=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #261
—November 27, 1991—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DISCOVERS SOLUTION
TO WASTE PROBLEM: BRIBERY AND DECEPTION
In freshman chemistry class you learn that, before you mix two
chemicals together, you need to plan where you’re going to put
the products of the reaction. If you’re going to create a strong
acid, for example, you’ll need a container that can withstand
attack by strong acids. In short, it is standard procedure–and
common sense–to decide before you make something where you’re
going to put it for safekeeping.
Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has been making radioactive
waste for 50 years and today the industry still has no clear idea
where to put its radioactive byproducts for safekeeping.
Nevertheless, until we take pollution prevention seriously and
stop making radioactive waste, something has to be done with it.
So in 1980 and 1982 Congress passed two laws to deal with
“low-level” wastes (the vast majority from nuclear power plants,
plus small amounts from medical uses) and “high level”
radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Low-level waste is
radioactive tools, coveralls, rags, instruments, and liquids;
high-level waste is a power plant’s uranium fuel after it has
become “poisoned” with radioactive elements like strontium and
plutonium by undergoing nuclear “fission” for months or years.
Although some low-level wastes can contain high concentrations of
exceedingly radioactive elements, and some low-level waste can be
very long-lived, in general “high level” waste is vastly more
radioactive and much longer-lived than low-level waste. Both
classes of waste are dangerous, and the government’s (and the
industry’s) plan for dealing with them both is to bury them in
the ground. Low-level waste will be buried in landfills, and
high-level waste will be buried up to 2600 feet below ground, if
the government has its way.
Now in 1991 it is clear that the programs established under both
laws are in shambles. There are no low-level waste dumps under
construction. Each proposed site is subject of intense scrutiny
and fierce opposition. The only high-level waste site being
considered is at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Two-thirds of all
citizens in Nevada and most of their political representatives
are strenuously opposing continued exploration of the Nevada site.
The nuclear industry and its supporters in federal and state
governments have now unveiled bold new plans for solving the
radioactive waste dilemma. The focus of the new initiatives is
not science or engineering but a public relations campaign to
convince citizens that radioactive waste can be transported and
buried in the ground safely. We see a trend developing. Consider
these facts:
** A leading public relations industry “insider’s” publication
called JACK O’DWYER’S NEWSLETTER on September 4, 1991, revealed
that New York state’s Low-level Radioactive Waste Siting
Commission earmarked $900,000 for a public relations blitz in
1991 “to convince New York state residents that low-level nuclear
waste facilities are not harmful.” The Commission actually issued
an RFP (request for proposals) and 22 public relations firms have
submitted written responses, detailing how they would conduct a
3-to-5-year, multi-million-dollar PR campaign to sell a low-level
waste dump to New York residents.
** The North Carolina Radioactive Waste Management Siting
Authority paid a little over $21,000 to Chem Nuclear Systems,
Inc. (CNSI)–the radioactive waste dump subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc.–to evaluate the political feasibility of siting
a low-level radwaste dump in six different counties of North
Carolina. CNSI in turn hired a PR firm called Epley Associates
who produced a 500-page “profile” of the six counties, including
detailed evaluations of local political and environmental
leaders. An employee of Duke Power (largest producer of
radioactive waste in North Carolina) allowed a draft copy of the
Epley Report to fall into the hands of a news reporter, and then
it spread like measles. Three newspaper publishers and the NC
Press Association are now suing in Wake County to get the full
Epley report released under North Carolina’s public records act,
but no date has yet been set for a hearing on the matter.
Meanwhile, we have obtained 71 pages of the 500-page DRAFT Epley
Report. It contains judgments such as, “Wake [County] may be the
most ‘do-able’ county in the state, politically…. We should be
able to put together an attractive economic package for the
southern Wake County area, which remains rural and feels left out
of the county’s prosperity…. Opposition will be strong in [the
towns of] Chatham and perhaps Lee, and they must be included in
any socioeconomic package.”
