Time to Stop Uranium Mining, Stop Poisoning Native Americans
Current mood: determined
Category: Blogging

Email​ the chara​cter in the last quote​:​ Tell them we need an exten​sion to revie​w the NRC Gener​ic Envir​onmen​tal Impac​t State​ment (​GEIS)​.​ Tell them to selec​t the NO ACTIO​N alter​nativ​e since​ they'​ve never​ be able to fully​ resto​re groun​dwate​r at an In Situ Leach​ (​ISL)​ urani​um minin​g facil​ity to pre-​minin​g condi​tions​ witho​ut the addit​ion of more poiso​nous chemi​cals.​ And the fact that most Nativ​e Ameri​cans don'​t have acces​s to a compu​ter where​ they could​ downl​oad and comme​nt on the GEIS.​ By allow​ing the GEIS to conti​nue witho​ut Nativ​e Ameri​cans comme​nting​ to their​ actio​n const​itute​s a gross​ viola​tion of our civil​ right​s as well as conti​nuing​ the blata​nt envir​onmen​t racis​m and genoc​idal acts execu​ted by the corpo​rate minin​g inter​ests.​

No actio​n.​ Not const​ruct nor opera​te poten​tial ISL urani​um milli​ng facil​ities​.​ Under​ this alter​nativ​e,​ the NRC would​ not appro​ve futur​e licen​se appli​catio​ns.​ This alter​nativ​e serve​s as a basel​ine for compa​rison​ of the poten​tial envir​onmen​tal impac​ts.​

Membe​rs of the publi​c are invit​ed and encou​raged​ to submi​t comme​nts on the Draft​ GEIS to the Chief​,​ Rulem​aking​,​ Direc​tives​,​ and Editi​ng Branc​h,​ Mails​top:​ T6-​D59,​ U.S. Nucle​ar Regul​atory​ Commi​ssion​,​ Washi​ngton​,​ D.C. 20555​-​0001.​ The NRC encou​rages​ comme​nts submi​tted elect​ronic​ally to be sent to NRCRE​P.​Resou​rce@​nrc.​gov.​ Pleas​e inclu​de "Uran​ium Recov​ery GEIS"​ in the subje​ct line when submi​tting​ writt​en comme​nts.​

The NRC expec​ts to issue​ the final​ GEIS by June 2009.​ The Final​ GEIS will addre​ss,​ as appro​priat​e,​ the publi​c comme​nts recei​ved on the Draft​ GEIS.​
More infor​matio​n is on the Nucle​ar Regul​atory​ Commi​ssion​'​s websi​te
Generic Environmental Impact Statement

To downl​oad the entir​e NUREG​-​1910
Gener​ic Envir​onmen​tal Impac​t State​ment for In-​Situ Leach​ Urani​um Milli​ng Facil​ities​ - Draft​ Repor​t for Comme​nt (​NUREG​-​1910,​ Vols.​ 1-2)
http:​/​/​www.​ nrc. gov/​readi​ng-​rm/​doc-​colle​ction​s/​nureg​s/​staff​/​sr191​0/​
then those​ with the means​,​ pleas​e print​ and copy for those​ needi​ng to know this issue​.​

To reque​st singl​e hard copy:​

A singl​e copy of each NRC draft​ repor​t for comme​nt is avail​able free,​ to the exten​t of suppl​y,​ upon writt​en reque​st as follo​ws:​

Addre​ss:​
U.S. Nucle​ar Regul​atory​ Commi​ssion​
Offic​e of Admin​istra​tion
Mail,​ Distr​ibuti​on and Messe​nger Team
Washi​ngton​,​ DC 20555​-​0001
E-​mail:​ DISTR​IBUTI​ON(​anrc.​qov
Facsi​mile:​ 301-​415-​2289

For more USEPA​ Super​fund infor​matio​n on urani​um minin​g in Navaj​o/​Hopi count​ry:​
Addre​ssing​ Urani​um Conta​minat​ion in the Navaj​o Natio​n
http:​/​/​www.​ epa. gov/​regio​n09/​waste​/​sfund​/​navaj​o-​natio​n/​

6:08 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Again, rising from the radioactive ashes
Current mood: annoyed
Category: Blogging

What the public wants is the image of passion, not passion itself. -- Roland Barthes

After many months of self-reflection, thinking of my future course of action, I think we do have a very serious problem when considering how the climate change philosophy has been grossly subverted by the energy giants. In no way, shape or form, should nuclear energy be considered as the means to save drowning polar bears while its toxic legacy as in abandoned uranium mines remains relatively hidden from the public.

Although there is currently grassroots efforts to counter in situ leach uranium mining, these admirable efforts do not really prevent uranium mining; they only increase regulation while not increasing the monitoring of such mining actions. Instead by relying on the self-reporting of the uranium mining companies, they have forgotten that most, if not all, state and federal governmental authorities do not have in place a code of ethics, without which it will be so difficult to discover what is in those envelopes stuffed under dinner plates at some fancy restaurant.

1:06 PM - 2 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Santa Fe Public Utilities Committee Addresses LANL Contaminants
Current mood: angry

Santa Fe Public Utilities Committee Addresses LANL Contaminants

The Santa Fe Public Utilities Committee heard presentations from CCNS, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) this week about the transport of LANL contaminants through surface water and ground water to Santa Fe¹s drinking water supplies.

Joni Arends, of CCNS, compared the current situation to when CCNS investigated and eventually brought suit against the Department of Energy (DOE) for violations of the Clean Air Act at LANL. She said LANL samples water with methods that hide contamination and are similar to the problems CCNS found with LANL¹s air sampling methods. For example, LANL is not sampling at the correct locations, the samples are collected with improper methods and some of the laboratory analyses do not detect contaminants at low enough levels. There is also confusion in the way the data is reported to the public. Arends praised the Buckman Direct Diversion Board for its recent letter to DOE and LANL requesting that they do more to protect surface water, groundwater and regional drinking water supplies from LANL contaminants.

