ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n074

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-07 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #74
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Monday, February 8 1999     Volume 01 : Number 074




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

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:21:15 -0500
From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews (US-2) 2/8/99 -Sandia Labs Cleanup; Utah Nuc Waste Site

- --=====================_56733921==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


3. Tackling a Mess
Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal,
speeding cleanup and saving millions
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm

4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html?

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

3. Tackling a Mess

Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste removal,
speeding cleanup and saving millions

http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm

By John Fleck Albuquerque Journal,  February 7, 1999

The smashed plastic bottles and little green trash can Sharissa Young's crew
fished out of the dirt of an old Sandia National Laboratories landfill looked
like little more than old household discards.

The moon suits the workers wear suggest otherwise.

Since last fall, the Sandia-funded team has been gingerly picking its way
through 30-year-old hazardous waste, attempting to clean up the nuclear weapon
research center's worst environmental problem.

In the process, they are working themselves out of a job, cleaning up Sandia's
environmental messes years before originally planned and at a fraction of what
the Department of Energy once thought it would cost.

Environmental cleanup efforts at Sandia date to the 1980s, when the Department
of Energy realized radioactive and chemical wastes from decades of nuclear
weapons research and manufacturing had become a major problem at weapons plants
and laboratories throughout the United States.

By the early 1990s, it looked like a $500 million job that would stretch well
into the next century.

But aggressive efforts to streamline the process and spend the money cleaning
things up, rather than producing paperwork, has cut the project's cost nearly
in half, said Warren Cox, chief of Sandia's cleanup program.

"We're actually digging a lot of dirt," Cox said.

The approach has won grudging support from one of Sandia's harshest critics,
Albuquerque environmental activist Paul Robinson.

"I think it's been handled better than it was done in the past," Robinson said.

$271 million problem

Nowhere is the progress more apparent than at the chemical waste landfill, a
fenced patch of desert on Kirtland Air Force Base five miles south of
Albuquerque's southern edge.

Beneath the landfill, dangerous chromium has seeped deep into the desert soil,
while traces of potentially cancer-causing solvents have drained into the
ground water 500 feet beneath the arid site.

In comparison to other Department of Energy nuclear sites, or to other
ground-water contamination problems in New Mexico, Sandia's problems might seem
minor.

Large Department of Energy nuclear weapons factories like Savannah River Site
in South Carolina and Hanford in eastern Washington state have far more serious
problems with much higher price tags.

"It's not like a Hanford or a Savannah River," Robinson said of Sandia's
problems.

"Sandia is really a minor site in the DOE world, for the simple reason that
this is an R&D facility, not a production facility," said Hu Joy, chairman of
the Sandia Citizens Advisory Board, a group of volunteers brought together by
the DOE to provide community input into the cleanup process.

Minor or not, the chemical waste landfill and a host of other contaminated
sites at the New Mexico nuclear weapons laboratory pose a $271 million problem
for Sandia and the Department of Energy to clean up.

Sandia has had to clean up 50 contaminated sites, ranging from explosives
ranges where lead and other debris were scattered around the ground to old
landfills with leaking waste.

Of the landfills, two have already been cleaned up, and work on the other two
is now under way.

But of all Sandia's environmental ills, the chemical waste landfill is the
worst, because contamination reached the ground water.

"It's serious because of the risk it indicates to the aquifer on that side of
the city," Robinson said.

Contaminated water

 From 1962 to 1985, chemical wastes from Sandia research programs were sent to
the landfill using what was, at the time, standard industrial practice, Sandia
cleanup manager David Miller said.

Containers of hazardous waste were discarded, and until 1981, liquid waste was
dumped in unlined trenches at the site.  The result was a mess.

In the late 1980s, traces of a cancer-linked solvent began showing up in ground
water 500 feet deep in the ground. While the area is three miles from the
nearest drinking water well, a Kirtland Air Force Base well, Sandia and the
Department of Energy decided it would have to be cleaned up.

Test wells showed that none of the contaminated ground water had moved more
than 100 yards from the site, said Miller, the Sandia official in charge of the
site.

Sandia was also able to indirectly clean the ground water by using what
amounted to a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking air through the contaminated earth
beneath the site and removing the gaseous contaminants.