The Epley report recommended that state authorities announce in
August, 1991, that 12 or 13 sites were being evaluated and not
just the “[5] to 7 real sites” because the 12 or 13 sites “are
geographically spread around the state and therefore public
opposition is likely to be more dispersed and not clustered in
one area. It may be more difficult for environmental and citizens
groups to gain strength if their activities have to be spread
over a wider area of the state.”
From what is going on in New York and North Carolina, it is
apparent that people everywhere should be investigating the
public relations budgets of the “low-level radioactive waste
siting commission” in their locale. Wherever you live, it seems
likely that taxpayers’ money is being used for a PR campaign to
“sell” you a low-level dump.
** By far the biggest public relations campaign has been launched
by the nuclear industry to convince Nevada residents that a huge
dump for high-level spent-fuel waste at Yucca Mountain will be
safe. The plan came to light when a utility executive leaked
documents to the Safe Energy Communication Council, a
public-interest group in Washington, DC. The nameless executive
released a letter from the President of Florida Power Corporation
(Allen J. Keesler, Jr.) to members of the Edison Electric
Institute’s (EEI) Executive Committee; EEI is a nuclear industry
trade association. Mr. Keesler’s letter to EEI outlines a
three-year, $8.7 million PR campaign that is actually underway
now in Nevada. Mr. Keesler described “The Nevada Initiative” as
“an effort to change public sentiment in Nevada from that of
opposition to at least neutrality, positive at best.” Mr. Keesler
wrote, “And please note this document is ‘Confidential.’ You can
understand the sensitivity with it becoming public,” he wrote.
You bet we can.
Attached to Mr. Keesler’s memo was a 22-page “proposal” from a PR
firm to “The American Nuclear Energy Council” (another industry
trade group), seeking $8.7 million. The proposal is stamped
“confidential” and is dated September, 1991. The proposal says,
“The industry message has been focused, influential Nevadans have
been recruited to help advance the industry’s objectives and a
working political alliance has been established with the
Department of Energy, natural allies, and key decision makers.
Aggressive coalition building is under way, an in-house
scientific response team has been recruited, an industry boiler
room operation is functioning in Nevada and a dialogue has been
developed with the media. A paid advertising campaign will begin
this month.”
The proposal uses military language throughout, to describe what
the nuclear industry is planning to do to the citizens of Nevada.
“A political beachhead has been established in Nevada,” the
proposal says. And: “The ongoing advertising campaign will reduce
the number of negative-leaning Nevadans and drive them into the
undecided camp, where they will be more receptive to factual
information. By softening public opposition, the campaign will
provide ‘air cover’ for elected officials who wish to discuss
benefits.” A “scientific truth squad and an attack/response team
of scientists” have been “trained” already to convince Nevadans
that Yucca Mountain is safe, the proposal says.
The media campaign began on schedule in September and is still
running, according to Grace Bukowski, director of military
programs at Citizen Alert, a Nevada citizens’ group that just
celebrated its 16th birthday. “Our phones have been ringing off
the hook since these ads began,” Ms. Bukowski told us. “The
people who planned this advertising campaign forgot that this is
the above-ground testing state. People here learned about the
nuclear industry the hard way.” We asked, might such an
advertising campaign succeed at all? Ms. Bukowski grew pleasantly
scornful. “People are simply not going to fall for that bullshit.
They’re wasting their money. People are just not that stupid,”
she said.
We are forced to conclude that the nuclear industry is beyond
desperation in its search for a credible solution to the problem
of radioactive waste. They have given up on science. They have
abandoned the democratic process and rational decision-making.
They are now resorting to secret campaigns of bribery, persuasion
and deception to convince Americans that black is white, evil is
good, and danger is safety. Happily, the industry’s desperation
is exceeded only by its ineptitude.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: radioactive waste; pollution prevention; llw;
nuclear power; hlw; north carolina radioactive waste management
siting authority; chem nuclear systems; epley associates; nc; nc
press association; wake county; safe energy communication
council; secc; yucca mountain; nv; citizen alert; doe;