Further, the City announced that as a result of the collective work by NGOs, local governments and the regulatory agencies, several of the Buckman wells are now being sampled every three months, rather than every six months. More frequent sampling will allow the City to monitor the transport of LANL contaminants.

One outstanding issue is whether NMED will continue to accept data from wells that have not been purged of water prior to sampling. A sufficient amount of water must be purged in order to ensure collection of reliable groundwater samples. The Cleanup Order between NMED and DOE requires that LANL purge the wells prior to sampling.

CCNS and registered geologist, Robert H. Gilkeson, prepared materials for the Committee that focused on the problems with the regional aquifer wells LANL drilled to serve as sentry wells for the Buckman well field and proposed diversion project. The mistakes with the sentry wells prevent the wells from detecting contamination moving through groundwater.

A LANL representative stated that LANL has determined that only 20 of the 80 sampling points in the wells have not been impacted by the residual drilling additives. The residuals have well-known properties to hide the LANL contaminants.

NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau Chief James Bearzi recognized a long history of mistakes in the groundwater protection practices at LANL. Bearzi stated that making changes at LANL to address the mistakes ³won¹t happen overnight,² but that LANL has turned a corner.

Santa Fe City Councilor, and member of the Public Utilities Committee, Patti Bushee was persistent in her questioning of Bearzi about who should be held accountable for the water contamination problems. She questioned NMED¹s performance record over the last 20 years to address LANL water issues. Bearzi replied that until 2000, the State of New Mexico ³was asleep at the wheel.² He said that now that the Cleanup Order is in place, which allows for harsh penalties, that NMED has fined LANL $1.4 million in the last 15 months.

The Committee requested that updated presentations be made in March.

This has been the CCNS News Update. For more information about this or other nuclear safety issues, please visit our website at nuclearactive.org.

--
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
107 Cienega Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Tel (505) 986-1973
Fax (505) 986-0997
www.nuclearactive.org

4:59 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

NRC Committee Highly Critical of Administration GNEP Nuclear Energy Plan
Current mood: excited
Category: Blogging

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/109.html

NRC Committee Highly Critical of Administration GNEP Nuclear Energy Plan

The conclusion drawn by a National Research Council committee regarding a major Bush Administration nuclear energy initiative is unambiguous. Said the committee: "All committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program."

Ninety minutes before the document's release on October 29, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon took issue with most of the report's GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) findings, saying there was a "fundamental misconception" regarding the Administration's intentions. Contrary to what the report stated, remarked Spurgeon, the Secretary of Energy will not decide in June 2008 about what spent fuel recycling process to employ, or the site, size and construction timing of a reprocessing plant.

Robert Fri of Resources for the Future chaired the Committee on Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program. Its seventeen members were drawn from the academic, private, and federal sectors. The Office of Management and Budget requested the study. The report, "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program," can be accessed at www.nap.edu

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was but one of DOE's nuclear R&D programs reviewed in the 207 page report. The report has other findings and recommendations on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and the Idaho National Laboratory. Its GNEP findings and recommendations are likely to attract the most attention on Capitol Hill, where members of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees will be deciding in coming months how much money GNEP should receive this fiscal year. The Bush Administration requested $395 million for GNEP, which is 45 percent of the request for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. Further information on GNEP can be found on DOE's website at http://www.gnep.energy.gov/default.html

The NRC report discusses GNEP in both the summary and a 20-page chapter. The chapter explains that DOE has been conducting reprocessing R&D since 2002 under its Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. In DOE's FY 2007 request, this program was made an activity under the department's GNEP initiative. The committee found the new policy created change and uncertainty, and noted that "one effect of this uncertainty is to make more difficult the acquisition of clear and complete program documentation." The committee drew on interviews with a wide variety of government and private industry individuals, including Under Secretary Spurgeon.

A major criticism that Spurgeon made of the report's GNEP analysis was that the committee seemed to focus only on one reprocessing technology, UREX+1a. This is what the committee wrote: "The DOE has proposed that the CFTC [centralized fuel treatment center] be able to handle 2,000 to 3,000 metric tons (MT) per year of spent fuel. . . . . At the time of the writing of this report, the latest information the committee had was that the baseline process was UREX+1a, although some other comparable separation technology, most notably pyroprocessing, may be adopted at a later stage." Later in this section, the committee wrote regarding next June's decision, "A DOE Secretarial decision on the future of GNEP - whether to conduct more R&D or proceed to commercial scale - is scheduled for June 2008."

The NRC committee spotlighted a number of problems it has with GNEP. Regarding GNEP's impact on reducing the amount of nuclear waste to be placed in a repository, the report states: "the committee concludes that the need for an accelerated program to deploy commercial-scale reprocessing and fast reactors to reduce the nuclear waste repository burden has not been established."

The committee also has concerns about GNEP technology, writing, "In the committee's view, the GNEP concept rests on a set of technologies that present very challenging development and engineering issues. Moreover, it is not clear that all of the relevant options had been evaluated before arriving at the program's preferred choices." The report comments that "DOE is currently examining two methods for recycling nuclear fuel that do not isolate plutonium: UREX (in effect, a collection of methods) and pyroprocessing." The committee concludes: "Significant technical problems remain to be solved before either process can be considered to have been successfully demonstrated." Regarding other processes, the report states, "The committee has seen no evidence that GNEP has explored those options."

The report also describes concerns regarding GNEP program design and scheduling. It states: "The committee thus concludes that the case presented by the promoters of GNEP for an accelerated schedule for commercial construction is unwise. In general, the committee believes that the schedule should be guided by technical progress in the R&D program. If and when technical progress justifies construction of a major facility, it is the very strong view of this committee than an engineering-scale facility is by far the safest, most effective, and least risky course."

It is important to note that the committee is not opposed to R&D on reprocessing: "In short, all committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program. Nonetheless, it believes that a research program similar to the original AFCI [Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative] is worth pursuing for three reasons: to extend uranium resources (when and if this need arises), to greatly reduce the long-lived, high-level actinides in nuclear wastes, and to improve the waste forms for disposal of high-level nuclear waste."

