Re: leventhal on nuke security and Yucca - CNN

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/7/02 7:47:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, ncohen12@home.com writes:



> If you'd re-state your Mobile Chernobyl question, I'll do my best to answer it. --- 


Two questions (rephrased a little because I originally addressed them to UCS:  1.  Do you (or organizations you represent or belong to) use the phrase "Mobile Chernobyl" to describe spent nuclear fuel transportation?  If you do, what is the basis for doing so?  If you don't, do you repudiate it?

2.  Do you think that the regulations of 10 CFR Part 71 (especially Subpart E for cask testing) are inadequate?  inadequately implemented?


Essentially, can you give some reason or evidence, other than perception or trusting or not trusting DOE and its contractors, as to why you think transportation of spent fuel is unsafe, or in what way it is unsafe? 


No I am not aware of that. Back in 82 I was working mostly in the peace/anti nuke weapons area.I was not particularly environmentally aware. Anyway, to say that ALL the enviro groups supported the act may be a stretch. And are you saying that they are not allowed to change heir minds? -


"Back in '82" I was, believe it or not, probably the best-known critic of nuclear power in Washington State.  I helped craft parts of the 1982 Act.  And yes, the Act did have the support of all the environmental groups that I knew about or had contact with (it's a lot -- I won't bore your with a list), and was supported by environmental groups that lobby in DC.  Presumably they had reasons for supporting the Act, and it certainly empowered the states and tribes, so if they "changed their minds" there would presumably be reasons for that too.  

 

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com