Yucca Mountain News Clips - Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
January 28, 2004

Letter: A glowing tribute needed for Bush
There are many places in Southern Nevada that reflect the feelings of the people in how they honor their leaders -- Hoover Dam, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Bailey FBI Building, etc.

I want to propose another place to honor. We have done little to honor President Bush, both elder and younger. My proposal is this: Lets call Yucca Mountain the "George W. Bush Nuclear Dump Site." We could also call the tunnel for the waste disposal "The Spencer Abraham Shaft."

I am sure that there would be widespread support for such a program, and maybe those interested could send a dollar or two to the Democratic Party.

Ron Nelson

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

Salt Lake Tribune
January 28, 2004

Fight to keep N-dump at bay has support

By Nicole Warburton
Special to The Tribune

Lawmakers agreed Monday that fighting a a proposal to store high-level nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation in Skull Valley should continue to be a state priority.

"I'd hate to see us lose sight after being in the battle for years," Sen. Dave Thomas, R-South Weber, said at a meeting of the Joint Transportation, Environmental Quality and National Guards Appropriations Subcommittee.

Members of the committee are being asked to approve $500,000 in supplemental funds for 2004 and 2005 fiscal years for legal and technical fees of the state's ongoing attempt to halt storage of nearly 44,000 tons of nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.

The state has spent nearly $3.8 million since 1997 fighting the plan by a consortium of nuclear power companies to store waste on the Goshute reservation until a proposed federal facility is operating at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

This is "above and beyond the wildest dreams" of what's been going on with Envirocare, said Rep. Joseph G. Murray R-Ogden, inferring that the state should focus attention and money on litigation of the Goshute proposal and not on the private hazardous waste landfill in Tooele County involved in recent controversy.

netter@darnfastnet.com

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 27, 2004

Minnesota delegation hears Nevada opposition to nuke dump plan

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A delegation of Minnesota lawmakers got an anti-nuclear earful from Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and state and county officials before a scheduled Tuesday tour of the site the federal government has picked for a national radioactive waste dump.

The reaction was mixed among the four out-of-state lawmakers to Monday's meeting with Nevada officials and members of Citizen Alert, an environmental group opposed to the Yucca Mountain project.

Minnesota state Rep. Frank Hornstein, a Democrat from Minneapolis, said he thought Nevada's speakers made a compelling case.

But Republican Minnesota state Rep. Michael Beard said what he heard was, "'Not in my back yard.'"

"Their transportation discussion was overblown," said Beard, who represents the Minneapolis suburb of Shakopee. "They're so against this happening, they're grasping at weak arguments."

Guinn said he hoped Minnesota would be the first state to join Nevada's opposition to the federal government's plan to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, a desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The governor and officials stressed fears about accidents and terrorist attacks on the nation's most highly radioactive waste if it is shipped to Nevada from 103 commercial reactors and various industrial and military sites in 39 states.

Fred Dilger, Clark County's transportation coordinator, said the Energy Department's transcontinental transportation plan lacked specifics.

The Energy Department last month proposed building a new a 319-mile rail line across Nevada to reach Yucca Mountain by skirting the vast Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Base bombing range.

Minnesota has two nuclear power plants, and Republican state Sen. Pat Pariseau of Farmington said she didn't see the argument about the safety of keeping waste at reactor sites as better than the argument about terrorist threats to nuclear waste transportation.

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal

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

KRNV
January 27, 2004

Nuclear utilities face deadline for radioactive waste lawsuits

A rush of lawsuits is expected this week from utility companies suing the Energy Department for missing a 1998 deadline for opening a national nuclear waste dump.

31 lawsuits were pending at the end of 2003, and another 16 have been filed this month with the US Court of Federal Claims. More are expected to be filed before Saturday, the end of a six-year statute of limitations.

It all dates back to the government's promise in 1983 to take thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel off the utilities' hands. Utilities have paid more than 14 billion dollars into an account to deal with the waste, but say they haven't gotten anything in return.

In 2002, four years past the deadline for opening a dump, Congress endorsed President Bush's decision to build the repository at Yucca Mountain.

Now, the Energy Department says it plans to open the dump in 2010, although Nevada is trying to stop the plan.

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

KVBC
January 27, 2004

Utility Companies File Lawsuits to Hurry Yucca Project

Steve Crupi Reporting

The U.S. Government is facing dozens of lawsuits in the battle over Yucca Mountain. Some are from the state of Nevada trying to block the project, but others are designed to speed it up. A flurry of new lawsuits are coming from utility companies angry at the Department of Energy for not opening up a national nuclear-waste dump. Something the DOE had promised to do by 1998.

The energy department is standing by its current timetable of opening the nuclear dump by 2010. But that's 12 years later than power companies were promised. And this coming Saturday, the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits runs out -- sparking a rush to get them filed. Opponents of the dump are concerned the lawsuits will keep the project moving forward. But Governor Kenny Guinn isn't so sure.

Congresswoman Shelly Berkley is hoping the lawsuits don't expedite a project she calls a dangerous waste of money. These are lawmakers from Minnesota who paid a visit to Las Vegas in search of more answers about how nuclear waste will be transported across the country. Governor Guinn is hoping other states will initiate legal action of their own to block the dump.

By the end of this week, it is expected that as many as fifty lawsuits will have been filed by power companies against the Department of Energy. Power companies say they've paid more than 14-billion dollars into an account to deal with nuclear waste, but haven't gotten anything in return. So far, the lawsuits filed don't specify the exact amount of damages the companies are after.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 27, 2004

Minnesota legislators' reaction to Yucca Mountain plan mixed

By Keith Rogers
Review-Journal

Presentations by state and Clark County officials on the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to a group of Minnesota legislators drew mixed reviews Monday.

One of the four out-of-state lawmakers, who today will tour the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, said he thought Nevada's concerns about risks in transporting the waste were overstated.

"What I heard loud and clear was, `Not in my back yard,' " Minnesota state Republican Rep. Michael Beard said after the meeting at the Sawyer Building with Nevada legislators and members of Citizen Alert, a statewide environmental group.

"Their transportation discussion was overblown. They're so against this happening, they're grasping at weak arguments," Beard said.

His colleague, Rep. Frank Hornstein, a Democrat, said he thought Nevada's speakers, which included Gov. Kenny Guinn, made "a compelling presentation."

Later, Guinn said he was optimistic that at least one state has stepped forward to hear Nevada's concerns about the federal government's plans to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain.

He said he was encouraged to know legislators outside Nevada are starting to ask questions about the risk of accidents and terrorist attacks involving nuclear waste that will be hauled by "through their Spaghetti Bowls," referring to the Interstate 15-U.S. Highway 95 interchange.

Fred Dilger, Clark County's transportation coordinator, said the DOE's transportation plan lacked specifics, amounting to no plan.

Building a new rail line to reach Yucca Mountain through rural, mountainous counties in Southern and central Nevada is a task that has been underestimated, he said.

Minnesota Republican state Sen. Pat Pariseau said her state has two nuclear power plants. In the debate of which poses the greater danger, terrorist threats involving nuclear waste transportation or keeping waste at reactor sites, she said she didn't see one argument as better than another.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 27, 2004

Minnesota lawmakers have Yucca concerns

By Dan Kulin
<dan@lasvegassun.com>
Las Vegas SUN

After meeting Monday with Nevada lawmakers about plans to turn Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump, one Minnesota state senator said maybe her state should hold onto its nuclear waste until a safer way of transporting and storing it is found.