The chapter concludes: "DOE should defer the Secretarial decision, now scheduled for [June] 2008, which the committee believes is not credible. Moreover, if it makes this decision in the future, DOE should target construction of new technologies at most at an engineering scale. DOE should commission an independent peer review of the state of the knowledge as a prerequisite to any Secretarial decision on future research programs. In summary, the committee concludes that without first demonstrating relevant technologies at an engineering scale, there are unacceptably high financial and technical risks to commercial-scale construction of a separations facility and a fast burner reactor."

In his remarks regarding the report, Spurgeon disagreed with the presumption that DOE is moving in haste. He stated DOE understands the complexity of spent fuel reprocessing and use, adding that it will take decades to develop a fast burner reactor. What is needed, he contended, was a resolution on how to handle spent fuel. Spurgeon acknowledged that international support for GNEP was stronger than that in the United States, and admitted that a better job could be done of building support for the partnership. He remarked that there was "more than one way to close the fuel cycle." He also said DOE agreed that end-to-end testing of GNEP's various components was needed before moving to a commercial scale facility. Next June's Secretarial decision would center on how to best carry the program forward, and not the selection of a process, Spurgeon said.

Many of the points made by the NRC committee members were also made by the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in the reports they issued this summer (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/095.html.) The House report stated: "The Committee supports continued research on advanced fuel cycles, including the development of technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel. However, the Committee does not support the Department's rushed, poorly-defined, expansive, and expensive Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal. There is no compelling urgency to reach a decision point in the summer of 2008, nor is there urgency to begin the development of commercial-scale recycling facilities. Further research is required before the U.S. should commit the magnitude of funding proposed under the GNEP initiative." The Senate report had similar language: "The Committee notes that the Department seems to have decided on a recycling pathway that consists of the UREX+ separations technology and sodium cooled advanced burner reactors. Many feel the decision to down-select to these technologies was made too soon. The Committee directs the Department to support a broader technology research and development program that better defines the technical requirements, validates the proliferation resistance and demonstrates the commercial feasibility of various recycling technologies."

Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
301-209-3095

1:55 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

South Dakota ISL uranium mining
Current mood: aggravated
Category: Blogging

Einstein once said that nuclear reactors are terrible ways to boil water; I say that poisoning water to mine uranium and promote nuclear energy is even more dangerous since we cannot easily see radioactive poisoning and heavy metal groundwater contamination especially if it is buried deep underground.

My purpose in this blog post is continue my drive to inform the rest of this country about the dangerous situation developing in South Dakota over in situ leach uranium mining. Continuing in this, there are several factors I consider very important background information before delving into this situation with me: (1) the groundwater hydrology in South Dakota hasn't been fully mapped as it has in Colorado where the direction of groundwater flow has been illustrated beautifully; (2) as a volunteer researcher for the Defenders of the Black Hills I attended the first meetings with the State of South Dakota over uranium mining permitting regulations and PowerTech Uranium's application to conduct exploratory drilling in Fall River county where I can only felt that we experienced racism, outright bigotry and environmental injustice from state officials; and (3) our verbal comments as well as those submitted in writing were largely passed over in favor of PowerTech Uranium and its cohorts attending with them, Energy Metals (currently mining in Wyoming), and Crow Butte Resources (currently mining in Nebraska).

Current concerns and fears I share about in situ leach uranium mining are below blockquoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leachingControversies

 

The concerns of environmental groups and landholders centre around;

 

   
• Acidification of groundwaters

   
• Mobilisation of potentially hazardous heavy metals and, in the case of uranium, radioactive heavy metals.^[6]

   
• Disturbance of the groundwater table, mixing of groundwater aquifers and general disturbance of the land atop the ore body

   
• Destruction of habitat for stygofauna and other rock-inhabiting organisms, bacteria, et cetera.

   
• Potential spills of acidic and metal-bearing or salt-bearing leachates upon the surface

 

As illustrated below, in situ leach uranium mining can experience several dangerous failures that are impossible or very difficult to remediate when these failures occur:

Although in-situ leach uranium mining is supposedly safe, I contend that it isn't, After reading published reports from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and existing controversial conditions reportedly resulting from in-situ leach uranium mining in Texas, Wyoming, and New Mexico as well as Australia and Russia, I should think that modern science could find a different means to generate electricity, other than using coal, uranium, gas, oil or hydropower.

For starters, the restoration process, technically named a groundwater sweep, at an in situ leach uranium mine uses reverse osmosis (RO) where high pressured water called the pore volume (the actual displacement yield of the well field) is injected back through the contaminated ore zone and extracted through another well head pump, then passed through a filter that usually clogs with the contaminated liquid during the first pass. This contaminated material is then removed from the filter and clean water is then repeatedly injected into the ore body until a certain groundwater standard has been achieved, usually pre-mining water quality standards.

The first critical subject to note is as quoted in NUREG/CR-6870:

 

The concentrate liquid waste from the RO units is either fed to evaporation ponds, injected into deep disposal wells, or dried for disposal at a licensed facility.

The waste is highly radioactive and emit high concentrations of radon to the atmosphere while also having the extreme possibility of escaping into the environment during catastrophic storms or acts of terrorism or through negligence. Disposing of this contaminant into deep disposal wells is just as dangerous since we don't really understand what happens down there yet but "out of sight, out of mind" seems to be valid science acceptable to the NRC.

Another important aspect that the NUREG states is that often the groundwater sweep doesn't remove all of the lixiviant, requiring another process of injecting more poisons (hydrogen sulfide, sodium hydrosulfide, or alkaline solutions) into the earth to stabilize the lixiviant to keep it from continuing to react with the ore body, thereby increasing the levels of uranium in the groundwater. But injecting these other poisons into the groundwater is acceptable to the NRC if it is within the pre-mining groundwater quality standards as measured by pH ratios yet this doesn't mean that it is any better because now its chemical composition is radically different.

NOW as I am finished with this, knowing that you are fully aware of my small perspective on the bigger picture as this form of toxic uranium mining, you must agree that uranium mining in all forms is dangerous to us, to all of us! Call your local congress representative, have them start investigating why uranium mining is allowed to continue in this country although the facts remain that it is very dangerous and toxic. Support all of the groups I have listed on my front page!

