NUCLEAR POWER

There is no safe place to put nuclear waste and no safe way to transport it. The only viable solution is prevention--shut down the plants and stop generating waste that will be hazardous for millennia.

THE ongoing nuclear waste crisis is a striking example of short-sighted science and technology. It was as predictable (and avoidable) as the Y2K computer problem. Unlike the Y2K problem though, no amount of mouse-clicking or computer coding can subtract one year from the 24,000-year half-life of plutonium or remove one gram of deadly nuclear material.

For decades, the waste issue has been met with procrastination, neglect and outright denial by the promoters of nuclear energy. Now that the waste has piled up for decades at nuclear power plants that should not have been built in the first place, the nuclear industry wants to move the waste to make room for more.

The cheerleaders who promised "electricity too cheap to meter" from nuclear power plants did not factor in the hazards and costs involved with trucks and trains hauling radioactive waste to dump sites that would have to be guarded for tens of thousands of years.

In 1995, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers reported that the nuclear industry was negotiating with an Apache reservation in New Mexico to store 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods for 40 years "until a Federal disposal plan emerges." The Apaches were offered compensation that amounted to a whopping 16 cents per pound a year. Now the nuclear industry and some members of Congress want to transport the waste over a period of some 30 years across the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Nevada doesn't want it, and there are serious questions of safety concerning both the transportation and storage of the waste.

It is worth examining how we got to this point. Unfortunately, education in the post-Sputnik era helped reinforce the erroneous impression that scientists and engineers are primarily concerned with advancing and developing technology, and that they are too busy and important to question applications or worry about their negative effects. Dealing with nuclear waste seemed somehow janitorial, beneath the dignity of a white-coated scientist or a paper-pushing engineer.

In 1965, I took an elective course in nuclear engineering that covered the principles of nuclear reactors, reactor operation and radiation hazards and shielding. Nuclear waste was not addressed in any meaningful way. The course textbook (Raymond Murray, "Introduction to Nuclear Engineering") glossed over "the waste disposal problem" in a mere five pages, with dry comments such as: "many suggestions on storage have been proposed"; and "the danger is always present that vessels (storing waste) will rupture or erode away."

Clearly, this was a low-priority issue. But, just as clearly, nuclear engineers knew of the hazards and longevity of nuclear waste, and were capable of estimating the quantities of waste generated per kilowatt-hour of electricity. It was easier (as well as more beneficial to one's career) to design a shiny new reactor than to contemplate the intractable problem of what to do with the waste that it would produce.

There are lessons to be learned from the nuclear waste crisis. There is no safe place to put it and no safe way to transport it. The only viable solution is prevention--shut down the plants and stop generating waste that will be hazardous for millennia.

We need scientists and engineers who are informed with humility and oriented toward a long-term social responsibility. Education alone may not be sufficient to correct the collective myopia exhibited by many practitioners of science and technology. How can humility and social responsibility be taught in a culture that continues to exalt the rocket scientist as the highest evolutionary life form? How can students acquire a long-term view when they are taught to embrace technology-driven change at rates that exceed society's capacity for absorbing it, let alone its capacity for evaluating and examining it?

Charles J. Guenther Jr. is professor of engineering & technology at St. Louis Community College at Meramec.

Nuclear waste dump opponents charge state panel stacked with pro-dump members

We wish we could report a final decision about Ward Valley but the Davis administration seems reluctant to be so definitive. Still, we have good news as we near the end of this year of hard work to stop the dump once and for all. Our work would not be possible without the wonderful support from all of you who have created the movement that will finally defeat the dump and turn the threat of a nuclear waste dump into an inspiring victory. Our goal is not only to stop the Ward Valley dump, but to set a precedent so that other minority communities do not have to fight the nuclear power industry's attempts to dump their waste in some hole in the ground for future generations to contend with.