But because of fears that more chemicals could leak from the waste pits,
Young's crew began digging up the waste last fall.

They start with a backhoe, which dumps its contents onto a screen table for
sorting.

If any intact containers of waste are found in the rubble, they're set aside so
they can be sent to an off-site hazardous waste dump.

Contaminated soil is set aside for chemical and heat treatment to clean most of
the hazardous waste out of it.

The remaining soil will be dumped in a huge plastic-lined pit now being
completed some 50 yards from the chemical waste landfill where it will be
permanently entombed.

A different approach

The cleanup picture at Sandia today is very different than it was a decade ago.

In the late 1980s and early '90s, when Sandia and the Energy Department first
began to seriously inventory the labs' waste sites and think about how to clean
them up, it seemed like a mammoth task.

Hundreds of potentially contaminated sites were found spread across Sandia's
sprawling territory on the east mesa and in the hills south of Albuquerque.

They ranged from old landfills to test sites where explosives and uranium had
been scattered across the ground.

By 1993, the estimated price tag for cleaning it all up had climbed to $500
million, Cox recalled.

With environmental cleanup costs for larger, more complicated Energy Department
nuclear sites spiraling out of control, it became clear that the only way to
rein in costs and get the job done was to use a different approach.

Cox and his colleagues adopted a technique intended to cut through the
regulatory bureaucracy and reduce the amount of money spent without ever
cleaning up sites.

Under the old approach, huge amounts of money were spent studying a site before
cleanup ever began, in order to develop a detailed cleanup plan to be submitted
to state and federal regulators.

Now, Sandia does a much more modest study, then just goes ahead and cleans a
site. It's a technique being adopted at a number of other Department of Energy
sites because of its ability to make efficient use of money, said department
spokeswoman Tracy Loughead.

Once the cleanup is done, an application is submitted to state regulators
asking the site to be certified clean. There's a risk the state will say it's
not clean enough and won't approve it, Cox said, but that's outweighed by the
cost savings.

That's how Sandia has cut the estimated cleanup costs from $500 million to $271
million, Cox said.

The chemical waste landfill should be done over the next 18 months, and by the
end of 2001, Sandia hopes to have the last of its contaminated sites cleaned
up.

"We're not planning on stretching this out and making careers out of this,"
Miller said.

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

4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html?

 Deseret News editorial, February 07, 1999

 Critics of Gov. Mike Leavitt are right, the spirit  of "Enlibra," or
compromise, does have a place in  political negotiations outside the wilderness
debate   but not when he's defending the state's western  front.

It is no secret that Leavitt has vehemently  opposed a proposal to store
high-level nuclear waste  on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele County. He
solidified his position as a frenetic foe during his  recent state-of-the-state
address, a laudable stance  all Utahns should support.

Leavitt said he would not allow any vehicles  carrying nuclear waste across any
rail crossings  where state permission is required, and he supports  pending
state legislation that would eliminate  liability protections for anyone
shipping such  materials. In addition, he is teaming with Rep. Jim  Hansen to
trade federal lands around the  reservation for state lands so the reservation
can be  turned into a land-locked "moat"  inaccessible  without the state's
blessing.

Not surprisingly, his tough talk did not sit well  with proponents of the
project. Tribal leaders and  Private Fuel Storage, the entity seeking the
repository, want to sit down with Leavitt in his spirit  of Enlibra to resolve
differences. But unlike the  wilderness debate, with potential to find middle
ground on some issues, the nuclear-storage issue is  clear-cut: Either the
stuff comes, or it doesn't. Its  strength will not be diluted, nor will it be
shipped  only to, say, Vernal. The proposal is all or nothing.

Leavitt and others fear that if they give an inch,  opponents may take a mile.
State concerns about  public safety, transportation risks, environmental
damage and a detrimental image as a dumping  ground outweigh any real or
perceived benefits.