1:54 AM - 1 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

END OUTDATED TAX BREAKS FOR MINING ON PUBLIC LAND
Current mood: angry
Category: Blogging

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/11/20071101mining.html
FEINGOLD, CANTWELL BILL WOULD END OUTDATED TAX BREAKS FOR MINING ON PUBLIC LAND
Bill would save taxpayer dollars, protect public lands, and clean up abandoned mine sites

November 1, 2007

Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced legislation today to end an antiquated tax break for companies that mine for hardrock minerals on public land. The Elimination of Double Subsidies for Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 2007 will end the "percentage depletion allowance," a concept created nearly a century ago to spur exploration and extraction of natural resources. As a result of this concept, mining companies are given what is tantamount to a double subsidy on public lands: first, they are allowed to mine on federal lands for free and then, under the percentage depletion allowance, they are allowed to take tax deductions beyond the value of investments they have made. Based on the most recent estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill would save taxpayers an estimated $500 million over five years. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is an original co-sponsor to The Elimination of Double Subsidies for Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 2007.

"Congress must put an immediate end to the current double subsidy for companies that mine on public lands," Feingold said. "Mining companies should not be allowed to take deductions for mineral deposits they received for free. The tax code needs to be updated to eliminate this giveaway to the mining industry, protect our environment, and save millions in taxpayer dollars."

"Right now, mining companies are using America's public lands for free and their bottom lines are benefiting from the rich mineral deposits they find on those lands. Yet, these companies still believe they are entitled to a tax break as well," said Cantwell, a member of both the Senate Finance and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. "This unnecessary tax subsidy is an open-ended drain on our federal treasury that costs American taxpayers millions. Our budget is in the red. We must do more to restore fairness to the tax code. Getting rid of this century-old tax break that punishes taxpayers is a good place to start."

In addition to repealing the tax break for minerals mined on public lands, the bill would also create a new fund called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-forth of the revenues raised by the bill, or approximately $125 million dollars, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury. The money would then be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands.

11:19 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

U.S.: Why is the green movement so lily white?
Current mood: contemplative
Category: Blogging

U.S.: Why is the green movement so lily white?

Eco-Apartheid
Why is the green movement so lily white?
By Van Jones

In 2005, Americans sat before our television sets, horrified by images of an American city underwater. In 2006, we sat in the nation's movie houses, watching Al Gore make the case for urgent action. In 2007, Americans are finally rising from our seats and demanding action to reverse global warming.

Students are planning marches and protests to push Congress to curb emissions. Consumers and investors are flocking to carbon-cutting solutions like hybrid cars, bio-diesel and solar power. Reporters and editors are moving their environmental stories from the back of the paper to Page 1A, above the fold. Corporations are stampeding each other to showcase their love of clear skies and lush forests. And both the blue Democrats and the red Republicans are suddenly waving green banners.

The climate crisis is galloping from the margins of geek science to the epicenter of our politics, culture and economics. As the new environmentalists advance, only two questions remain: whom will they take with them? And whom will they leave behind?

We know that climate activists will convince Congress to adopt market-based solutions (like "cap and trade"). This approach may help big businesses do the right thing. But will those same activists use their growing clout to push Congress to better aid survivors of Hurricane Katrina? Black and impoverished victims of our biggest eco-disaster still lack housing and the means to rebuild. Will they find any champions in the rising environmental lobby?

We know that the climate activists will fight for subsidies and supports for the booming clean energy and energy conservation markets. But will they insist that these new industries be accessible beyond the eco-elite — creating jobs and wealth-building opportunities for low-income people and people of color? In other words, will the new environmental leaders fight for eco-equity in this "green economy" they are birthing? Or will they try to take the easy way out — in effect, settling for an eco-apartheid?

The sad racial history of environmental activism tends to discourage high hopes among racial justice activists. And yet this new wave has the potential to be infinitely more expansive and inclusive than previous eco-upsurges.

Environmentalism's 1st Wave: Conservation

But first, the bad news: no previous wave of US environmentalism ever broke with the racism or elitism of its day. In fact, earlier environmental movements often either ignored racial inequality or exacerbated it.

For example, consider the first wave of environmentalism: the "conservation" wave.

The true original conservationists were not John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt or David Brower. They were the Native Americans. The original Americans were geniuses at living in harmonic balance with their sister and brother species. Before the Europeans arrived, the entire continent was effectively a gigantic nature preserve. A squirrel could climb a tree at the Atlantic Ocean and move branch-to-branch-to-branch until she reached the Mississippi River. So many birds flew south for the winter that their beating wings were like thunder, and their numbers blotted out the sun.

Native Americans achieved this feat of conservation on a continent that was fully populated by humans. In fact, the leading indigenous civilizations achieved world-historic heights of political statesmanship by founding the Iroquois Federation, a model for the US founders.

Unfortunately, those same founders rejected the Indians' example of environmental stewardship. Colonizers wiped out whole species to make pelts, felled forests and destroyed watersheds. Settlers almost exterminated the buffalo just for shooting sport.

The destruction of nature was so relentless, heedless and massive that some Europeans balked. They created the famed "conservation movement," a slogan for which could well have been: "Okay, but let's not pave EVERY-thing!"

Fortunately, the conservationists' enjoyed some success; their worthy efforts continue to this day. But the first and best practitioners of "environmental conservation" were not white people. They were red people. And the mostly-white conservation movement still owes an incalculable debt to the physical and philosophical legacy of indigenous peoples. But it is a debt that conservation leaders apparently have no intention of ever repaying.

Case in point: today's large conservation groups together have countless members, hundreds of millions of dollars and scores of professional lobbyists. But when Native Americans fight poverty, hostile federal bureaucracies and the impact of broken treaties, these massive groups are almost always missing in action. In that regard, Indian-killing Teddy Roosevelt set the enduring pattern for most conservationists' racial politics: "Let's preserve the land we stole."