Another Minnesota lawmaker said he has new concerns and questions about the safety of storing the waste at Yucca Mountain.

A group of Minnesota state legislators in Las Vegas to tour Yucca Mountain today met with Nevada lawmakers Monday at the Sawyer State Office Building to talk about the plan to store 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas beginning in 2010. Nevada is fighting the plan in U.S. District Court.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said the Monday meeting showed that concern over Yucca Mountain is growing across the country as more people realize the nuclear waste would be traveling through their states on the way to Nevada.

"Until now it was Nevada against the rest of the country, and now it's nice to see others getting involved. Now they see they will be affected too," Titus said.

Gov. Kenny Guinn said it is important for others from around the country to realize that the nuclear waste would be transported "through your cities, your neighborhoods and past your schools."

Guinn also said that even if Yucca Mountain opens, nuclear reactors around the country will continue to store spent fuel rods during the five years following their use.

Minnesota has three nuclear reactors at two power plants that currently house their nuclear waste on site.

Fred Dilger, a Clark County planner who focuses on Yucca Mountain issues, told the visiting lawmakers that while "tomorrow you're going to hear that everything's fine," the state and county disagree, saying there are technical problems with the mountain site and transportation concerns to address.

Dilger said the waste will probably come to Yucca Mountain by rail and truck, which will provide potential terrorists with many places to attack the waste. He also said that because of the sheer number of shipments coming from all over the country, there would probably be two transportation "incidents" a year.

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, D-Las Vegas, told the visitors any action should wait until a safer way of dealing with the nuclear waste is found.

"In the future, people will figure out what to do with it, and how to deal with it safely," Mortenson said. "We'll be much smarter in 100 years ... so keep it on site for 100 years. The dry casks are good for at least 100 years."

Minnesota state Sen. Pat Pariseau, a Republican, said after the meeting that maybe there isn't a safe way of dealing with the waste at this time.

"Maybe we have to put up with it for a while," she said.

Minnesota Rep. Michael Beard, a Republican, said he's not convinced the transportation will be a problem, but he does have new questions about storing the waste in Yucca Mountain.

"I'm concerned that if there is a better site, why are we not there?" he asked.

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

NucNews
January 27, 2004

ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY _ CITIZEN ALERT _ NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL _ NEVADA DESERT EXPERIENCE _ NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE TASK FORCE _ NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE _ PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY _ PUBLIC CITIZEN _ U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP _ SIERRA CLUB

January 26, 2004

Re: Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository

Dear Member of Congress:

As national environmental and public interest organizations, we are writing to update you on the most recent developments regarding the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy (DOE) intends to submit its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the end of this year, but as the following issues indicate, numerous fundamental questions remain regarding the suitability of the site to safely and permanently isolate high-level radioactive waste. Due to the doubts and uncertainties plaguing the Yucca Mountain project, we urge that its budget not be increased and that no changes be made to the funding practices.

1. Oral arguments in Yucca Mountain lawsuit heard in court. On January 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments on a slate of lawsuits filed against the Yucca Mountain project. Last September, the six cases were consolidated and deemed "complex," allowing the three-judge panel more time to review them and lawyers more than the usual amount of time to argue them. The lawsuits were brought by public interest and environmental groups and the State of Nevada against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and by the State of Nevada against the DOE, NRC and U.S. government. As the attached news articles demonstrate, the judges were particularly interested in the case against the EPA, which charges that the EPA's radiation release standards are not consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences as ordered by Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The primary inconsistency is in the important area of whether the regulatory period includes the time of the expected peak dose from the repository.

The decisions, which are expected as early as this spring, could potentially force a significant reassessment of the Yucca Mountain project that would necessarily take years, and perhaps even permanently derail it. Therefore, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to make any increases in the project's funding or changes in funding practices, such as taking the project "off-budget," pending the court's decisions.

2. Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board resigned over conflict-of-interest charges. On December 30, 2003, Michael Corradini, chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), resigned following persistent criticism that he was biased in favor of the Yucca Mountain repository. The NWTRB was formed by Congress to be an independent body to review the DOE's research at Yucca Mountain and to ensure the government's decisions are supported by scientific evidence. Corradini's bias in favor of Yucca Mountain was apparent even before his appointment in June 2002. In 2001, he testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that Yucca Mountain was "safe and solid" and that a stalemate over nuclear waste disposal "is primarily a political rather than a technical issue." Last October, Corradini co-authored an op-ed in a Madison, Wisconsin newspaper, stating that nuclear waste "can be stored safely at Yucca Mountain." The other nine board members, recognizing that the panel's credibility and effectiveness were in jeopardy, called for his resignation in April 2003.

The resignation of Corradini from the NWTRB is a welcome measure to keep the continued role of the NWTRB as an impartial and objective panel. As President Bush appoints a new chairman and fills other existing and upcoming vacancies to the NWTRB this year, Congress should call on the President to ensure that the integrity and credibility of the Board is preserved.

3. NRC says DOE is not providing enough information on key technical issues. The DOE announced in December that it would answer all but one of the remaining key technical questions about Yucca Mountain by August 2004, much sooner than originally planned. Later that month, however, the NRC informed DOE that they cannot evaluate the answers to questions that DOE has already submitted, because DOE has not supplied all the necessary technical documents. In a December 23, 2003 letter to DOE, Janet Schlueter, chief of the NRC's High-level Waste Branch, wrote that "DOE has not routinely provided supporting information, most of which is also not publicly available. NRC expects DOE to provide NRC with all information requested in the original agreements."

The DOE has been working since September 2001 on answering 293 scientific questions, or key technical issues, that revolve around Yucca Mountain's ability to keep radiation from contaminating the surrounding environment. So far, answers to 83 questions have been completed and accepted by the NRC. Of the 53 responses submitted to the NRC since September 2003, only 14 "appear to have adequately addressed" the original question, while 39 of the responses reviewed "do not appear to fully satisfy the agreements." The letter lists about 50 documents it still needs from the DOE to move ahead with its review of water movement in the mountain and possible volcanic activity. Water is a key issue for the site, because it could not only transport radiation faster than expected, but also could lead to corrosion of the waste containers holding the irradiated fuel.

Again, we urge that the budget for Yucca Mountain not be increased and that no changes be made to the funding practices. Please contact Michele Boyd with Public Citizen at (202) 454-5134 or Kevin Kamps with NIRS at (202) 328-0002 ext. 14 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Susan Gordon
Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Peggy Maze Johnson
Executive Director
Citizen Alert

Karen Wayland
Legislative Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Paul Colbert
Program Director
Nevada Desert Experience

Judy Treichel
Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Jaya Tiwari
Research Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Wenonah Hauter
Director, Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Public Citizen

Anna Aurilio
Legislative Director
U.S. Public Research Interest Group

Daniel Becker
Director, Global Warming and Energy Program
Sierra Club

********************************
Susan Gordon, Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
www.ananuclear.org
1914 N 34th Street, #407
Seattle, WA 98103
ph 206-547-3175 fax 206-547-7158
ANA is a national network of organizations working to address
issues of nuclear weapons production and waste clean-up.

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

Energy Pulse
January 27, 2004

Nuclear Waste Perspectives
John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises

Background, Overview and Perspectives

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin.