Following a victory for dump opponents in federal court last March, Governor Davis, instead of stopping the project once and for all, decided to appoint an Advisory Committee to study the issue of low-level radioactive waste disposal in California. But both the Advisory Committee (Chaired by University of California President Richard Atkinson) and the Science Panel tasked to advise the Committee is stacked with individuals with ties to the nuclear power industry. There was initial confusion as to whether the Committee was supposed to consider Ward Valley as an option. We soon cleared that up. A strong showing by dump opponents at the Advisory Committee's first meeting on November 17 in Los Angeles embarrassed Davis into sending some signals regarding his intentions. BAN Waste board member Catherine Powell, Executive Director of the Data Center, uncovered information exposing serious conflicts of interest involving Atkinson (who has received nearly $500,000 from a nuclear utility) and other Advisory Committee members. Johnathan Parfrey of Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility, chosen as one of three environmentalists on the 19 member Atkinson Committee, challenged the composition of the committee and issued an effective and well-prepared challenge to Atkinson, and Nora Helton, Chairwoman of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the only Native American representative on the Committee, challenged the Committee's decision-making process and delivered an eloquent statement regarding environmental justice. The audience response was powerful as well with statements by Native American leaders and elders, a hard-hitting attack by Dan Hirsch from Committee to Bridge the Gap, and other excellent statements by Joe Lyou, Ward Young from the BAN Waste Coalition, Bradley Angel from Greenaction, Jane Williams, Laura Lake and many others. In essence, dump opponents took over the meeting and sent a strong message to Sacramento.

Davis' press secretary responded by issuing a statement that the governor is opposed to the dump project (this is the first time we have received such a strong statement from Davis' office) and Mary Nichols of the State Resources Agency stated definitively on a cable television show in LA that "there will be no dump at Ward Valley, period." Atkinson then responded with a statement that Ward Valley was "off the table" for consideration by the Committee. These are very encouraging signs although we would like a direct statement by Davis himself and a re-constitution of both the Atkinson Committee and the Science Panel since Ward Valley dump proponents are busy trying to revive the proposal.

On December 20, the Science Panel met for the first time. There are 13 members most of whom have ties to the nuclear power industry or represent the status quo on nuclear dumping with the exception of Dr. Kevin Lemley of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Ernest Goitein, environmental activist, nuclear engineer and BAN Waste Advisory Board member. Ernie Goitein gave an effective presentation on various waste isolation technologies and criticized shallow land burial and other irresponsible means of disposal. Phil Klasky and Ward Young of BAN Waste were invited to make a presentation to the Science Panel and they delivered a well-researched report that established the fact that most of the waste in the so-called "low-level" waste stream comes from nuclear power plants and that shallow land burial has failed as a method of disposal. We criticized the composition of both the Advisory Group and Science Panel and called for more balance with the addition of experts from public interest organizations. We reiterated our opposition to the Ward Valley dump and the reasons for that opposition. We raised ethical issues that the Science Panel had not considered. The chair of the Science Panel, Dr. William Kastenberg reiterated Davis' directive that Ward Valley was off the table although some on the Panel seemed disposed to revive the proposal. We promoted a number of policy initiatives and criteria including: segregation of the waste stream separating the short-lived biotech, hospital and research waste from the long-lived and highly dangerous nuclear power waste; source reduction; generator liability and internalization of the costs of containment; zero release and isolation of wastes from the biosphere; outlaw shallow land burial; on-site storage and storage until decay at brokers for short-lived wastes; long-term storage of nuclear power wastes in highly-engineered facilities at decommissioned nuclear power plants; long-term storage of the very small amount of long-lived wastes from biotech, hospital and research wastes at decommissioned nuclear power plants; citizen oversight in siting and maintenance of containment facilities; the recognition of scientific uncertainty in the establishment of cause and effect as established by the precautionary principle; the ethical and practical necessity to keep nuclear poisons within our sphere of responsibility; make social equity and environmental justice a central role in policy development.

Many of these concepts were lost on some of the Science Panel members but it was important that we asserted them anyway. We remain concerned about the composition of the Advisory and Science panels and plan to be present at all the meetings.