Environmentalism's 2nd Wave: Regulation

In the 1960s, the second wave of environmentalism got under way. Sparked by Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, this wave could be called the "regulation" wave. It challenged the worst excesses of industrial-age pollution and toxics. Among other important successes, this wave produced the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the first Earth Day in 1970.

But this wave, too, was affluent and lily white. As a result, it developed huge blind spots to toxic pollution concentrating in communities of poor and brown-skinned people. In fact, some people of color began to wonder if white polluters and white environmentalists were unconsciously collaborating. They were effectively steering the worst polluters and foulest dumps into Black, Latino, Asian and poor neighborhoods.

Finally, people of color people began speaking out. And in the 1980s, a new movement was born to combat what its leaders called "environmental racism." Those leaders said: "Regulate pollution, yes — but do it with equity. Do it fairly. Don't make black, brown and poor children bear a disproportionate burden of asthma and cancer."

Two decades later, that so-called "environmental justice" movement continues to defend the poor and vulnerable. But it functions separately from so-called "mainstream" (white) environmentalism. That movement has never fully embraced the cause of environmentalists of color. In other words, since the 1980s, we have had an environmental movement that is segregated by race.

Given this history of racial apathy, exclusion and even hostility, is there any reason to expect much different from the latest upsurge of eco-activism?

The Third Time's the Charm: Investment

Well, in fact: there is. The reason for hope has to do with the very nature of the present wave. Simply put, this wave is qualitatively different from the previous ones.

The first wave was about preserving the natural bounty of the past. The second wave was about regulating the problems of the industrial present. But the new wave is different. It is about investing in solutions for the future: solar power, hybrid technology, bio-fuels, wind turbines, tidal power, fuel cells, energy conservation methods and more.

The green wave's new products, services and technologies could also mean something important to struggling communities: the possibility of new green-collar jobs, a chance to improve community health and opportunities to build wealth in the green economy. If the mostly-white global warming activists join forces with people of color, the United States can avoid both eco-apocalypse and eco-apartheid — and achieve eco-equity.

Discussions of race, class and the environment today can go beyond how to atone for past hurts or distribute present harms. Today we can ask: how do we equitably carve up the benefits of a bright future?

And that kind of question gives a powerful incentive for people of color, labor leaders and low-income folks to come back to the environmental table. At the same time, for all their present momentum, the newly ascendant greens cannot meet their short-term objectives or their long-term goals — without the support of a much broader coalition.

Green Rush = Green-Collar Jobs?

From the perspective of people of color, helping to build a bigger green tent would be worth the effort. Green is rapidly becoming the new gold. The LOHAS (lifestyles of health and sustainability) sector is growing like crazy: it was a $229 billion piece of the US economy in 2006. And it is growing on a vertical.

But unfortunately, the LOHAS sector is probably the most racially segregated part of the US economy — in terms of its customers, owners and employees. Changing that could create better health, more jobs and increased wealth for communities that need all three.

For example, an urban youth trained to install solar panels can go on to become an electrical engineer. Imagine a young adult trained to keep buildings from leaking energy by putting in double-paned glass — on track to becoming a glazer. Those trained to work with eco-chic bamboo or to fix hybrid engines will find good work.

We need Green Technology Training Centers in every public high school, vocational school and community college. And America needs an Energy Corps, like Americorps and the Peace Corps, to train and deploy millions of youth in the vital work of rewiring a nation.

Beyond that, people of color must also have the chance to become inventors, investors, owners, entrepreneurs and employers in the new greener world. They should also use their political power to influence the scope, scale and shape of the green economy.

It makes sense for people of color to work for a green growth agenda, as long as green partisans embrace broad opportunity and shared prosperity as key values.

Eco-Equity Is Smart Politics

For global warming activists, embracing eco-equity would be a politically brilliant move. In the short term, a more inclusive approach will prevent polluters from isolating and derailing the new movement. In the long run, it is the only strategy that will save the Earth.

In the near term, opponents of change will actively recruit everyone whom this new movement ignores, offends or excludes. California provides a cautionary tale; voters there rejected a 2006 ballot measure to fund clean energy research. A small excise tax on the state's oil extraction would have produced a huge fund, propelling California into the global lead in renewable energy. But the same message that wooed Silicon Valley and Hollywood elites flopped among regular voters.

Clean energy proponents ran abstract ads about "energy independence" and the bright eco-future. But big oil spoke directly to pocket-book issues, running ads that warned (falsely) that the tax would send gas prices through the roof. On that basis, an NAACP leader and others joined the opposition. And the measure's original sky-high support plummeted.

To avoid getting out-maneuvered politically, green economy proponents must actively pursue alliances with people of color. And they must include leaders, organizations and messages that will resonate with the working class.

The Hidden Danger of Eco-Apartheid

But the real danger lies in the long term. The United States is the world's biggest polluter. To avoid eco-apocalypse, Congress will have to do more than pass a "cap and trade" bill. And Americans will have to do more than stick in better light bulbs.

To pull off this ecological U-turn, we will have to fundamentally restructure the US economy. We will need to "green" whole cities. We will have to build thousands of wind farms, install tens of millions of solar panels and retrofit millions of buildings. We will have to retire our car, truck and bus fleets, which are based on combustible engines and oil, replacing them with plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by a clean-energy grid.

Reversing global warming will require a WWII level of mobilization. It is the work of tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands. Such a shift will require massive support at the social, cultural and political levels. And in an increasingly non-white nation, that means enlisting the passionate involvement of millions of so-called "minorities" — as consumers, inventors, entrepreneurs, investors, buzz marketers, voters and workers.

All For Green & Green For All

It is obvious that eco-chic, embraced by the eco-elite, won't save the planet. Climate change activists may be tempted to try to sidestep the issues of racial inclusion, in the name of expedience — but the truth is that eco-apartheid is just a speed-bump on the way to eco-apocalypse. Any successful, long-term strategy will require a full and passionate embrace of the principle of eco-equity.

Beyond that, there is the moral imperative. The predicted ecological disasters will hit poor people and people of color — first and worst. Our society has an obligation to insure equal protection from the peril — and equal access to the promise — of our new, ecological age.