Previous articles by me on this site examined the political baggage that has held the U.S. nuclear program back and effectively caused the Yucca mountain fiasco; showed that uranium and thorium energy resources are assured for millions of years and could meet most, if not all of our existing and projected energy needs with much less environmental effect than almost any other source of energy; and presented comparative data that showed that nuclear power was far cleaner, much safer, and generally was cost competitive with any other reasonable source of energy. This and following articles will attempt to put the issue of nuclear waste and it's assumed effects in a broader social perspective than is usually seen.

Marie Curie, one of the early pioneers of radioactive research and the winner of two Nobel prizes, recognized the social value of dispelling ignorance, when she stated: 'Nothing is to be feared. It is to be understood'. Marie Curie herself was so radioactive from her 'bucket chemistry', and inhaling radon and ingesting radium and other nuclides, that when she entered any physics laboratory, it was noted that any charged electroscopes immediately lost their charge. She died, possibly of leukemia, at age 66, having outlived most of her generation. Nuclear wastes must surely be one of the most difficult and thorny topics to address in the complete absence of perspective, which is the way they are usually addressed. The general belief seems to be that only nuclear wastes are dangerous or socially damaging not only now, but also into the far distant future, and that wastes from other sources of energy are not. This general lack of perspective, and inability to compare social risks today and over time, is not only unnerving, but also expensive and hazardous to society's continued health.

The issues of nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear wastes are rife with ignorance, political manipulation, environmental obfuscation, and fear. As a result, they are either a political minefield, or a goldmine of emotions, depending upon which side of these politicized issues you stand.

Rank the Risks

Surprisingly, this perception of unconscionable danger from nuclear power and its wastes (all to do with radiation) survives, even as we are forced to accept - grudgingly - that using fossil fuels is obviously much more dangerous and limiting to both humanity and the environment; as the objective statistics (Paul Scherrer Institute) tell us. However, this is not a diatribe against fossil fuels. We need all the energy we can get from whatever sources, though some are much better than others. However, choices come from having options. It is not an option to be without adequate, reliable and affordable energy. 'No energy is more dangerous than no energy.' Homi Bhabha.

Some of us seem prepared to believe that our continued high dependence upon fossil fuels and the resulting global 'pollution' might be changing our entire environment and climate, and jeopardizing our very existence as a species. No small effect indeed, if true. Despite this, we typically avoid making rational comparison of the merits or difficulties of all of our reasonable energy choices. Even many intelligent and honest people seem prepared to judge the issue upon fearful allegations, hearsay, and junk science, without acquainting themselves of the simple facts, or of seeking a measure of balance and perspective. Such perspective would allow a more intelligent consideration and understanding of nuclear and radioactive wastes, and seeing where they fit in the overall ranking of defined social risks: which is somewhere near the very bottom, as Table 1 below, shows. Perception and fear seem to place them near the top, but obviously without any rational (statistically supported) justification for doing so.

In any society that wishes to progress and achieve the longest average life expectancy (the true measure of societal health), logic dictates that they get their risk assessment right, and that wealth be devoted primarily to addressing the risks towards the top of any valid risk ranking, while spending fewer resources further down the ranking.

The most pessimistically calculated risk figures to society or even to individuals, (arrived at rationally by generally professional people, rather than those who just guess), from using nuclear power to produce electricity, and from its radioactive wastes, are shown in Table 1, along with some of the much more significant social risks.

The nuclear risk data (exaggerated by calculation, as there are no obviously attributable bodies) appear because hundreds of more socially significant risks have been omitted in order to fit these onto the table. The 'all electricity - nuclear (NRC)' number, was calculated by the Nuclear Regulatory commission, and assuming that ALL electricity in the U.S. was supplied by nuclear power, rather than the almost 20% that it supplies at this time. Even the most pessimistic number, calculated by the Union of Concerned Scientists, at 1.5 days LLE, confirms its overall low effect.

One risk figure which does not appear on Cohen's original table, as it does not yet apply to the U.S. but would, if others had their way with our energy supply, is the risk figure that would exist if our society did not have adequate, assured, or affordable energy. This would plunge society into joblessness, poverty, ill health, violence, stress, etc. An average life expectancy typical of the third world would result in a loss of life expectancy likely to be in excess of maybe 15,000 days, along with the absence of a viable future for our society.

If the EPA is to be believed about radon in our homes, then the effect on the public of radon in their homes is almost 1,000 times more dangerous than nuclear power to produce electricity (NRC) and is about 3.5 million times more dangerous than nuclear waste disposal (derived from the EPA). Please read that sentence again, and think what it means in terms of perspective.

Based upon this, and carefully avoiding cost/benefit considerations (they generally do NOT do them), the EPA might thus consider that about $34E12 ($34 trillion of a $10 trillion-a-year economy!) should be directed at radon mitigation, as they are prepared to see $34 billion spent to reduce the 1,000 times less risk from radiation emissions from nuclear power facilities (Table 2). I wonder what they would like to see spent on the social risks that are even mildly serious.

In our society we have obviously managed to turn such risk-ranking logic on its ear, and through the crippling actions of political intervention by way of unscientific and mostly unjustified regulations, which avoid cost/benefit comparisons, can actually spend the lion's share of society's resources - its scarce wealth - (about 1 trillion dollars each year of our 10 trillion dollar economy) upon minor risks which harm few, if any individuals, one of which risks, is high level nuclear wastes. Some others are shown in Table 2, below:

On the benefit side of the table, where certain interventions - especially preventive medicine - return immensely more benefit to society than they cost, I would very firmly place EDUCATION. As one cynic noted, if we got rid of the EPA altogether, and some other organizations too, society would be immensely safer and much more prosperous. As a result, the environment would be improved too.

Social and Environmental Stupidity 101

The raw examples above should make you wonder how society could possibly survive such an onslaught of bureaucratic ineptitude. But that is not the end of the story.

Depending upon how radioactive waste is defined, many commonplace and naturally radioactive things around us could and, in some extreme cases, have become unjustifiably labeled as unsafely radioactive - usually because of political posturing; because of social mischief or willful ignorance; because of an ingrained fear of radiation; or because of the unscientific and socially destructive Precautionary Principle, and its sister insanity of zero tolerance (unless applied to violence). If the definition is too restrictive, radioactive wastes can include discarded food wastes, building materials, concrete, soil, wood, most water supplies, beer, milk, blood, meat, fish, sewage, animal manure and even human beings themselves.

Efforts to legislate an extreme degree of public safety concerning radiation usually have the opposite effect, and make society much poorer and less safe (both tend to go together). Nonetheless, concerned and sincere individuals in some states, various municipalities, and other local governments, at one time or another have decided to attempt to legislate a 'zero tolerance' to anything radioactive.

In 1979, Colorado State politicians decided to prohibit all radioactive waste disposal (zero tolerance). Such legislators appear not to have realized that everything is radioactive, or were not aware of the thousands of beneficial uses of radiation throughout society, and the difficulties that might be caused by such legislation. They soon learned, but other states and jurisdictions occasionally are tempted to tread the same path.

Among the many 'difficulties' would be those with transporting and disposing of cadavers; cremation; burial; transporting fertilizer; moving meat, eggs or milk from farms or to stores; collecting blood donations; letting some patients out of hospital; disposing of hospital wastes and even of using medical supplies and some drugs; disposing of sewage; disposing of ash from fireplaces as well as from coal-burning power plants; garbage disposal; supplying drinking water from municipal wells; providing medical diagnostic procedures, as well as creating difficulties for most food transportation and use. Clearly, this would not have been the intent of the legislators, though this could have been the outcome. Fortunately, most such proposed legislative changes are caught early enough before they become politically embarrassing. But sometimes they are not.