Yes, there could be some discussion about  reasonable support for improving
educational and  economic opportunities for the Goshutes and other  Native
Americans within Utah. But no, storage of  spent nuclear fuel rods should not
be a bargaining  chip in those talks. Leavitt is right to slam the door  on
this deal before the nuclear camel pokes its nose  into the state's tent.
_____________________________________________________________

       * NucNews - to subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org *
                         Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"
NucNews Archive: HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews
           since January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]
                          ---------------------------------------

   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior
       interest in receiving this information, for non-profit research and
             educational purposes only. For more information go to:
                <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>
_____________________________________________________________
- --=====================_56733921==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>3. Tackling a Mess
<x-tab>     </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab></div>
<div>Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste
removal, </div>
<div>speeding cleanup and saving millions
<x-tab>   </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab></div>
<div><a href="http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm</a></div>
<br>
<div>4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage  </div>
<div><a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html</a>?</div>
<br>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>3. Tackling a Mess
<x-tab>     </x-tab></div>
<br>
<div>Sandia National Labs has taken a new approach to hazardous waste
removal, </div>
<div>speeding cleanup and saving millions
<x-tab>   </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab></div>
<div><a href="http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci02-07.htm</a></div>
<br>
<div>By John Fleck Albuquerque Journal,  February 7, 1999 </div>
<br>
<div>The smashed plastic bottles and little green trash can Sharissa
Young's crew fished out of the dirt of an old Sandia National
Laboratories landfill looked like little more than old household
discards.</div>
<br>
<div>The moon suits the workers wear suggest otherwise.</div>
<br>
<div>Since last fall, the Sandia-funded team has been gingerly picking
its way through 30-year-old hazardous waste, attempting to clean up the
nuclear weapon research center's worst environmental problem.</div>
<br>
<div>In the process, they are working themselves out of a job, cleaning
up Sandia's environmental messes years before originally planned and at a
fraction of what the Department of Energy once thought it would
cost.</div>
<br>
<div>Environmental cleanup efforts at Sandia date to the 1980s, when the
Department of Energy realized radioactive and chemical wastes from
decades of nuclear weapons research and manufacturing had become a major
problem at weapons plants and laboratories throughout the United
States.</div>
<br>
<div>By the early 1990s, it looked like a $500 million job that would
stretch well into the next century.</div>
<br>
<div>But aggressive efforts to streamline the process and spend the money
cleaning things up, rather than producing paperwork, has cut the
project's cost nearly in half, said Warren Cox, chief of Sandia's cleanup
program.</div>
<br>
<div>"We're actually digging a lot of dirt," Cox said.</div>
<br>
<div>The approach has won grudging support from one of Sandia's harshest
critics, Albuquerque environmental activist Paul Robinson.</div>
<br>
<div>"I think it's been handled better than it was done in the
past," Robinson said. </div>
<br>
<div>$271 million problem
<x-tab>   </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab></div>
<br>
<div>Nowhere is the progress more apparent than at the chemical waste
landfill, a fenced patch of desert on Kirtland Air Force Base five miles
south of Albuquerque's southern edge.</div>
<br>
<div>Beneath the landfill, dangerous chromium has seeped deep into the
desert soil, while traces of potentially cancer-causing solvents have
drained into the ground water 500 feet beneath the arid site.</div>
<br>
<div>In comparison to other Department of Energy nuclear sites, or to
other ground-water contamination problems in New Mexico, Sandia's
problems might seem minor.</div>
<br>
<div>Large Department of Energy nuclear weapons factories like Savannah
River Site in South Carolina and Hanford in eastern Washington state have
far more serious problems with much higher price tags.</div>
<br>
<div>"It's not like a Hanford or a Savannah River," Robinson
said of Sandia's problems.</div>
<br>
<div>"Sandia is really a minor site in the DOE world, for the simple
reason that this is an R&D facility, not a production facility,"
said Hu Joy, chairman of the Sandia Citizens Advisory Board, a group of
volunteers brought together by the DOE to provide community input into
the cleanup process.</div>
<br>
<div>Minor or not, the chemical waste landfill and a host of other
contaminated sites at the New Mexico nuclear weapons laboratory pose a
$271 million problem for Sandia and the Department of Energy to clean
up.</div>
<br>
<div>Sandia has had to clean up 50 contaminated sites, ranging from
explosives ranges where lead and other debris were scattered around the
ground to old landfills with leaking waste.</div>
<br>
<div>Of the landfills, two have already been cleaned up, and work on the
other two is now under way.</div>
<br>
<div>But of all Sandia's environmental ills, the chemical waste landfill
is the worst, because contamination reached the ground water.</div>
<br>
<div>"It's serious because of the risk it indicates to the aquifer
on that side of the city," Robinson said. </div>
<br>
<div>Contaminated water </div>
<br>
<div> From 1962 to 1985, chemical wastes from Sandia research programs
were sent to the landfill using what was, at the time, standard
industrial practice, Sandia cleanup manager David Miller said.</div>
<br>
<div>Containers of hazardous waste were discarded, and until 1981, liquid