So now is the time for the green movement to reach out. By definition, a politics of investment is a politics of hope, optimism and opportunity. The bright promise of the green economy could soon include, inspire and energize people of all races and classes. And nowhere is the need for a politics of hope more profound than it is among America's urban and rural poor.

More importantly, climate activists can open the door to a grand historic alliance — a political force with the power to bend history in a new direction. Let the climate activists say: "We want to build a green economy, strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We want to create green pathways out of poverty and into great careers for America's children. We want this 'green wave' to lift all boats. This country can save the polar bears and black kids, too."

Let them say: "In the wake of Katrina, we reject the idea of 'free market' evacuation plans. Families should not be left behind to drown because they lack a functioning car or a credit card. Katrina's survivors still need our help. And we need a plan to rescue everybody next time. In an age of floods, we reject the ideology that says must let our neighbors 'sink or swim.'"

Let them say: "We want those communities that were locked out of the last century's pollution-based economy to be locked into the new, clean and green economy. We don't have any throw-away species or resources. And we don't have any throw-away children or neighborhoods either. All of creation is precious. And we are all in this together."

A Green Growth Alliance

Those words would make environmental history.

More importantly, they could begin a complete realignment of American politics. The idea of "social uplift environmentalism" could serve as the cornerstone for an unprecedented "Green Growth Alliance." Imagine a coalition that unites the best of labor, business, racial justice activists, environmentalists, intellectuals, students and more. That combination would rival the last century's New Deal and New Right coalitions.

To give the Earth and her peoples a fighting chance, we need a broad, eco-populist alliance — one that includes every class under the sun and every color in the rainbow. By embracing eco-equity as their ultimate goal, the climate crisis activists can play a key role in birthing such a force.

Van Jones is the president of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in Oakland, California (ellabakercenter.org) and a National Apollo Alliance steering committee member.

9:55 AM - 0 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

UCS unveils interactive nuclear safety map
Current mood: optimistic
Category: Blogging

Union of Concerned Scientists

NUCLEAR SAFETY
Nuclear Power Information Tracker

UCS unveils interactive nuclear safety map
The Union of Concerned Scientists has been monitoring the safety of U.S. nuclear power reactors for more than 30 years. Now, with the launch of our Nuclear Power Information Tracker, we are enhancing public awareness about the safety of every reactor in the country. This new online feature allows users to search by location, reactor type, operational status, and safety concerns, and provides in-depth information on past and current problems as well as statements UCS has made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress.

Nuclear Power Information Tracker

11:10 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Draft SEIS for Yucca Mt Nuke Mess-Comment open 2008
Current mood: infuriated
Category: Blogging

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/
Seems to me that they have already finalized the Environmental Impact Statement of the Yucca Mt. Nuke Waste Cave. in 2002, long before I had access to the Net or I'd have shredded that piece of fantasy long ago.

Let's show the Dept of Energy that after drinking a few Red Bulls, we are invincible, ripping to pieces their illogical thinking with a frying pan. Time to break out the brain slugs for those idjitz.

Where in the H is Shundahai????


http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2007/October/Day-12/
=======================================================================



[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Notices]             
[Page 58071-58074]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-41]                       

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV and Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada--Nevada Rail Transportation
Corridor and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment
for the Construction and Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a
Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) announces the
availability of two draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents related to its Yucca Mountain Project: Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D) (Draft
Repository SEIS), and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada--Nevada Rail Transportation Corridor (Draft Nevada Rail Corridor
SEIS) (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2D) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
a Rail Alignment for the Construction and Operation of a Railroad in
Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada
(DOE/EIS-0369D) (Draft Rail Alignment EIS). The Department has prepared
these documents consistent with NEPA, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement the procedural provisions of
NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE procedures implementing NEPA (10
CFR part 1021).
    Nye County, Nevada, the location of the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository, participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the Draft Repository SEIS. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and the Surface Transportation Board participated as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the Draft Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment EIS.

[[Page 58072]]

    DOE invites interested parties to comment on the two documents
during a 90-day public comment period. During the public comment
period, DOE will hold eight public hearings at six locations in Nevada,
one location in California, and one location in Washington, DC, the
locations and times of which are described below.

DATES: The Department invites comments on the Draft Repository SEIS,
and the Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment EIS
during the 90-day public comment period, which ends January 10, 2008.
Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent
practicable. Public hearings are described below in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Requests for additional information on the Draft Repository
SEIS, or the Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment
EIS should be directed to either: Dr. Jane Summerson or Mr. Lee Bishop,
EIS Office, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134, or by
calling 1-800-967-3477 or faxing a request to 1-800-967-0739.
    Written comments on the Draft Repository SEIS, and/or the Draft
Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment EIS may be submitted
to the EIS Office at the above address, by facsimile to 1-800-967-0739,
or via the Internet at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information regarding the
DOE NEPA process contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone 202-586-4600,
or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 111(a)(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10131, states that the Federal Government has
the:

    * * * responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of
high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be
disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the
environment.