What are Radioactive Wastes?

Radioactive wastes - simply defined - are any byproduct material which contains radioactivity above that level typically found in naturally occurring materials, and for which no use is presently evident.

Many such wastes are byproducts of processes that have been going on for hundreds of years (e.g., many base-metal mining operations, phosphate mining, gold mining). The wastes are generally ignored, as to address them would be to overload society with needless expense and concern, and too many restrictions on industrial development and many social activities.

Following the EPA radon efforts, such restrictions could have excluded building and development upon certain geological formations; control or extreme remediation of many natural water supplies to millions of households; and even ventilation of buildings. Many of the homes in large swathes of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut (on the Reading Prong formation), as well as other locations across the U.S. and in many other countries are built on geological formations that are notably radioactive and could become candidates for draconian controls if society is not careful to limit the powers of bureaucrats. Most of this came to light in 1984 after one contractor at a nuclear plant tried to enter the facility after being in his house basement before going to work. He tripped the alarms on his way IN (common with discharged medical patients too) and thus began an investigation. The natural radon levels in his home basement were said (by the EPA) to be equivalent to him receiving 80,000 chest X-rays in a year and were said to be about 675 times the maximum levels permitted in a uranium mine. They concurred that he should evacuate his house, and despite most homes in the area exceeding guideline standards, probably did not recommend evacuation of the entire area as it would have involved evacuating thousands of homes from large chunks of at least four states, and the resulting flack would have put them out of business along with their bosses once the epidemiology showed that there were no observed health effects from this, no matter how many thousands of lung cancer deaths the EPA might have been able to calculate.

The EPA's ongoing efforts to spook the public about radon in the U.S. have generally been unsuccessful. It is one example of a poorly-definable radiation risk that the public generally ignores, as it would hit each home-owner very hard in the pocket-book. It already does, if one tries to move real estate in these locations, though the hysteria may be diminishing a little by now after 20 years of a lack of obvious radiation-related deaths - just like the EMF hysteria (another risk that does not appear anywhere on even a much-expanded table of risks) that was in vogue a few years ago and now may also be subsiding, as the body count does not exist.

Radioactive Wastes include wastes produced from:

Nuclear fuel cycle operations such as mining, refining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, power production, and spent fuel reprocessing. Spent fuel is not true 'waste' as it can be recycled (and will be eventually), and is recycled in some countries;

Operational and maintenance activities at nuclear power facilities;

Decontamination and decommissioning activities at nuclear facilities;

Uranium and thorium mining and processing activities and some base-metal mining operations;

Various industrial processes: coal burning solids and fly ash; oil and gas drilling scale, sludges and water; water treatment and filtration solids; geothermal deposits; phosphate fertilizer processing residues, which are also a source of commercial uranium;

Some low grade coals and coal ash with up to 1000 ppm uranium (the Dakotas and Montana in the U.S.) as well as some alum shales (Sweden), some gold mine wastes - all of which were, or still are used as sources of commercial uranium;

Accelerator wastes, following production of medical and research radionuclides;

Spent sealed radiation sources, including medical therapy devices and industrial radiography and irradiation sources;

Institutional uses (industry, hospital, university research) of radioisotopes;

Some hospital medical wastes and other discarded radiological materials;

Some hospital biological wastes, including some hospital sewage;

Military weapons-program wastes;

A few materials that are radioactive wastes but are not regarded as such. These include hardwood ash in the U.S. Northeast, which contains fallout cesium-137 and strontium-90 (the only two significant fairly-long half-life fission nuclides) from atmospheric bomb testing since 1945. As a gentle aside, Marshall Brucer noted that the 'downwind' cows that had been exposed to a high dose of ingested fallout radiation (about 1500 millisieverts) from the 1946 trinity bomb test, and which were presumably kept alive for observation of their likely imminent deaths from cancer, were quietly euthanized in 1964, because of extreme old age.

Classification of Radioactive Wastes

Radioactive Wastes can be subdivided into Low Level Wastes (LLW), Intermediate (ILW) and High Level Wastes (HLW). Some broad definitions, internationally accepted, are shown in Table 3, derived mostly from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but different jurisdictions apply their own interpretations and guidelines, often for political purposes, such as serving as trade barriers (for tobacco, meat, venison and other game meats, agricultural produce, chocolate, nuts, peat moss, etc).

What 'Radioactive Waste' Quantities are produced in Society?

In the U.S., the produced quantities of some radioactive wastes are shown in Table 4, below. 'Technologically Enhanced', means concentrated by some social or industrial process such as water filtration, ventilation filters, and oil drilling or fertilizer production.

Lint traps on clothes dryers in homes in some radon rich locations are notably radioactive for several hours after use, as are the air cleaners on most cars after a moderate drive, and vacuum bags on vacuum cleaners after use, as well as the water softening units of some household water purifiers. The public gets more radiation dose from living close to these items than it might ever get from true nuclear wastes, which they never get near, but no-one would reasonably believe that these radiation sources in the home are a serious problem, as they aren't, even if the public knew about them, which they don't.

Many patients, following certain treatments and discharged from many hundreds of medical facilities each day, are major sources of significant radioactivity around most hospitals. No one cares. Following thyroid diagnosis and treatment, thousands of patients, each year, eliminate iodine-131 into the air, and into the sewage systems, as well as significantly irradiating family members and others close by if they are released from hospital too soon. Iodine-131, originating in Montreal, Canada, is readily detectable in the St Lawrence River at Quebec City, about 140 miles downstream. Similar situations apply at all major hospitals across the continent and throughout advanced societies.

An individual patient who has received iodine-131 treatment to ablate (destroy) the thyroid emits more iodine-131 into the environment in the first few hours following treatment (breathing and waste elimination), than an operating nuclear power facility typically emits to the environment in a full year of continuous operation. Public toilets in malls near major hospitals are interesting repositories of dribbled wastes, which people scuff around on their feet, to shops and back to their homes and laundry hampers. It's generally more comforting to them, that they are NOT aware of this.

The nuclear waste of most public, media or political importance, and which generates a degree of political passion and misplaced fear in inverse proportion to its actual risk, is spent fuel and related radioactive wastes. Anyone who is following the YUCCA farce must recognize the hysteria value of this issue to opposing politicians and various environmental groups. It is not just an expensive hole in the ground (albeit a small one), almost like any other mine with similar concerns and safeguards - and then some - but it is a gold plated hole in the ground that will be milked for every last drop of emotion, bad science, and political 'pork' that can be wrung from it before any waste is brought near it.

The 70,000 tonnes of wastes designated to be PUT INTO it over the decades of its lifetime, is actually close to the DAILY tonnage production of ore FROM many large base metal mines. One consideration that is rarely addressed, is that in creating this mine, more radioactivity (natural uranium and thorium) is likely to be brought to the surface and released into the air space from the volcanic tuffs removed, than is likely ever to escape from the completed facility.

Underground disposal is essentially a knee jerk reaction to the fear that if civilized society were to collapse totally in the future, at least our present day nuclear wastes would be out of their way. By the time that might happen, if ever, not only will such wastes be essentially innocuous, but the new risks in that collapsed society would make even the supposed chronic risks from nuclear materials at the surface seem like a belch in a hurricane. So much for perspective, or protecting future society.

What Radioactivity Is Typically Found In Society?

Everything is naturally radioactive and is impacted by radiation as shown below. You should perhaps not read this list, as it might provide too much disturbing perspective.

From the sky there are about 100,000 cosmic ray protons and neutrons, and about 400,000 secondary cosmic rays, which pass into and sometimes through us each hour, as well as billions of neutrinos which pass through us each hour without being slowed or stopped.

From the air we breathe there are about 30,000 atoms of radon and radon progeny, which disintegrate (decay) in our lungs every hour (about 8 Bq each and every second) and deposit their energy in lung tissue. In some regions this number of radon atoms continuously decaying in the lungs may reach millions each hour.

From our diets there are about 15,000,000 potassium-40 atoms, and about 7,000 uranium atoms, which decay in each of our bodies every hour, and emit alpha and beta particles (stopped in the body) and gamma energies (which mostly escape to irradiate everything around us). Bananas are an excellent source of potassium in our diets, and therefore of radiation. Brazil nuts (as well as Brazilian beaches) are a well-known source of natural radiation. Tobacco use is a major source of radiation dose to smokers (up to about 80 mSv of chronic dose in a year to the mouth and trachea of a pack-a-day smoker) from polonium-210 (a daughter of radium-226) in the tobacco leaf. It's the other carcinogens that kill smokers.

From soil and building materials, there are over 200,000,000 gamma rays which pass through each of us every hour. In locations with much higher natural radiation backgrounds, this figure may be in the billions.

Although we cannot see or sense any of these events, it is intriguing to consider that in light of the numbers of interactions happening inside us and around us all of the time, all of humanity lives immersed in a soup of natural radiation energies.

Some of the major sources of radioactive materials and wastes throughout society are shown in Table 5. A becquerel (Bq) is one radioactive disintegration each second. A liter of cow's milk (and blood and urine), with its natural potassium-40 (half-life of 12.7 billion years), is radioactive at the level of about 50 Bq each and every second. Cheers! Human milk, blood and urine are similar. One institute estimate points out (accurately, although exaggerating a little) that any individual in North American society gets more of a radiation dose from eating one banana, than they would ever be likely to get from Yucca in a year, when completed. The comparison indicates either, how socially safe Yucca will be (true), and how fatuously expensive it is considering the risks incurred or avoided (true), or how dangerous bananas are (false).

Perspective on Radiation Dose from Radiation Uses in Society

The last century of increasing uses of radiation in society (since 1896), has shown that though radioactive materials and wastes in modern hospitals constitute only about 1% of the radioactive materials in society, they contribute about 99% of all non-natural radiation doses to the public while generally saving tens of thousands of lives each year and improving the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of patients.

In contrast, less than 1% of public doses from non-natural sources of radiation come from all industry and the entire commercial nuclear power industry wastes (95%), with an even smaller fraction of this coming from commercial power nuclear wastes, no matter how radioactive they may be.

However, none of these nuclear wastes are associated with significant doses to anyone, not even to the workers who manage them, as they are strongly governed by an internationally accepted radiation dose limit (100 millisieverts in 5 years), which is very rarely approached by any worker, and is most unlikely ever to be exceeded. Most workers actually receive, on average, about the same radiation dose in a year of work (about 2 millisieverts), that they and their families get - on average - from natural radiation exposures (about 3 millisieverts, or more per year). The 'or more' can extend up to a few hundred millisieverts per year (or more) from natural radiation in many parts of the world, especially if you visit a spa or lounge on the beaches of Brazil. If you are an astronaut - forget it, even if you do manage to avoid the Van Allen Belts, where the radiation dose gets up to about 15 millisieverts per hour. You are far off the top of the picture.

What is perhaps of most interest - at least to me - is that medical patients - millions of them - are not governed by any radiation dose limits under treatment, and often are exposed to radiation doses that are tens to hundreds (sometimes thousands) of times larger than even industrial dose limits. No one gets even slightly excited or concerned over this.

The general public needs to recognize these facts, but those who tweak their perceptions and stir up their emotions about extremely low radiation doses, such as those from nuclear wastes, are unlikely to be happy that these realities are being pointed out.

Some really interesting perspective (that word again) on radiation and radiation doses throughout society is shown in Table 6, below. It is a logarithmic scale of just a few doses (to materials or people) in various processes, and medical procedures; in nature; in industry; in the home; and from nuclear facility operations and nuclear waste disposal future estimates. If the plot were linear, it would need a sheet of paper many miles long to cover the same scale range. The only item on the table that is of widely publicized concern is the single item at the very bottom - the potential impact in the long-term from nuclear waste disposal. As far as most of the public, special interest factions and politicians are concerned, the other figures on the table don't even exist, and many of these groups would rather that the public did not know anything about them.

Ten sieverts (grays) of acute whole-body dose would be fatal for most humans, but this is one of the very successful (85% recovery) treatment options for leukemia. Most localized cancers are targeted with much higher doses to destroy them.

A targeted dose of about 100 sieverts is used to destroy the thyroid, without the patient feeling a thing. The process is a lot less traumatic and much safer than surgery even if the patient gets a whole body radiation dose of about 3,000 millisieverts or more over the next few hours from the procedure. If a radiation worker got this dose at work (rather than in the hospital), the entire management of the facility would be heavily fined, would probably be in jail, and the facility would likely be closed by the NRC. And then, of course, watch for the legal carrion feeders to swoop in.

Using radiation to sterilize hospital supplies ensures that surgery; receiving injections; and many other medical procedures are not the life-threatening ordeal that they used to be.

When society is able to sweep aside the remaining manipulated mythology of food irradiation, then it is likely that we can notably reduce the 5,000 to 9,000 deaths from food-borne illness that the CDC estimates for the U.S. each year. Unfortunately, it takes an outbreak of hundreds of food poisoning deaths and injuries associated with undercooked and improperly prepared and stored meats, fish and poultry, at one time, to capture anyone's attention. Comparison of risk/benefits anyone?

In comparison with the use of any other source of energy, one should be impressed by the lack of bodies from any aspect of using nuclear power including management and disposal of its radioactive wastes, but the acknowledgement of that simple fact, is deafening by its silence.

see web page for graphics:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_print.cfm?a_id=589

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

Tri-City Herald
January 27, 2004

Letter asks for cleanup solution

By Annette Cary Herald staff writer

The state of Washington and the Department of Energy need to resolve their dispute over reclassifying high-level nuclear waste at Hanford before it starts slowing cleanup, according to Washington's congressional delegation.

On Monday, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both D-Wash., called for talks between Gov. Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

At issue is how much authority state and federal agencies can exercise over treatment, handling and removal of radioactive wastes at Hanford, according to Hastings' office.

"The stakes are incredibly high, and the price of failure is the continued exposure of the people and the environment to unnecessary risks by potentially slowing the pace of cleanup activities," said the letter sent to Locke and Abraham.

DOE has pushed for more authority to reclassify waste nationwide in the past year. More than half the waste that could be affected is at Hanford.

Allowing DOE to reclassify some high-level wastes could allow more of the waste now in underground tanks at Hanford to remain at Hanford permanently. The tanks hold 11 million gallons of high-level wastes and 42 million gallons of low-activity wastes from plutonium production at Hanford.