Information about the future meetings of the Advisory Group and Science Panel can be found at www.llrw.org along with the presentations by the consultants. It is very important that we monitor the activities of these groups, continue to insist that Ward Valley is a failed proposal and assert that California adopt a policy regarding nuclear waste isolation that is environmentally responsible and socially just.

That's the news for now.

Have a wonderful new year with hope, compassion, optimism and good fortune. Thank you for all your great activism and support. We will soon have a great victory to celebrate in the new year.

Phil Klasky for the staff and board at the BAN Waste Coalition                   

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- An advisory board assigned to find a home for California's low-level nuclear waste began its first meeting amid claims the panel is filled with members intent on resurrecting plans to dump the pollutant in the Mojave Desert.

Gov. Gray Davis created the panel to look for alternatives to the proposed dump site near the Arizona-California border known as Ward Valley that has been hotly debated for more than 16 years. Opponents, including local governments, environmental groups and Indian tribes, fear the nearby Colorado River would become contaminated, while supporters say the state has a responsibility to deal with its nuclear waste.

At the heart of the controversy was the panel's chair, who critics learned for the first time Wednesday served on the board of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, a partial owner of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Detractors contend Richard Atkinson's ability to sit on the panel is compromised by his seven years on that company's board and called on him to resign. Atkinson was involved in selecting his fellow panel members.

Richard Atkinson, who also is president of the University of California, hinted after the volatile, three-hour meeting that he might not remain on the panel. Atkinson said he would contact the governor to see if he should vacate the post.

"I never saw it as a conflict of interest," Richard Atkinson said when asked why he didn't mention the position until asked by The Associated Press on Tuesday night.

Atkinson had his compensation from that job deferred, he said, while he served from April 1992 until July 1998. He'll be collecting checks until 2004, but declined to reveal the amount of payments.

Public records show that board members received $150,000 annually between 1992-1997 and $180,000 during 1997 to 1998.

The university president also said he signed a May 1996 letter to U.S. Rep. Bill Baker, R-La., lobbying for the land transfer from the federal government to the state so that the Ward Valley nuclear waste dump could be built.

University of California manages three national nuclear laboratories and produces waste.

Davis created the advisory group in June, after announcing that he would not pursue a legal battle started after the Bush administration in 1993 ordered the sale of the federal land in Ward Valley to California. The Interior Department under President Clinton rescinded that order, and a judge in April ruled the department acted properly.

BLM Deputy Director Tom Fry said "this chapter of the Ward Valley story is over," unless California returns with a new request to buy the land for the site.

The state has to buy the land from the Bureau of Land Management if it wants to build a nuclear site there.

The governor's office reiterated in a telephone call after the meeting that Davis is a long-standing opponent to Ward Valley.

"The governor asked the commission to look for alternatives to Ward Valley that make good science, environmental and business sense," said Michael Bustamante, Davis' press secretary.

"The governor has every confidence that the panel will give an earnest, honest and fair recommendation, then he will decide what is best."

About 100 opponents to Ward Valley who packed the auditorium Wednesday insisted Davis mandated the panel find a new site and said the advisory group should take Ward Valley off the table.

But Chuck McFadden, the panel's spokesman, said they didn't read it that way.

"The group is not ruling anything in and not ruling anything out," McFadden said before the meeting. "Ward Valley is one of a series of options."

Several of the panel members, however, said the panel was stacked with pro-Ward Valley people, some of whom had a financial interest in the outcome of the study.

"I've been asked to serve on a board where I'll basically be decoration," said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles.

Ward Valley, or more specifically a 1,000-acre patch of the Mojave Desert, has long been the subject of heated protests and warnings that putting a low-level nuclear waste dump there could harm wildlife and pollute Colorado River water.

A meeting Tuesday, (Nov. 16) at which a panel Gov. Davis appointed to find a place for California's waste, was no different.

Desert residents had traveled more than four hours to make their concerns heard at the Advisory Group on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal's first meeting, held at UCLA.