    The NWPA directs the Secretary of Energy, if the Secretary decides
to recommend approval of the Yucca Mountain site for development of a
repository, to submit a final environmental impact statement with any
recommendation to the President. The Department prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250F) (Yucca Mountain
Final EIS) to fulfill that requirement.
    On February 14, 2002, the Secretary transmitted his recommendation
(including the Yucca Mountain Final EIS) to the President for approval
of the Yucca Mountain site for development of the Nation's first
permanent geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste. The President considered the site
qualified for application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) for construction authorization and recommended the site to the
U.S. Congress. Subsequently, on July 23, 2002, the President signed
into law (Pub. L. 107-200) a joint resolution of the U.S. House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate designating the Yucca Mountain site
for development as a geologic repository for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Department is
preparing an application for submittal to the NRC seeking authorization
to construct the repository, as required by the NWPA (Section 114(b)).
    In the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, DOE considered the potential
environmental impacts of a repository design for surface and subsurface
facilities; a range of canister packaging scenarios and repository
thermal operating modes; and plans for the construction, operation,
monitoring, and eventual closure of the repository. The Yucca Mountain
Final EIS also described and evaluated the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from commercial and DOE
sites to the repository by two principal modes--mostly truck and mostly
rail. DOE recognized at that time that these repository design concepts
and operational plans would continue to develop during the design and
engineering process.
    Since completion of the Yucca Mountain Final EIS in 2002, DOE has
continued to develop the repository design and associated construction
and operational plans. For example, as now proposed, the newly designed
surface and subsurface facilities would allow DOE to operate the
repository following a primarily canistered approach in which most
commercial spent nuclear fuel would be packaged at the reactor sites in
transportation, aging, and disposal (TAD) canisters. Any commercial
spent nuclear fuel arriving at the repository in packages other than
TAD canisters would be repackaged by DOE into TAD canisters in these
surface facilities at the repository. DOE would construct these
facilities over a period of several years (referred to as phased
construction) to accommodate the increase in spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste receipt rates as repository operational
capability reaches its design capacity.
    On October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60490), the Department issued a Notice
of Intent to prepare a supplement to the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, to
inform the public of the proposed scope of the Repository SEIS, to
solicit public input regarding the document's scope, and to announce
the schedule of scoping meetings that would be held. During the public
scoping period, which closed on December 12, 2006, DOE held four public
scoping meetings.
    The Draft Repository SEIS evaluates a Proposed Action and a No
Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, DOE would construct,
operate, monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain for the disposal of up to 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal
(MTHM) of commercial and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. Under the Proposed Action, most spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste would be shipped from 72 commercial
and 4 DOE sites to the repository in NRC-certified transportation casks
placed on trains dedicated only to these shipments. Some shipments
would arrive at the repository by truck.
    Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would terminate activities at
Yucca Mountain and undertake site reclamation to mitigate any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
    Commercial nuclear power utilities and DOE would continue to manage
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at sites throughout
the United States.
    Since issuance of the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, DOE issued a Record
of Decision on April 8, 2004 (69 FR 18557) announcing its selection,
both nationally and in the State of Nevada, of the mostly rail scenario
analyzed in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS as the mode of transportation
for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to
the repository. Implementation of the mostly rail scenario ultimately
will require construction of a rail line to connect the repository site
at Yucca Mountain to an existing rail line in the State of Nevada. To
that end, in the same Record of Decision, the Department also selected
the Caliente rail corridor to study possible alignments for this
proposed rail line within Nevada.

[[Page 58073]]

    Also on April 8, 2004 (69 FR 18565), DOE published a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS under NEPA for the alignment, construction,
and operation of a rail line for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and other materials related to the
construction and operation of a repository from a site near Caliente,
Nevada, to a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Rail
Alignment EIS; DOE/EIS-0369). The subsequent public scoping period
closed on June 1, 2004, during which time the Department held five
public scoping meetings.
    During this public scoping period, DOE received comments suggesting
that other rail corridors should be considered, in particular, the Mina
route, which crosses the Walker River Paiute Tribe Reservation. In the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS, DOE had considered but eliminated the Mina
route from detailed study. The Department did not study the Mina route
in detail in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS because a rail line within
the Mina route could only connect to an existing rail line by crossing
the Walker River Paiute Reservation, and the Tribe had informed DOE
that it objected to the transportation of nuclear waste across its
Reservation. However, following review of the scoping comments, DOE
held discussions with the Tribe regarding the availability of the Mina
route for evaluation. In May 2006, the Tribal Council for the Walker
River Paiute Tribe informed DOE that it withdrew its objection to the
completion of an EIS for the transportation of nuclear waste across the
Walker River Paiute Reservation.
    On October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60484), after a preliminary evaluation
of the feasibility of the Mina rail corridor, DOE amended its 2004
Notice of Intent and announced the Department's intent to expand the
scope of the Rail Alignment EIS to consider the potential environmental
impacts of constructing and operating a rail line within the Mina
corridor (corridor-level analysis) and, if warranted, to consider in
detail alignments for the construction and operation of a railroad
within the Mina corridor (in addition to alignments within the Caliente
corridor). The subsequent public scoping period closed on December 12,
2006, during which time the Department held eight public scoping
meetings.
    The expanded EIS (now the Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft
Rail Alignment EIS) is comprised of two parts. The Draft Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2D) supplements the Nevada rail corridor
analysis in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS by analyzing the potential
environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a
railroad to connect the Yucca Mountain repository to an existing rail
line near Wabuska, Nevada (the Mina corridor). In it, DOE analyzes the
Mina corridor at a level of detail commensurate with that of the rail
corridor analysis in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. DOE also analyzes a
No Action Alternative under which DOE would not construct and operate a
railroad within the Mina corridor. The Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS
also updates, as appropriate, the rail corridor analysis of the Yucca
Mountain Final EIS to identify any significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns associated with rail
corridors analyzed previously (Carlin, Valley Modified, and Jean rail
corridors).
    The Draft Rail Alignment EIS (DOE/EIS-0369D) analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with potential rail alignments within
the Caliente and Mina corridors, and analyzes constructing and
operating a railroad in Nevada to transport spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and other Yucca Mountain project materials to
a repository at Yucca Mountain. As such, it tiers from the broader
corridor analysis in both the Yucca Mountain Final EIS and the Draft
Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, consistent with CEQ regulations (see 40 CFR
1508.28). The Draft Rail Alignment EIS also analyzes a No Action
Alternative under which DOE would not determine an alignment nor
construct and operate a railroad within either the Caliente or Mina
corridors.
    On April 17, 2007, the Tribal Council for the Walker River Paiute
Tribe passed a resolution withdrawing support for the Tribe's
participation in the preparation of the Draft Rail Corridor SEIS and
Draft Rail Alignment EIS. The Tribal Council's decision was based on a
review of information gathered to date and input from tribal members.
    The Tribal Council's resolution also renewed the Tribe's past
objection to the transportation of nuclear waste through their
Reservation. Accordingly, DOE has identified the Mina Implementing
Alternative as ....nonpreferred'' in the Draft Rail Alignment EIS.
    In the Draft Rail Alignment EIS, the Department identifies the
Caliente Implementing Alternative as its preferred alternative, and
identifies its preferred rail alignment as comprising the following
segments (starting in Caliente and ending at Yucca Mountain): Caliente
Alternative Segment, Common Segment 1, Garden Valley 1, Common Segment
2, South Reveille 3, Common Segment 3, Goldfield 3, Common Segment 4,
Bonnie Claire 3, Common Segment 5, Oasis Valley 1, and Common Segment
6. The location of these segments and the basis for DOE's preferences
are provided in the document&183; The Department also indicates in the
Draft Rail Alignment EIS that it prefers the Shared Use option, that
is, DOE would make its rail line available to commercial shippers for
shipments of general freight. The Department invites comments on its
preferred implementing alternative and associated preferred rail
alignment and on its preference to enable use of the rail line by
commercial shippers.
    DOE, in the Draft Rail Alignment EIS, also evaluates three
potential locations along the Caliente Implementing Alternative for a
Staging Yard: Two along the Caliente alternative segment (referred to
as Indian Cove and Upland) and one along the Eccles alternative segment
(referred to as Eccles-North). The Staging Yard would be used to hold
railcars with spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and
to hold and sort railcars with construction and other materials. The
Department has not identified a preferred location for the Staging Yard
and invites comments that would help DOE identify a preferred location.

