Nuclear Energy Information Service
Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years

**NEIS Challenges Chicago Tribune to Debate on Yucca Mt.**

After yet another misleading, and inaccurate editorial on the controversial Yucca Mt. high-level radioactive waste dump proposal, NEIS has extended a formal challenge to debate the Chicago Tribune editorial writer who wrote the piece (see below). The following letter has been sent to the Tribune. NEIS will proceed with this -- and possibly other -- events whether the Tribune accepts the challenge or not.

From now on, the media is being put on notice -- back up your claims, or expect a challenge in public where you can't hide misleading and inaccurate statements behind the First Amendment.

January 30, 2002

The Editorial Board
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611

RE: "Quit dawdling on nuclear waste," January 18, 2002

To the Editors:

In response to your editorial of January 18th, in which you call for Congress to get on with the selection of Yucca Mt. as the nation's high-level radioactive waste perpetual storage facility, I have been authorized by my Board to challenge the Tribune editorial board writer of this piece to an open public debate on the suitability of Yucca Mt. to serve the nation in this capacity.

The topic for the debate will be:

"Should Yucca Mt. serve as the Nation's first high-level radioactive waste perpetual storage facility?"

We have reserved the large meeting room of the Sulzer Regional Library, 4455 N. Lincoln Avenue in Chicago, Wednesday, February 20th, from 6 - 9 p.m. for this purpose. We have invited the Chicago Media Watch to provide a facilitator for the
debate. We will also extend invitations to various Chicago media outlets to record the session for rebroadcast, or for written publication.

While not wanting to make the event stilted, the format will consist of 2-15 minute sessions for each side to present his/her case; 2- 10 minute rebuttal sessions; and 2-5 minute summary sessions. The facilitator will act as timekeeper. After the
conclusion of the presentation, we will allow the audience to ask questions of the two debaters. It is permissible to bring printed handouts and display information (set up is at 6 p.m.)

While we are fully aware of and support the Tribune's First Amendment free speech rights, we are prompted to take this course of action for a number of reasons.

1.) Your editorial is full of factual errors which need correcting, and historically you have not responded well to our attempts to have such corrections printed on your op-ed pages;
2.) While the normal course of action might seem to be submitting a response piece for publication, again your historic neglect of our previous attempts to provide such a counter balance to your views argues forcefully against this option;
3.) We already provided you a "manuscript" on the issue ("HASTE MAKES WASTE," January 11, 2002), which has not been published; and have many times over the years provided your Board with both background information articles, citations, and reports, as well as our own op-eds; it would appear that neither of these have been utilized, since the errors persist.
4.) In late January, 2000, after meeting with your board representative on the issue, an op-ed appeared written by someone not even in the room, and taking into account nothing that was discussed during that meeting. This event has made us more than skeptical that fairness and balance on this issue is even possible on your pages.
5.) While again fully acknowledging your First Amendment Right to your opinions, the First Amendment does not apply to nor defend deliberate attempts to misinform. Since your op-eds have disseminated factually incorrect information for years on this issue, without permitting publication of the corrections, we simply can no longer permit you to use this cherished right as a shield to perpetuate such misinformation, especially on this issue which has such potentially dire consequences for Illinois and the Nation, both economic and environmental. In short, you will finally have to defend your assertions before the public, or "cease and desist," as they say.

We ask that you provide the name of the editorial board person representing your position to us as soon as possible, so we can provide this to the public in the advertisements we will be distributing.

Please feel free to contact us if you would like any further information, or to discuss the event in any way. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Stay well,

David A. Kraft
Director

"Quit dawdling on nuclear waste"

January 18, 2002

For nearly 20 years, plans to build a national nuclear waste repository have been hobbled not by facts, logic or funds, but by politics: Witness the crucial--and wrongheaded--votes by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) against a central nuclear storage in 1997 and 2000, despite the science and the interests of his own state.

Congress likely will vote on this again in the next few months, and today the risk of terrorism makes a central and secure nuclear waste repository all the more urgent. That alone ought to persuade Durbin to rethink his position.

A safe and well-guarded depository is needed for thousands of tons of spent fuel from some 80 nuclear reactors nationwide. Illinois has the largest number of nuclear power plants and the most nuclear waste. The shuttered ComEd plant at Zion, north of Chicago and 120 yards from Lake Michigan, holds 2.7 million pounds of spent fuel rods. All told, nearly 4,500 metric tons of nuclear waste in Illinois awaits permanent storage.

After nearly 20 years and $7 billion of study and tests, the federal government has selected a facility 1,000 feet below ground in Yucca Mountain, Nev. It abuts an Air Force base and the Nevada Test Site, where more than 900 nuclear weapons have been tested. The closest population center is Las Vegas, about 100 miles away.

On Jan. 10, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham officially recommended to President Bush that Yucca Mountain be selected as the storage facility. The Nevada members of Congress have vowed to fight that. But Congress must think of the greater good and proceed with the project.

Congress voted two years ago to move nuclear waste to Nevada once the storage facility received a federal license. President Clinton vetoed the bill, a decision based mostly on Democratic Party political calculations in Nevada. A move to override the veto failed in the Senate by just two votes. Durbin voted against Yucca Mountain.

Critics are right that the safety of Yucca Mountain cannot be absolutely guaranteed. Neither can the transportation of it to Nevada. An estimated 75 percent of the shipments will go through Illinois.

But this is a matter of relative risk. One centralized, permanent storage site would be far safer, and far easier to protect, than sites scattered throughout the country. The small risk in transporting the waste--it will be hauled in steel and concrete containers--is far preferable to the risk of further deterioration of temporary storage sites, many of which are nearing capacity.

The risk of terrorist attacks against scattered nuclear power plants and local storage facilities only adds to the urgency to build a permanent and secure storage place.

President Bush should sign off on Secretary Abrams' recommendation. Congress--with strong support from the Illinois delegation--should act swiftly to get this moving.

Even in the best of scenarios, Yucca Mountain won't be ready for operations for another 10 years. By then the government will have spent nearly 30 years debating what to do. The nation, and Illinois, cannot wait any longer.

Back to the top of this Page