposed to as much as 5 rem per year when the BEIR V report urged that exposure standards be reduced to 2 rem per year.

In fact, workers who get less than 5 rem one year are often drafted the following year for dangerous jobs that expose them to high radiation doses, the reasoning being that their "average exposure rate" is low and they can afford to absorb a little extra.

Studies linking low-level radiation exposure to increased rates of cancer, heart disease, and immune deficiency diseases do not seem to affect the nuclear industry's policies regarding worker safety. Time, of course, is in the industry's corner, as many of the worker health problems take as much as 30 years to develop. It is difficult and expensive for retired workers to prove that current life-threatening illnesses are due to radiation exposure they suffered three decades earlier.

And what about the rest of us? Most of us believe, as my husband and I did, that nuclear reactors are sealed and do not release radiation into the environment. Folks at Exelon and the NRC count on us thinking this way. They rely on the fact that most of us don't know the NRC publishes a yearly report announcing how much radiation U.S. reactors release into our environment.

According to the NRC, U.S. reactors released 370 curies, or about 1.6 curies per million persons, during the 1970-1987 period. The NRC doesn't advertise that nuclear reactors and mining, milling, enrichment and reprocessing sites produce a list of dangerous radioactive substances as long as my arm, some of which will be deadly for tens of thousands of years. They don't put ads in the paper to announce that Nevada citizens are fighting desperately in the courts to keep a national nuclear waste repository away from Yucca Mountain.

Exelon doesn't want us to know that the First Nation people who mine the uranium fueling the reactors suffer from 85 percent more lung cancers than they did before the mines opened.

And Exelon really doesn't want us to think about the inexorably filling "swimming pools" where "spent" fuel rods are stored at the Clinton site. Clinton's pools are at 60 percent capacity and are not housed within the containment building.

An accident in, or terrorist attack on, those pools could cause devastation much greater than what the Japanese suffered at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

But even without a catastrophe, recent research would support our decision to prevent Clinton reactor No. 2 and to aggressively embrace alternative energy, and conservation strategies designed to wean us off our reliance on nuclear power.

Studies of populations living downwind of reactors show that low birth weight, infant mortality, childhood cancer and breast cancer rates are significantly higher for those living as much as a hundred miles away.

Just this fall, Dr. Samuel Galewsky of Millikin University and Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Human Health Project studied infant death and breast cancer rates for populations living due east of the Clinton reactor.

Our prevailing winds blow west to east in this part of the country. Sadly, this reactor's troubled safety record provided the statistical window Galewsky and Mangano needed for the study.

Analyzing the health effects of living near a nuclear reactor is challenging. Fortunately, the counties immediately surrounding the Clinton reactor are geographically isolated from other nuclear power plants.

When the Clinton reactor went off line for over two years, a window of time for comparing infant death rates in the presence and absence of a working nuclear reactor appeared. The state of Illinois maintains a database (IPLAN) that provides health information for all of the counties in the state.

Galewsky and Mangano chose to analyze the infant death records of counties within a 50-mile radius of the Clinton reactor. Based on the prevailing easterly winds, the following counties were considered "downwind" of the Clinton reactor plume: DeWitt, Piatt, Champaign, Moultrie, Douglas, Coles and Vermilion.

The surrounding counties to the north, south and west considered "upwind" were: Tazwell, Christian, Ford, Mclean, Macon, Logan and Sangamon.

By comparing the three years surrounding the shutdown (1996-98) with the three years before (93-95) and after (99-01), a dramatic change in the infant death rate is seen. The downwind counties had an average 49 percent decrease in the infant death rate, from 168 to 88 deaths, during years when the reactor was shut down. After restart, infant death rate jumped up by 72 percent, with 88 deaths increasing to 152.

These numbers show that the downwind counties had an average 49 percent decrease in infant death rate during the years that the plant was not in operation.

This healthful trend reversed itself upon restart and the infant death rate jumped up by 72 percent. In the upwind counties the rate changed by less than 1 percent during the shutdown and dropped nearly 10 percent after the restart mirroring the statewide trend of decreasing infant death rates.

This data strongly suggests that infant health is indeed adversely affected by the operation of the reactor. And Mangano has studied eight other reactors that, like Clinton's, had a shut-down period of over 2 1/2 years. All of them demonstrate that infant death mortality rates rise significantly when nuclear reactors are operating.

Nuclear reactors are dangerous places. The consequences of accidents can be devastating beyond imagination. Additionally, the legal release of radioactive gases is a part of standard operating procedure. The problem is, the NRC has a "safe threshold" that is too high. This results in atmospheric contamination that appears to cause increases in cancer and infant death rates.

The radiation the reactors release falls within legal guidelines, but this legal dose still hurts downwinders.

There are alternatives to nuclear energy, though the current administration barely mentions any of them in its Bush/Cheney Energy Plan.

While this government and the House and Senate propose to pump billions of dollars into the nuclear industry, they could instead support private citizens' efforts to retrofit their homes with energy-saving approaches.

Our government could also choose to provide loan guarantees and research funding to alternative energy sources that can provide more jobs, safer environmental standards and cheaper energy than nuclear reactors will ever give to us. But none of these healthy choices can happen until we raise our voices against business-as-usual strategies that bring even more profit to already immensely rich corporations.

Exelon recorded $14.9 billion in revenue last year. Think about that the next time you read that our government has underwritten yet another aspect of the nuclear energy industry's efforts to expand. Then walk outside and look at the sky and the trees. Listen to the children playing on your street. These sights and sounds will motivate you to stop efforts to revive a deadly technology, which is poisoning our Earth.

Sandra Lindberg of Normal and formerly of Clinton is an instructor at Illinois Wesleyan University and a founding member of No New Nukes. Her e-mail address is sdlindber@netscape.net

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 22, 2003

Nevada lawmaker criticizes Bush for rushing nuclear project

By Christina Almeida
Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - President Bush broke his campaign promise to Nevadans and rushed ahead with plans to develop a national nuclear waste repository in the state, the speaker of the Nevada Assembly said Saturday in the weekly Democratic radio address.

"There are serious questions about burying nuclear waste ... when exposure to even small amounts will result in almost certain gruesome death."

The president and the Energy Department contend the waste can safely be transported and stored at Yucca Mountain.

Perkins said Bush reneged on his promise during the 2000 campaign that he would rely on "sound science" to make a decision.

Perkins called on Bush, who is making his first visit to Nevada next week as president, to "rebuild his credibility" by reconsidering his decision.

"You can't build trust based on breaking promises and misleading people," he said.

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------