Other Agency Involvement

    Nye County, Nevada, the location of the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository, participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the Draft Repository SEIS. The U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and the Surface Transportation Board are cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and
Rail Alignment EIS.

Public Hearings and Invitation To Comment

    The public is invited to provide oral and written comments on the
Draft Repository SEIS, and/or Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft
Rail Alignment EIS during a 90-day public comment period. The comment
period begins with publication of this Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register and closes on January 10, 2008. Comments received
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable in the
preparation of both final NEPA documents.
    DOE will hold eight public hearings on the Draft Repository SEIS,
and Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment EIS. The
hearings will be held at the following locations and times:

[[Page 58074]]

    Hawthorne, Nevada. Hawthorne Convention Center, 932 E.
Street, November 13, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Caliente, Nevada. Caliente Youth Center, U.S. Highway 93,
November 15, 2007, from 5:30 to 8 p.m.
    Reno/Sparks, Nevada. Reno-Sparks Convention Center, 4590
S. Virginia Street, November 19, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada. Longstreet Inn & Casino,
Highway 373, November 26, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Goldfield, Nevada. Goldfield School Gymnasium, Hall &
Euclid, November 27, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Lone Pine, California. Statham Hall, 138 N. Jackson
Street, November 29, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Las Vegas, Nevada. Cashman Center, 850 Las Vegas Blvd.,
December 3, 2007, from 4 to 7 p.m.
    Washington, DC Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street,
NW., December 5, 2007, from 2 to 5 p.m.
    The public hearings will provide members of the public the
opportunity to provide oral comments on the record. Members of the
public who plan to present oral comments are asked to register in
advance by calling 1-800-225-6972; speakers also may register upon
arrival at the hearing location. The Department intends to allot five
minutes to each individual wishing to provide oral comments so as to
ensure that each registered individual has the opportunity to speak. If
time permits, more than five minutes will be allotted by the hearing
officer.
    Prior to, and coincident with, the public hearings, members of the
public are invited to engage DOE representatives in one-on-one
discussions in an open-house format. Members of the public also may
offer comments in writing or in person (orally) to a DOE representative
in the presence of a court reporter during these discussions.
    Comments on the Draft Repository SEIS, and/or Draft Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS and Draft Rail Alignment EIS may be provided in writing,
by facsimile, or via the Internet to the EIS Office (see ADDRESSES
above).

Public Reading Rooms

    Documents referenced in this Notice of Availability and related
information are available at the following locations: Esmeralda County
Yucca Mountain Oversight Office, 274 E. Crook Avenue, Goldfield, NV
89013, (775) 485-3419; Lincoln County Nuclear Waste Project Office, 100
Depot Avenue, Caliente, NV 89008, (775) 726-3511; Nye County Nuclear
Waste Repository Project Office, 1210 E. Basin Road, Suite &035;6,
Pahrump, NV 89060 (775) 727-7727; Pahrump Yucca Mountain Information
Center, 2341 Postal Drive, Pahrump, NV 89048, (775) 751-7480;
University of Nevada, Reno, The University of Nevada Libraries,
Business and Government Information Center, M/S 322, 1664 N. Virginia
Street, Reno, NV 89557, (775) 813-6496; and the U.S. Department of
Energy Headquarters Office Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 1E-190 (ME-74) FORS, Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-
3142.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2007.
Edward F. Sproat, III,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
[FR Doc. E7-20135 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

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

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

5:39 PM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

More genocidal tragedy
Current mood: angry
Category: Blogging

Yesterday I was told that my auntie died of complications with diabetes. I am pissed at the nuclear industry.

Yesterday I was told that two more of my relatives in Rock Creek (Bullhead, SD) were diagnosed with cancer; one actually having a double mastectomy. I am very pissed today at the nuclear industry.

Yesterday from one of my friends, I learned that the movement is scared of the nuclear industry and can only offer condolences and advice to us Indians when it comes to our uranium mining issue. I am getting even more torked!

After asking many groups for more than just a pat on the head, saying to us "Ooo, you poor Indians, we are sorry our nuclear industry is killing you, but we need the power and we have no alternatives because we need our billboards, our security lights to keep us from getting mugged as we cruise the red light district, or search for drugs while slumming it in the ghettos. We need nuclear energy because it is cleaner than coal." Oh man, that makes me so effing pissed that none better get in my way!

Then today as I look out over the Oakland bay, listening onerous drone of the city buzz, I know that again I have to twist some arms, poke some idiots on the chest, probably even have to go on the warpath...we are dying, is this your revenge for our honorable defeat of General Custer? If it is, then the Indian War isn't over, it was just time for both side to regroup!

Let battle begin!

8:39 AM - 10 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment