Four Score Organizations Express Opposition to Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump Criticisms of Energy Department's Latest Plans Submitted
By Kevin Kamps
Takoma Park, MD -- A dozen national organizations, joined by 68 state and local grassroots groups from across the country, filed comments to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) yesterday expressing strong opposition to the risks inherent in the proposed high-level radioactive waste dumpsite targeted at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and its associated waste transport plans through 45 states. This marks the latest effort by dump opponents some of whom have been active against the Yucca dump for nearly three decades “as the DOE has pledged to file its long-delayed construction and operating license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 30, 2008.
"The Bush administration's rash rush to begin the Yucca licensing proceeding is a blatant attempt to make the dump a done deal before the next, potentially anti-dump, President enters the White House," said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, a national watchdog on nuclear power and radioactive waste issues.The dozen national groups which filed the comments include Beyond Nuclear, Clean Water Action, Environment America, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Greenpeace, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, SUN DAY Campaign, and Women's Action for New Directions. The 68 regional and local groups represent 27 states.
"Shipping tens of thousands of high-level radioactive waste trucks, trains, and barges through 45 states and the District of Columbia risks severe accidents and terrorist attacks," said Kamps of Beyond Nuclear. "This could release catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity in major population centers, representing potential Mobile Chernobyls and dirty bombs on wheels rolling past the homes of millions of Americans," Kamps added.
The coalition also urged that DOE must thoroughly analyze the negative impact on property values along all road, rail, and waterway routes across the continental United States that would be used to ship wastes to Yucca. Its submission stated "Courts, juries, and socio-economic studies have found that property values decrease significantly near declared radioactive waste transport routes. DOE must identify in detail all routes it plans to use for shipping wastes to Yucca…and should hold hearings in every state thus impacted."
Besides transport risks, the coalition exposed geological and environmental justice "show stoppers "at the Yucca Mountain Project."DOE's Yucca plans are so half-baked that they proposed locating a high-level radioactive waste storage facility directly above an earthquake fault line," Kamps pointed out. "DOE has known for over a decade that rainwater percolates relatively quickly through the proposed burial site, risking fast corrosion of the waste burial containers and release of catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity into the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supply below," Kamps added.
The coalition also warned DOE that all of the land at the Yucca Mountain dump project is within the treaty lands of the Western Shoshone Indian Nation, as affirmed by the "Peace and Friendship" Treaty of Ruby Valley, signed by the U.S. government in 1863. Thus, the proposed dumpsite violates environmental justice principles, an allegation supported by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
Office phone: (301) 270-2209
Cell phone: (240) 462-3216Fax: (301) 270-4000
mailto:270-4000kevin@beyondnuclear.org
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/
January 11, 2008
Lakotas fight uranium mining: Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion to hear arguments
Lakotas fighting new uranium mining will offer oral arguments in Nebraska:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Administrative Judges:
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Fred W. Oliver
In the Matter of
Docket No. 40-8943-MLA
ASLBP No. 07-859-03-MLA-BD01 CROW BUTTE RESOURCES, INC. (License Amendment for the North Trend Expansion Project)
January 10, 2008
NOTICE and ORDER (Regarding Oral Argument)
Oral argument will be heard on the standing and contentions of Petitioners1 in this proceeding, which involves the application of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) to amend its Source Materials License for development of additional uranium in-situ leach (ISL) mining resources for its North Trend Expansion Area, on January 16, 2008, continuing into January 17 as necessary, in the Chicoine Atrium, Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center, Chadron State College, 1000 Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska.
This session will commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 16, beginning with oral argument on Petitioners’ standing to participate in this proceeding; followed by argument on the contentions, in the order addressed in Petitioners’ Reference Petition of December 28, 2007 (as
1 In response to a September 13, 2007, notice of opportunity for hearing that was published on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website, Petitioners Debra L White Plume, Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Thomas Kanatakeniate Cook, and Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Corporation on November 12, 2007, timely filed requests for hearing and petitions to Intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
-2 corrected on January 10, 2008); and, finally, argument on Petitioners’ request for a 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G hearing, and any other appropriate matters.
As discussed in the telephone conference of December 18, 2007, oral argument by the two attorneys serving as Petitioners’ counsel, and Applicant’s and NRC Staff’s counsel, respectively, will be consolidated as much as possible, with the understanding that if on certain issues counsel wish to make separate argument this can be accommodated. Also, oral argument should not be a mere repetition of written filings. With these understandings, counsel are directed to prepare for the oral argument as follows:
On standing, Petitioners’ counsel should plan to speak for no longer than a total of 10 minutes per Petitioner (including discussion of all affidavits at issue), with this time apportioned as they see fit; Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a total of no more than 10 minutes per Petitioner. On Petitioners’ contentions, Petitioners counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention, and Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention. Counsel and parties should expect that their argument will be interrupted as deemed necessary and appropriate by Board members, but that the time taken for such questions and responses will not be counted against their allotted time periods.
In argument on admissibility of the contentions, counsel should be prepared to focus their arguments on whether and how the contentions meet the requirements of the criteria set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), subsections (i) through (vi). See also, e.g., the case law cited in our December 12, 2007, Order (Regarding Schedule and Guidance for Proceedings), and
-3 our December 20, 2007, Order (Confirming Matters Addressed on December 18, 2007
Telephone Conference).
It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_________/RA/_________________ Ann Marshall Young, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland January 10, 20082
2Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel and representatives for participants for whom e-mail addresses were available.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Fred W. Oliver
In the Matter of
Docket No. 40-8943-MLA
ASLBP No. 07-859-03-MLA-BD01 CROW BUTTE RESOURCES, INC. (License Amendment for the North Trend Expansion Project)
January 10, 2008
NOTICE and ORDER (Regarding Oral Argument)
Oral argument will be heard on the standing and contentions of Petitioners1 in this proceeding, which involves the application of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) to amend its Source Materials License for development of additional uranium in-situ leach (ISL) mining resources for its North Trend Expansion Area, on January 16, 2008, continuing into January 17 as necessary, in the Chicoine Atrium, Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center, Chadron State College, 1000 Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska.
This session will commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 16, beginning with oral argument on Petitioners’ standing to participate in this proceeding; followed by argument on the contentions, in the order addressed in Petitioners’ Reference Petition of December 28, 2007 (as
1 In response to a September 13, 2007, notice of opportunity for hearing that was published on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website, Petitioners Debra L White Plume, Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Thomas Kanatakeniate Cook, and Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Corporation on November 12, 2007, timely filed requests for hearing and petitions to Intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
-2 corrected on January 10, 2008); and, finally, argument on Petitioners’ request for a 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G hearing, and any other appropriate matters.
As discussed in the telephone conference of December 18, 2007, oral argument by the two attorneys serving as Petitioners’ counsel, and Applicant’s and NRC Staff’s counsel, respectively, will be consolidated as much as possible, with the understanding that if on certain issues counsel wish to make separate argument this can be accommodated. Also, oral argument should not be a mere repetition of written filings. With these understandings, counsel are directed to prepare for the oral argument as follows:
On standing, Petitioners’ counsel should plan to speak for no longer than a total of 10 minutes per Petitioner (including discussion of all affidavits at issue), with this time apportioned as they see fit; Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a total of no more than 10 minutes per Petitioner. On Petitioners’ contentions, Petitioners counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention, and Applicant and Staff Counsel should plan to speak for a combined time of no more than 20 minutes per contention. Counsel and parties should expect that their argument will be interrupted as deemed necessary and appropriate by Board members, but that the time taken for such questions and responses will not be counted against their allotted time periods.
In argument on admissibility of the contentions, counsel should be prepared to focus their arguments on whether and how the contentions meet the requirements of the criteria set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), subsections (i) through (vi). See also, e.g., the case law cited in our December 12, 2007, Order (Regarding Schedule and Guidance for Proceedings), and
-3 our December 20, 2007, Order (Confirming Matters Addressed on December 18, 2007
Telephone Conference).
It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_________/RA/_________________ Ann Marshall Young, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland January 10, 20082
2Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel and representatives for participants for whom e-mail addresses were available.
January 10, 2008
Longest Walk 2008 begins February 11, 2008
January 12, 2008
Feast In Honor of Floyd Red Crow Westerman
February
Welcoming Dinner February 08, 2008
Longest Walk Kickoff Concert February 09, 2008
Longest Walk Benefit Show February 10, 2008
Alcatraz Island Sunrise Gathering & Day's Schedule February 11, 2008
Feast In Honor of Floyd Red Crow Westerman
February
Welcoming Dinner February 08, 2008
Longest Walk Kickoff Concert February 09, 2008
Longest Walk Benefit Show February 10, 2008
Alcatraz Island Sunrise Gathering & Day's Schedule February 11, 2008
Walkers leave on February 12, then arrive at Western Shoshone's Mount Tenabo on February 27 and walk through to Pueblo, Colorado during March:
Photo: 1978 Longest Walk: Jimbo Simmons, Joe Bill and Tissychy
Navajos: Vanity Fair the tipster, Sithe Global the coyote
Vanity Fair becomes Dooda (NO) Desert Rock's tipsterBy Brenda Norrell
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
LITTLEWATER, NM -- Sithe Global/Desert Rock says it doesn't have to tell Navajo people about the lease for the dirty coal power plant it plans to build on the Navajo Nation, according to Vanity Fair magazine.
Frank Maisano, speaking for Sithe Global, said only the Navajo government was supposed to know. Masiano told Vanity Fair, “They don’t have to disclose the terms of the lease. This is an agreement between Sithe Global and the Navajo Nation, and the lease is part of an ongoing process.”
OOOPS, Gotcha, says Dooda Desert Rock. Yes Sithe Global does have to disclose the terms to the people. This includes all those Navajos living around the current two power plants without running water and electricity, while almost all the power goes to non-Indians. Navajos have a public information law, which includes leases to the trickster coyotes.
Elouise Brown, president of Dooda Desert Rock, told Vanity Fair, "Your article prompted me to drive to Window Rock on January 10th and our lawyer was right! It took a little persuading, but I got a copy of the lease and its attachment. Now we can see what is in it that shouldn’t be, what’s missing, and follow up on suspicions that people made false promises to Navajo voters to get their vote on resolutions in favor of the plant.
"Thank you Vanity Fair! And no, this organization will not support Rudy Giuliani as President of the United States."
Read letter to Vanity Fair:
http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/01/navajos-tipster-vanity-fair-coyote.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)