High-level waste from the tanks is to be turned into a glasslike substance and shipped elsewhere for permanent storage, likely Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But the least hazardous waste will be buried at Hanford.

Since losing a lawsuit over its powers to reclassify waste, DOE has said it needs broad reclassification authority or the 42 million gallons of low-activity waste might all have to be treated as high-level waste at a much greater cost.

Environmental groups and the states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon and South Carolina are skeptical about DOE's intent. They fear if DOE were given more authority, it might leave large amounts of highly radioactive wastes inside the tanks.

"Both Washington state and the Department of Energy have legitimate concerns, but they also have a shared responsibility to resolve this dispute in a constructive manner," Hastings said in a statement. "I am increasingly concerned that as time passes no progress is being made toward a workable solution."

The letter called for the immediate start of high-level discussions and asked for a commitment from the state and federal governments to continue discussions until an agreement is reached.

"In the past when seemingly intractable problems have faced cleanup obstacles, they have been solved by your common commitment to rise above the obstacles to reach shared objectives," the letter said.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 26, 2004

Nuclear utilities face deadline for radioactive waste lawsuits

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A final rush of lawsuits is expected this week from utility companies suing the Energy Department for missing a 1998 deadline to open a national nuclear waste repository.

"An entire industry is engaged in some high-stakes litigation with the federal government," said Jerry Stouck, a lawyer handling lawsuits on behalf of power companies including the Yankee companies in New England.

"The reality is that every single utility will be filing a lawsuit," Stouck told the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a Monday report.

Thirty-one lawsuits were pending at the end of 2003, and 16 were filed this month. More are expected to be filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims before Saturday, the six-year statute of limitations for challenging the failure of the government to meet a 1998 deadline for taking ownership of thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel.

The dispute dates to the government's promise 21 years ago to find a place to bury spent commercial nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste from nuclear bomb manufacturing.

In 1983, the Energy Department signed contracts with 68 utilities and seven other commercial nuclear waste owners, agreeing to begin taking the waste by Jan. 31, 1998, and store it at a permanent repository or a monitored temporary facility.

In return, utilities paid a one-time fee for spent fuel generated before 1983, and began paying into a nuclear waste disposal fund based on electricity sold.

The fund has generated more than $14 billion, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

In 2002, four years past the 1998 deadline for opening a dump, Congress endorsed President Bush's decision to build the repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Most of the lawsuits do not specify damages. Industry officials said they could amount to between $38 billion and $61 billion, but the Energy Department said those estimates are overstated by billions.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Bob Loux, the state's top anti-Yucca official, said the prospect of heavy financial losses increases pressure on the Energy Department to open the repository at Yucca Mountain.

"Certainly these suits have bearing on the schedule that the Department of Energy is trying to implement," said Loux, head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

"It will give them further evidence to move forward with what is an insane idea," Berkley said.

Jay Silberg, a lawyer involved in the lead case against the Energy Department, said utilities want to get rid of their nuclear waste. About 40,000 tons of radioactive material has been generated by plants in 34 states.

"I honestly believe these lawsuits have kept the pressure on DOE and Congress and the administration," Silberg said.

But Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis downplayed the effect of the lawsuits on the Yucca Mountain project.

"I don't think the lawsuits play into our motivation at all," Davis said. "The department has been charged with finding a way to take care of nuclear waste, whether it comes from commercial fuel, government waste streams or research reactors. It's bigger than just the commercial reactors and that's been our major motivation."

The Energy Department says it expects to open the Yucca Mountain repository in 2010, although Nevada is fighting the plan in court and plans to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject an Energy Department application for an operating license.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2000 that the Energy Department was liable for missing the 1998 contract deadline and could be sued for damages.

The first trial begins March 1 in a case brought by Indiana Michigan Power Co. for its Donald C. Cook plant in Michigan.

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 26, 2004

Yucca Mountain: Nuclear waste lawsuits grow

Utilities want Energy Department to pay for missing deadline for repository

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is facing a new wave of lawsuits that could cost taxpayers billions of dollars because DOE missed a 1998 deadline to have a nuclear waste repository up and running in Nevada.

While the Yucca Mountain Project has been the subject of high-profile fights in Congress and within the judicial system in the past two years, dozens of legal claims by nuclear power utilities against DOE have been following a quieter path through the courts.

That could change in coming months if judges begin ordering payment of multimillion-dollar awards to the nuclear power industry, attorneys said.

"An entire industry is engaged in some high-stakes litigation with the federal government. I would hope this would get somebody's attention," said Jerry Stouck, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on behalf of the Yankee power companies in New England, among others.

Utility companies are rushing to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims before Jan. 31, a statute of limitations deadline.

The date is six years after DOE breached long-standing contracts with utilities by failing to take ownership of thousands of tons of their nuclear waste by Jan. 31, 1998, according to court rulings.

Thirty-one lawsuits were pending at the end of 2003. Another 16 were filed this month, and more are expected before the deadline.

As many as 50 or more may be docketed before the end of the month, attorneys said.

"The reality is that every single utility will be filing a lawsuit," Stouck said.

Most of the lawsuits do not specify damages. Industry officials said they could amount to between $38 billion and $61 billion.

A Department of Energy lawyer said those estimates are overstated by many billions.

Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the prospect of heavy financial damages illustrates the pressure the Energy Department is under to get a repository opened at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

"Certainly these suits have bearing on the schedule that the Department of Energy is trying to implement with this program," Loux said.

DOE "is clearly getting whipped by the utilities and through them by Congress to hurry this thing up at the expense of doing a good job," Loux said. "They are the ones driving the show."

The lawsuits keep the Yucca program moving forward, said Jay Silberg, an attorney involved in the lead case against the Energy Department.

Silberg said utilities ultimately want to get rid of their nuclear waste. About 40,000 tons of radioactive material has been generated by plants in 34 states.

"I honestly believe these lawsuits have kept the pressure on DOE and Congress and the administration," Silberg said. "There are limits on how fast anything can move; but left to their own devices programs will slow, and we don't want that to happen."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., predicted legal judgments against DOE will provide pro-nuclear lawmakers with ammunition to speed the Yucca project.

"The vast majority are going to seize on this as a reason to expedite Yucca Mountain when we know it is unsafe," Berkley said. "It will give them further evidence to move forward with what is an insane idea."

In 2000, President Clinton vetoed a bill that called for nuclear waste deliveries to Nevada before a repository is built.

A similar effort last year in the U.S. House was killed by Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter, both R-Nev.

"These lawsuits won't help speed up the project, because I believe Yucca Mountain will never open," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement "The lawsuits are distracting the nuclear power industry from what they should be doing, which is looking seriously now at dry cask storage and asking the government for help with the costs."

The legal problem found its roots 20 years ago in the government's effort to find permanent disposal of commercial spent fuel and its own high level waste from nuclear bomb manufacturing.

In 1983, the Energy Department signed contracts with 68 utilities and seven other commercial nuclear waste owners. DOE would begin taking their waste by Jan. 31, 1998, and store it at a permanent repository or a monitored temporary facility.

In return, utilities would pay into a waste fund a one-time fee for spent fuel generated before 1983 and ongoing fees based on electricity sold.

The fund, earmarked to pay for waste disposal, has generated more than $17 billion.

The 1998 deadline came and went.

The Energy Department now says it expects to have a repository open in 2010, a timeline viewed by some scientists and government officials as overly optimistic.

"We sue the government because it has broken its promises," John W. Rowe, then-chairman of the Unicom Corp., and Commonwealth Edison, said at a 1999 Senate hearing.

A 2000 merger made Rowe chief executive of Exelon Corp., the largest nuclear utility.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2000 that DOE was liable for missing the 1998 contract deadline and could be sued for damages.

Judges in the Court of Federal Claims will decide damage amounts, based on arguments that involve the amount of waste each utility holds, when they expected the government to take ownership of it and the rate at which the Energy Department was expected to begin moving it to a repository.

The first trial begins March 1 in a case brought by Indiana Michigan Power Co. for its Donald C. Cook plant in Michigan.

Among major claims, utilities want repayments for what they are spending to keep nuclear waste stored on-site in dry casks, some at plants that have been closed, or by re-racking spent fuel assemblies to create more space in deep water cooling pools.

They also claim added costs to upgrade security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Several lawsuits in the past week were filed by companies that have sold interests in power plants. They charge their sales prices were devalued because of uncertainty over nuclear waste.

DOE spokesman Joe Davis maintained the cases have little bearing on DOE's management of the Yucca project.

Stouck said the government's liability grows with every day of delay. He predicted the cases will wind on for another five to 10 years.

"Money is not the only thing the utilities want," Stouck said. "They want to get rid of their spent fuel."

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

Washington Post
January 24, 2004

Letters: Don't Dump on Nevada

Saturday, January 24, 2004; Page A17

Your editorial regarding the Yucca Mountain court case ["A Mountain of Waste," Jan. 16] draws unreasonable and illogical conclusions. Consider these facts: The government changed the rules so radioactive waste could be buried at this site. But the geology is inadequate and peak radiation doses will emanate from waste at the site long after any engineered barriers have broken down. These factors combine to irreversibly threaten public health and safety.

The conclusion that it is better to simply go ahead with a flawed repository is incorrect. Spent fuel will always be at reactor sites around the country, because radioactive waste has to "cool" for five years before being moved.

Energy Department officials admit that once the Yucca dump is filled and sealed, the access tunnels will probably collapse in less than 200 years. If the site leaks radioactive waste after that, little can be done.

For these reasons, the court must block this dump.

-- Joan Claybrook

Washington

The writer is president of Public Citizen.

•

The editorial says that Yucca Mountain is "remote," but in fact the mountain is 90 miles from Las Vegas. Why not put the waste dump 90 miles from the District of Columbia? I'm sure there's a site or two in the Shenandoah Valley that would be just as suitable as Yucca.

Or do your editors agree with the federal government that the people and property in the Washington area are more important than the people and property in Nevada?

-- Michelle Ippolito

Fallon, Nev.

•

Your paper writes as if the "merits" -- including the safety -- of the government's plan to put the nation's highly radioactive waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain are intuitively obvious. That is dead wrong. Ask the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's experts -- they haven't yet reviewed the Energy Department's complex design calculations and are reserving judgment. Or ask members of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), presidentially appointed scientists who have sharply criticized the Energy Department's design.

The editorial acknowledges that the mountain is far more "permeable" to water than the government thought when it fixed on the site years ago, and that the government's design relies heavily on metal containers to isolate the waste. But it fails to mention that last November a unanimous NWTRB reported that "widespread corrosion of the waste packages is likely" early on, and that "once started, such corrosion is likely to propagate rapidly." The Energy Department is still reeling from this conclusion, which invalidates its container-based strategy.

The editorial patronizingly mentions "procedural irregularities" raised by Nevada before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Your readers should know that behind each one lies a major safety issue. The federal government used such irregularities repeatedly to sidestep Yucca Mountain's geologic inadequacies.

-- Robert Loux

Carson City, Nev.

The writer is director of the Nevada Agency

for Nuclear Projects in the Nevada governor's office.

•

The proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain can't open before 2015, and can't store more than 77,000 tons. Yet more waste than that will exist in 2010. As soon as Yucca Mountain is filled, we would have another mountain's worth of dangerous waste sitting at the reactors where it's produced. So Yucca Mountain wouldn't reduce our exposure to nuclear waste, it would increase our exposure by spreading that waste across our nation's highways and railways.

Even if this material could be safely transported, science has shown that Yucca Mountain isn't a safe place to store it. So the government has desperately rewritten its plan, which calls for man-made casks to enclose the waste. If we're going to rely on engineered protection, why transport this waste at all? Better to store it safely where it's produced and where it can be monitored.

Yucca Mountain is only 45 minutes from the fastest-growing community in the nation. Nevadans and all Americans want the problem of nuclear waste honestly addressed -- not conveniently buried.

-- Harry Reid

Washington

-- John Ensign

Washington

The writers are, respectively, Democratic and Republican U.S. senators from Nevada.

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

Las Vegas SUN
January 23, 2004

McAuliffe says candidate may emerge before Nevada votes

By Cy Ryan <cy@lasvegassun.com> and Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Capital Bureau

CARSON CITY -- National Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe says he hopes the party will have a presidential nominee by mid-March, meaning Nevada Democrats will be bringing up the rear.

McAuliffe, in a telephone news conference with Nevada reporters Thursday, predicted the Democratic presidential field would be reduced by two to three candidates by Feb. 14 when Nevada Democrats hold their precinct caucuses.

And he said he hoped the winner would emerge in mid-March after 17 contests and 71 percent of the pledged delegates are chosen. But the Nevada delegates won't be selected until April 16-18 at the state convention.

Under the McAuliffe scenario, Nevada delegates would be just frosting on the cake of the candidate who emerges the winner -- unless of course there is a brokered convention.

To be a delegate to the national Democratic convention in July in Boston, a person must attend the precinct meetings, the county and the state convention in Nevada. There will be an estimated 21 delegates. The goal is to include two African blacks, four Hispanics, one Native American, one gay person and one Asian-Pacific Islander.

McAuliffe said President Bush in his State of the Union message failed to talk about a jobs creation program. The issue of new jobs "is an important issue that is resonating out there," McAuliffe said from Washington D.C.

In a recent report, the state reported total employment has increased by 3.6 percent in the last year and that unemployment was down to 4.5 percent for November or 5,500 less persons out of work than a year ago.

In January 2001 when Bush took office, Nevada's unemployment rate was 4.5 percent with 39,700 workers out of a job. In November 2003, the state Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Department reported there were 48,700 out of work or a rate of 4.5 percent.

In January 2001 there were 1,041,100 employed compared to 1,102,500 in November 2003.

Unemployment, McAuliffe said, has risen 39 percent in Nevada during the Bush Administration.

The Democratic chairman said the president "is not telling the truth about the economy." He added "People are concerned about job losses."

There are 418,000 Nevadans who don't have health care insurance and there are 105,000 children who are left out of the child-care tax break, McAuliffe said.

He said the president is trying to divert the attention of the nation by talking about same-sex marriages, steroid use among athletes and training prisoners for jobs. He said the president cut taxes for millionaires and the nation lost jobs.

McAuliffe repeated criticism that Bush broke his promise when he said he would consider scientific evidence in selecting Yucca Mountain as a high-level dump.

"(Bush) was not telling the truth," McAuliffe said.

McAuliffe said it was obvious the Energy Department's plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is being pushed by "politics, not science" especially based on former Nuclear Waste Technical Review board member Paul Craig's recent criticisms of the project.