waste was dumped in unlined trenches at the site.  The result was a
mess.</div>
<br>
<div>In the late 1980s, traces of a cancer-linked solvent began showing
up in ground water 500 feet deep in the ground. While the area is three
miles from the nearest drinking water well, a Kirtland Air Force Base
well, Sandia and the Department of Energy decided it would have to be
cleaned up.</div>
<br>
<div>Test wells showed that none of the contaminated ground water had
moved more than 100 yards from the site, said Miller, the Sandia official
in charge of the site.</div>
<br>
<div>Sandia was also able to indirectly clean the ground water by using
what amounted to a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking air through the
contaminated earth beneath the site and removing the gaseous
contaminants.</div>
<br>
<div>But because of fears that more chemicals could leak from the waste
pits, Young's crew began digging up the waste last fall.</div>
<br>
<div>They start with a backhoe, which dumps its contents onto a screen
table for sorting.</div>
<br>
<div>If any intact containers of waste are found in the rubble, they're
set aside so they can be sent to an off-site hazardous waste
dump.</div>
<br>
<div>Contaminated soil is set aside for chemical and heat treatment to
clean most of the hazardous waste out of it.</div>
<br>
<div>The remaining soil will be dumped in a huge plastic-lined pit now
being completed some 50 yards from the chemical waste landfill where it
will be permanently entombed. </div>
<br>
<div>A different approach
<x-tab>   </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab></div>
<br>
<div>The cleanup picture at Sandia today is very different than it was a
decade ago. </div>
<br>
<div>In the late 1980s and early '90s, when Sandia and the Energy
Department first began to seriously inventory the labs' waste sites and
think about how to clean them up, it seemed like a mammoth task.</div>
<br>
<div>Hundreds of potentially contaminated sites were found spread across
Sandia's sprawling territory on the east mesa and in the hills south of
Albuquerque.</div>
<br>
<div>They ranged from old landfills to test sites where explosives and
uranium had been scattered across the ground.</div>
<br>
<div>By 1993, the estimated price tag for cleaning it all up had climbed
to $500 million, Cox recalled.</div>
<br>
<div>With environmental cleanup costs for larger, more complicated Energy
Department nuclear sites spiraling out of control, it became clear that
the only way to rein in costs and get the job done was to use a different
approach.</div>
<br>
<div>Cox and his colleagues adopted a technique intended to cut through
the regulatory bureaucracy and reduce the amount of money spent without
ever cleaning up sites.</div>
<br>
<div>Under the old approach, huge amounts of money were spent studying a
site before cleanup ever began, in order to develop a detailed cleanup
plan to be submitted to state and federal regulators.</div>
<br>
<div>Now, Sandia does a much more modest study, then just goes ahead and
cleans a site. It's a technique being adopted at a number of other
Department of Energy sites because of its ability to make efficient use
of money, said department spokeswoman Tracy Loughead.</div>
<br>
<div>Once the cleanup is done, an application is submitted to state
regulators asking the site to be certified clean. There's a risk the
state will say it's not clean enough and won't approve it, Cox said, but
that's outweighed by the cost savings.</div>
<br>
<div>That's how Sandia has cut the estimated cleanup costs from $500
million to $271 million, Cox said.</div>
<br>
<div>The chemical waste landfill should be done over the next 18 months,
and by the end of 2001, Sandia hopes to have the last of its contaminated
sites cleaned up.</div>
<br>
<div>"We're not planning on stretching this out and making careers
out of this," Miller said.</div>
<br>
<div>--------------------------</div>
<br>
<div>4. No 'Enlibra' with nuclear storage  </div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,30009979,00.html</a>?</div>
<br>
<div> Deseret News editorial, February 07, 1999</div>
<br>
<div> Critics of Gov. Mike Leavitt are right, the spirit  of
"Enlibra," or compromise, does have a place in  political
negotiations outside the wilderness debate   but not when he's
defending the state's western  front.</div>
<br>
<div>It is no secret that Leavitt has vehemently  opposed a proposal
to store high-level nuclear waste  on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele
County. He  solidified his position as a frenetic foe during
his  recent state-of-the-state address, a laudable stance  all
Utahns should support.</div>
<br>
<div>Leavitt said he would not allow any vehicles  carrying nuclear
waste across any rail crossings  where state permission is required,
and he supports  pending state legislation that would
eliminate  liability protections for anyone shipping such
materials. In addition, he is teaming with Rep. Jim  Hansen to trade
federal lands around the  reservation for state lands so the
reservation can be  turned into a land-locked "moat"
inaccessible  without the state's blessing.</div>
<br>
<div>Not surprisingly, his tough talk did not sit well  with
proponents of the project. Tribal leaders and  Private Fuel Storage,
the entity seeking the  repository, want to sit down with Leavitt in
his spirit  of Enlibra to resolve differences. But unlike the
wilderness debate, with potential to find middle  ground on some
issues, the nuclear-storage issue is  clear-cut: Either the stuff
comes, or it doesn't. Its  strength will not be diluted, nor will it
be shipped  only to, say, Vernal. The proposal is all or
nothing.</div>
<br>
<div>Leavitt and others fear that if they give an inch,  opponents
may take a mile. State concerns about  public safety, transportation
risks, environmental  damage and a detrimental image as a
dumping  ground outweigh any real or perceived benefits.</div>
<br>
Yes, there could be some discussion about  reasonable support for
improving educational and  economic opportunities for the Goshutes
and other  Native Americans within Utah. But no, storage of
spent nuclear fuel rods should not be a bargaining  chip in those
talks. Leavitt is right to slam the door  on this deal before the
nuclear camel pokes its nose  into the state's tent.
<br>