"There will be no dump at Ward Valley, and that's final," Steve Lopez of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe in Needles shouted into the microphone from his wheelchair. He, like other American Indians, sees the land as sacred.

It appeared unclear during the three-hour meeting whether the land 22 miles west of Needles in San Bernardino County would remain an option because the federal government, while denying the sale, had said the state could resubmit its bid for the land.

Even the head of the panel, University of California President Richard Atkinson, said he would seek clarification from Davis on that subject.

But Michael Bustamante, a Davis spokesman, said in a telephone interview that it is no longer an option.

"Atkinson's committee was set up to look at alternatives," he stressed.

Davis appointed the panel during the summer to find a solution to the state's problem in dealing with low-level nuclear waste. In a deal with Arizona and North and South Dakota, California is obligated to build the first facility to treat such waste from all four states.

The committee recommendations for a dump site are due to the governor by the end of March. Before then, four more public meetings will be held at UCLA and UC San Francisco.

"Our task is to recommend workable options and to lay out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach," Atkinson said.

During the three-hour hearing, punctuated by emotional outbursts by audience members, Atkinson was attacked for alleged bias because of his former ties to a company that has a stake in a nuclear power plant.

Many also complained that the makeup of Atkinson's 17-member advisory panel leans too heavily toward representatives of utility and pharmaceutical companies, which dispose of low-level nuclear waste and are supportive of Ward Valley.

"The outcome is inevitable of your task force," said Daniel Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Atkinson, a former chancellor of UC San Diego, served on San Diego Gas Electric's board of directors from April 1992 to July 1998. The utility has a 20 percent stake in the San Onofre nuclear power plant, which disposes of low-level nuclear waste.

"I never saw it as a conflict of interest," Atkinson told reporters after the meeting. "If (Davis) judges it as one, I'll be more than happy to step down."

However, "(Davis) has absolutely no reservations about him being able to do the job that he was intended to do," Bustamante said.

After the raucous meeting, during which many members of the public suggested that he step down, Atkinson admitted: "I'm not wild about taking this task on."

The advisory panel's Web site is at www.llrw.org.

Jennifer Bowles can be reached by e-mail at jbowles@pe.com or by phone at 782-7720.

Governor Davis Appoints Task Force Biased Toward the Nuclear Industry to Determine the Fate of the Proposed Ward Valley Nuclear Waste Dump

In a disturbing turnabout, Governor Gray Davis has revived the proposal for a dangerous radioactive waste dump at Ward Valley. Davis has assembled a Task Force composed predominantly of nuclear waste generators to address the nuclear waste disposal in California. Ward Valley dump proponents outnumber representatives of environmental groups and Native American tribes by three to one. Key experts on radioactive waste have been purposely excluded. After assurances to the contrary, the Task Force has plans to revive the Ward Valley dump proposal to bury long-lived and highly dangerous radioactive wastes in shallow, unlined trenches, above an aquifer, twenty miles from the Colorado River, drinking water for 22 million people, in critical habitat for an endangered species and on sacred Indian lands.

Come to the first meeting of the Task Force, Wednesday, November 17 at the University of California at Los Angles at the Anderson School of Management Auditorium, Building B, room 209 (take Sunset Boulevard to Hillgard (south) to West Holme (go right) and park at the kiosk).

9:00 am Protest Rally
10:00 am to 12:00 noon Meeting Sign-up to speak against the biased panel and revived plans for a nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley by calling (310) 473-7704 or sign-up at the meeting. The Task Force plans to allow only a half hour for public comment.

CONTACT GOVERNOR DAVIS TODAY!
State Capitol Building, Sacramento, California 95814
Write and telephone today!
(916) 445-2841 * Fax (916) 445-4633.