Craig has said that science is not up to par with what really needs to be done at the site.

McAuliffe did not explain how electing a Democratic president would help the Yucca Mountain issue but emphasized Bush had broken his word.

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman both voted against Yucca Mountain. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., voted for Yucca. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark both said they would be against Yucca Mountain.

McAuliffe also said the Democratic Party "feels comfortable" with the chances of Sen. Harry Reid to win re-election.

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

San Mateo County Times
January 24, 2004

Laser hammers open way for tougher craft

By Ian Hoffman, Staff Writer

LIVERMORE -- Just over 50 years ago, the job of hardening metals began shifting from metalsmiths and their hammers to streams of tiny, hard beads that pounded metal faster and more consistently than any human could.

Now the job of peening is going to light.

Five times a second inside an office warehouse here, an invisible beam lances through a curtain of water and blasts a piece of aerospace alloy.

Its aluminum skin explodes in a white cloud three times hotter than the surface of the sun, the explosion reflected by the water to hammer the metal again and again. A half an hour of this battering by light leaves a compressed metal skin that is tougher and several times longer lasting than any pounded by hand or metal shot.

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore lab, Metal Improvement Co. and jet-engine maker Rolls-Royce PLC said Friday they had laser-peened more than 5,000 fan blades for engines on the Boeing 777 and Airbus 340-600 in Livermore and Earby, England.

After 20 years as a costly and slow lab-bound technology, laser peening and smithing are now entering mainstream manufacturing for the highest performance parts in engines, transmissions and prosthetic limbs.

The process imparts five to 10 times deeper compression in metals than other peening methods, scientists say. Using light beams, metalworkers also can shape thick, structural pieces into curves without adding extra metal to compensate for the stress fatigue of bending them mechanically.

That opens the way to novel, lighter designs for automobiles and aircraft that will save fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

Those savings already have driven two of the three top jet-engine makers into laser peening. A Dublin, Ohio firm, LSP Technologies, uses lasers to harden the fan blades in B-1B bombers and other military jet engines made by General Electric. Hundreds of other craft rely on titanium-alloy engine parts hardened by light.

"I believe this is only the tip of the iceberg," said Ian Andrews, senior fan-blade engineer for Rolls-Royce.

"We think the future is very bright," said Dave Francis, senior vice president at Metal Improvement Co., a Paramus, N.J.-based firm founded on shot peening. Company officials approached Livermore scientists in the 1990s about laser peening.

Laser hammers grew partly out of Livermore research into using giant glass-slab lasers for fusing hydrogen. Several of the same scientists who built the front end of the stadium-size National Ignition Facility worked for years on perfecting a high-energy, quick-firing laser for compressing and forming metals.

In late 2001, Rolls-Royce gave a fan-blade peening contract to Metal Improvement, which rented its Livermore shop in January 2002 and began pounding blades with beams five months later.

"We did a lot of sleepless nights," said physicist Lloyd Hackel, head of Livermore's laser science and technology group. "We worked Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday. We so believed in it, we were sort of lab rats to make it work."

The U.S. Department of Energy is eyeing laser peening for making corrosion-resistant equipment for deep-sea drilling rigs and containers for nuclear waste, destined for thousands of years' storage inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The Defense Department wants light hammers to arrest cracks in F-16 jet fighter bulkheads.

Hackel predicts lightweight, laser-peened cars, trucks and planes around the corner. Auto makers estimate the method could boost the life of car frames by 50 percent, allowing the weight to be trimmed by a tenth. For a million cars, automakers estimate fuel savings of 9.4 million gallons a year.

"I see a revolution in aircraft design," Hackel said. "We're going to see floppier aircraft that are lighter and can fly farther with less fuel and carry more passengers." Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com .

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 23, 2004

Letters: Yucca Mountain good for Nevada

Cooped up

In response to the opinion letter "Nuclear conflict" (PVT Jan. 14):

Well Mr. Brown, you caught me. No, I don't read any news about (the Yucca Mountain Project) or anything else in the papers. Call me frugal, but don't call me cheap. I don't read newspapers; I get all my information off the Internet. Sorry, PV Times. I'm sorry Mr. Brown misunderstood what I may have said and decided to call me on this through this lovely paper.

As far as the newly appointed Federal Impact Advisory Board goes, I am officially listed as an ex-officio member of that group, nothing more. I don't vote on anything, but I am there as a resource. I do have information to share with this group, as well as this wonderful community in which we live in. I usually try to give back more than I take. They knew that and that's why they asked me to sit in on their meetings as an "ex-officio" member. Heck, I feel honored.

As far as watching the "chicken coop," I've been watching one particular coop since the first public meetings were scheduled in regards to Yucca Mountain. As a concerned citizen I was at the first meeting involved with public comment toward Yucca Mountain while living in Lemont, Ill., and unfortunately, I was the only member of the local community that was on hand that night. Well, I let those folks know how they failed in getting the message out to the community and I guess I have never stopped.

It's heartwarming to know that you have taken the time to let us know your concerns from your letter to this excellent newspaper. We need more people like you to watch all the "chicken coops" out here.

Say, did you know that we (Pahrump) have vacancies on some of our advisory boards? There's room on the arena, economic development, parks and recreation, public lands and tourism boards.

Concerned citizens can call the town office to let them know that they're interested in serving on a board. Sorry, but after many years of vacancies on the nuclear waste and environmental advisory board, we finally have a full house. We are planning the second annual Pahrump "Earth Day" event for April 24 at Honeysuckle Park, and we could use more help from people with positive ideas for that subcommittee.

Oh, then there is the community advisory board for Nevada Test Site programs that will be shortly advertising for new members in this prestigious paper. This is another board that is concerned with environmental issues at the test site, which concerns us all here directly.

You could have stopped by on Saturday at our local CCSN campus, that's when the Pahrump Valley Community Action Team held its annual workshop. You could have found out what other concerned citizens are doing, not by watching our local chicken coop, but making it better. The monthly PVCAT meetings take place at 6:30 p.m. on the first Monday of each month and are held at our CCSN campus. Please feel free to stop by and join others in improving our way of life here in our great valley.

Thanks for helping me get this message out to the concerned folks here.

John Pawlak

---

The state will lose

I've been around the Yucca Mountain issue for a while. I used to work at the test site. I've toured Yucca Mountain several times, and I've talked to the scientists and got my questions answered and concerns addressed.

I know the state started its legal fight in Washington, D.C., this past week, but the state has a dismal record fighting this scientific project in the courts, and I don't think this fight will be any different.

The state will lose and the rhetoric and sound bites saying a win in one of the cases will stop the project is not true; all it will do is delay the inevitable - a repository at Yucca Mountain.

Let's focus on protecting our health and safety and at the same time developing some strategy to make this federal project benefit all Nevadans. A repository, if dealt with responsibly, could be an economic diversification tool - the project is the largest public works project ever in the United States at some $58 billion.

A recent UNLV study says the project contributed $195 million to the Nevada economy in 2000 and the estimated job growth during construction will be around 3,500 jobs.

One last thing, shouldn't we be thankful that the Department of Energy chose a transportation route that avoided the state's population centers? Now we need to protect the rurals and get them the funds to train their emergency responders and have a first class emergency response team and plan in place.

Our elected officials need to use some common sense and show some responsible leadership on this issue. When the court cases fail, I hope their strategy changes.

Bill Vasconi
Las Vegas

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