_____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
       * NucNews - to subscribe:
[e-mail] -
<a href="http://prop1.org/" eudora="autourl">http://prop1.org</a> *<br>

Say "Please Subscribe NucNews"<br>
<font size=2><b>NucNews Archive</b>:
<a href="http://www.onelist.com/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews" eudora="autourl">HTTP://WWW.ONELIST.COM/arcindex.cgi?listname=NucNews</a><br>
           since
January 13, 1999; for earlier editions - write [e-mail]<br>
</font><font size=1>
<dl>
<dl>
<dd>
- ---------------------------------------<br>
<br>

<dd>   NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
this material is
<dd>  distributed without profit or payment, to those who have
expressed a prior
<dd>       interest in receiving this
information, for non-profit research and
<dd>
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
<dd>
<</font><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml" eudora="autourl"><font size=1 color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml</a></font></u><font size=1>>
</font>
</dl>
</dl>_____________________________________________________________</html>

- --=====================_56733921==_.ALT--


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:10:44 -0800
From: Shundahai Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Subcritical nuke test "Clarinet" to be exploded 2/9/99

Good Morning Friends,


We have just received word that the Department of Energy plans to explode its sixth subcritical nuclear weapons test "Clarinet" at the Nevada Test Site on Tuesday, February 9, 1999.


"Clarinet" is a Lawrence Livermore test. The DOE says it consists of 3 packages containing 145 grams of chemical explosives and 170 grams of plutonium. (We do not know if each package would contain this amount or if this is the total amount of explosives and plutonium involved. If any one has more information we would appreciate it.


We are having a meeting today to figure out what our response can be. We will let you know what we plan.


Thanks for being out there and doing the good work that you all do!


Peace, Reinard



><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><<
><<><< ><<><<


SHUNDAHAI NETWORK

"Peace and Harmony with all Creation"

<paraindent><param>out,out</param>5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV
89108-1304

Phone:[phone] (FAX)647-9385

</paraindent>Email: [e-mail]

 <underline><color><param>0000,0000,fefe</param>http://www.shundahai.org


</color></underline>Shundahai Network is proud to be part of:


Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to

foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and


Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons


><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><<
><<><< ><<><<




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 10:36:06 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PUHCA sign-on letter

Please sign me on for my organization to the PUHCA letter.  Many thanks for
doing this.  Regards,
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:51:37 -0800
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) PUHCA sign-on letter

I support your efforts and would affix my name and organization of Global
Emergency Alert Response to the letter

David Crockett Williams

    http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000
*********************************************************
Global Emergency Alert Response:  GEAR2000
David Crockett Williams                805-822-3309
20411 Steeple Court, Tehachapi CA 93561 USA
*********************************************************
        CAMPAIGN for a BETTER AMERICA
              with General Agency Services
*********************************************************
      UNITED NATION   Global  Peace  Walk
Oakland City Hall to UC Berkeley, February 26th*
Annually:   22apr Taos, NM, --->  Santa Fe 26apr
1999:  16sep New York -> Washington DC 24oct
Ceremony rededicating  Washington Monument
as a symbol of peace, UN DAY 24OCT99
2000:  15jan  San Francisco --> New York  24oct
             16sep Washington, DC
   ONE NATION, Aware of God as Love for All !
       GLOBAL PEACE NOW !!     Help Now !!!
*********************************************************
http://www.egroups.com/list/global-peace-walk
- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 11:02 PM
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: PUHCA sign-on letter


>------Begin forward message-------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:56:00 -0500
>From: Charlie Higley <[e-mail]>
>Organization: Public Citizen
>To: [e-mail] (Rage)
>Subject: PUHCA sign-on letter
>
>Colleagues:
>
>Below is a letter to the Senate advising senators to oppose stand-alone
>PUHCA repeal.
>
>Please let me know if your organization can sign on.
>
>If you can sign on your organization by noon (eastern time) on Wednesday,
>February 10, then your organization will appear on a letter that will be
>hand-delivered on Wednesday to members of the Senate Banking Committee (as
>you may have heard, last week's markup of S. 313 was delayed until
Thursday,
>Feb. 11).  Although S. 313 is likely to get through the Banking Committee,
>we hope to encourage more senators to request that PUHCA be dealt with only
>in the context of comprehensive legislation.
>
>If you can't make the noon Wednesday deadline, please let me know if you
can
>sign on by close of business Wednesday, February 17, after which a letter
>will be sent to the entire Senate in anticipation of a possible floor vote
>on S. 313.
>
>So, please let me know if your organization can sign on by noon Wednesday,
>Feb. 10, or by close of business Wednesday, Feb. 17.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Charlie Higley-
>Public Citizen
>
>
>*********************************
>
>Oppose S. 313: Oppose PUHCA Repeal
>
>Dear Senator:
>
>On behalf of our millions of members nationwide, we urge you to oppose S.
>313, which would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
>(PUHCA).
>
>Our members believe that PUHCA reform should only be dealt with in the
>context of comprehensive legislation that addresses the changes taking
place
>within the electric power industry.  Such legislation must include strong
>consumer and environmental protections as well as policies that create a
>level field for all competitors.
>
>PUHCA is the only federal law that protects consumers and the environment
>from market power abuses that are specific to the utility sector.
>
>The repeal of PUHCA could increase the flow of cross-subsidies from a
>holding company's regulated utilities to its unregulated subsidiaries.
>Utility ratepayers will pay higher rates as they subsidize other
businesses,
>especially foreign ventures, without receiving any benefits. Utility
holding
>companies could compete unfairly with businesses that do not receive
>guaranteed profits from captive customers.
>
>Repealing PUHCA may result in a larger wave of utility mergers than is
>taking place today. Mergers reduce the number of potential competitors and
>can increase the market power of surviving utilities, which could render
>competition meaningless.
>
>With an unfair share of market power, large companies that own and operate
>fossil fuel and nuclear power plants could have an interest in squeezing
out
>renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other clean, high-value energy
>options.  This could increase our dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels,
>further damaging human health and the environment.
>
>Because of the above concerns, we urge you to oppose S. 313. PUHCA reform
>should only be considered as a part of comprehensive restructuring
>legislation that includes strong protections against market power, as well
>as strong protections for consumers and the environment.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Charlie Higley
>Public Citizen
>
>Ralph Cavanagh
>Natural Resources Defense Council
>
>
>------End forward message---------------------------
>
>
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:23:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) thoughts/fears re: Santa Barbara meeting