State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
ph: 916/445-28941 fax: 916/445-4633

Totals:

1) three waste generators (SDG&E, So. Cal. Edison, PG&E & their parent companies) 1997-1999: $456,500
(So. Cal. Edison biggest contributor: gave $187,000 in 1998 alone)
2) other members of the committee (& their affiliate companies): $25,600

Edison International 1997-98: $40,000
Edison International 1999-00: $55,000
Southern CA Edison 1997-1998: $193,500
San Diego Gas & Electric 1997-98: $1,000
Sempra (SDG&E parent) 1997-98: $25,000
Sempra (SDG&E parent) 1999-00: $25,000
PG&E 1997-98: $55,000
PG&E 1999-00: $62,000
Genentech 1997-98: $20,000
Alan Sieroty 1997-98: $600
Chiron 1997-98: $1,000
Edward Penhoet 1997-98: $2,000
Theodore Roth 1997-98: $2,000

Native Nations and Environmental Allies Celebrate Federal Action but Denounce Governor Davis for Appointing Pro-nuclear committee to "study" issue. Join the protest of the Governor's Committee when it meets at UCLA Anderson School of Management Auditorium, 9 a.m. November 17, 1999

In a tremendous victory for the Native Nations and environmental and social justice allies who have fought for over a decade to protect Ward Valley and the Colorado River from a proposed nuclear waste dump, the BLM today issued a formal decision which deals a possibly fatal blow to the controversial dump project. The BLM today terminated all their actions regarding the dump proposal, and denied the State of California's request for sale of Ward Valley land for the dump.

The nuclear industry still hopes to bury long-lasting and highly radioactive waste at Ward Valley, on sacred Indian land, in dirt trenches above an aquifer with pathways to the Colorado River, water source for over 20 million people.

The Colorado River Native Nations Alliance and the rest of the Ward Valley Coaltion will continue to defend Ward Valley against the proposed dump.

Today's action by BLM follows the September 16, 1999 letter sent by BLM Deputy Director Tom Fry to Diana Bonta, State Department of Health Services Director, stating that BLM proposed to terminate all actions on DHS' sale request in 30 days unless the state moved forward with the project. The State did not respond to the BLM's 30 day notice, and the BLM action today is their response to the State's inaction.

However, Governor Gray Davis has appointed a committee stacked with individuals tied to the nuclear industry and nuclear waste generators to recommend methods of disposing waste from nuclear power plants and other sources. Radioactive waste generators outnumber representatives of environmental and tribal groups by a ration of three to one. The committee includes 9 officials of organizations that support the building of a dump at Ward Valley. Only two environmentalists and one tribal leader represent the vast majority of the public opposed to the dump. This is ominous, as this committee could urge the Governor to submit a new application to the federal government for a dump at Ward Valley.

This committee will meet November 17, 1999 at the Anderson School of Management Auditorium at UCLA. The Colorado River Native Nations Alliance and the rest of the Ward Valley Coalition are calling on all supporters of Ward Valley to come to UCLA at 9 a.m. on November 17th to protest this stacked committee and call on Governor Davis to join the federal government in saving Ward Valley once and for all. Together we will let the Governor and the nuclear industry know we will never, ever allow any type of radioactive waste facility to be built on sacred Indian Land at Ward Valley.

LET'S CELEBRATE THIS VICTORY, AND CONTINUE THE STRUGGLE TO DEFEND WARD VALLEY! CALL GOVERNOR DAVIS AND TELL HIM "NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY AT WARD VALLEY" (916) 324-3501

In a disturbing turnabout and betrayal, both the federal government and Governor Gray Davis have broken their promises to stop the dump once and for all. The Bureau of Land Management refuses to return the State's application for the land as promised, and Governor Davis has assembled a task force made up primarily of nuclear waste generators to determine the fate of Ward Valley.

The first meeting of the Task Force will be November 17 at UCLA in Los Angeles. Join hundreds of activists for a demonstration against the dump.

VISIT THE GREENACTION WEBSITE FOR MORE DETAILS ON THIS ACTION ALERT http://www.greenaction.org

Governor Davis (916)445-2841

OR - Petition to: CA Gov. Davis http://kola-hq.hypermart.net/actswv.htm electronic fill-in form

TOP
RETURN to main WARD VALLEY page
IEN's NOTICES Page
IEN's nuclear HOT SPOTS Page