I serve on the board of a small grassroots peace organization, North Suburban
Peace Initiative, near Chicago.  WeÆre one of those few very local, very small
shops that has survived the shrinkage of the peace movement.  WeÆre not
affiliated to a national organization but realize that our efforts are
strengthened or weakened by what happens on a nationwide level.

Thanks to being near Chicago, NSPI has the good fortune to work with Kevin
Martin at Illinois Peace Action--and I was even involved somewhat with the
Chicago meeting for abolition organizers and have seen part of the struggle to
get a national abolition campaign up and running.

As things heat up for your big upcoming weekend, I need to express my great
fear that this upcoming meeting in Santa Barbara will end as the Chicago and
New York meetings have.  We, as a movement, desperately need an effective
abolition campaign to emerge from this coming weekend.  We canÆt continue to
build up the energy for organizational meetings like this and then lose that
momentum while waiting for another meeting to be scheduled.

DonÆt get me wrong, clearly, those meetings were not at all wasted.  The
Chicago, New York and now Santa Barbara meetings all provide excellent venues
for different players to meet each other and build connections that will be
critical to the success of any campaign.  But despite the strengthened
connections, a level of frustration seems to have also been a result of at
least the Chicago meeting due to the lack of decisions having been made.
Decisions about structure, mission--not even a name has been adopted yet.

On the one hand, this dilemna is the result of a beautiful characteristic of
the peace movement--activists are acutely aware that the process is just as
important as the end result.  And in that concern about the process and the
desire not to offend, tough decisions are put off.

On the other hand--if we do not make the difficult decisions and create a
unified voice for the abolition movement, we are missing a fantastic
opportunity to generate a nationwide outcry against nuclear weapons.  For
those of you in larger organizations, maybe that is not a concern, you will
still be able to generate your materials and create an uproar from your own
constituents.  Even little NSPI will create itÆs own pocket of outrage but to
do so would mean we are missing out on the opportunity to have our members in
ChicagoÆs northern suburbs be energized by those in other parts of the country
and vice versa.

IÆm assuming we all know how important a national campaign is--we all know how
entrenched the nuclear weapons complex is--can we dismantle it if weÆre
working separately like we have been?

Plus, by working together I believe we increase our chances of reaching many
more than just our dedicated choir members.  And considering the graying hairs
in our organization, it is critical to reach beyond our current constituents!
This is the opportunity to actually meet and pull together the 80% or so of
the population that says they support nuclear abolition.  Just the thought of
the potential is an exciting proposition!!

So whatÆs been holding a national campaign back?  Many of you know the answer
to this question much better than I do but IÆm hoping that in Santa Barbara
these obstacles can be overcome.   I just hope that whatever egos and
obstacles there are, whether theyÆre organizational or individual, they can be
overcome to make the hard decisions and come together behind a unified
structure and plan.

IÆm also hoping that a major point of discussion will be how to reach and
energize those outside of our immediate constituencies.  How can we capture
not just the minds, but the hearts of those who know nuclear weapons need to
go?  This goes beyond the need for information.  Due to excellent work already
done on this issue, we already have the forceful arguments and research needed
to run a campaign.  Valuable information and resources already exist--and are
likely to increase now that it appears Warren Buffet has put money towards a
think-tank for General Butler.

But unless there is some charisma and energy and spark injected into this
campaign--it seems likely we may still get stuck.  I donÆt have the answer on
how to do this -- but I do know itÆll require us to think outside our boxes.
Inspirational examples are out there:

Bob Geldof pulled together rock stars for famine relief;
The landmines campaign had graphic images to grab us;
Amnesty has a powerful logo;
Promise Keepers had preachers and big rallies to energize the masses;
Britain has Red Nose Day every other year to raise funds in outrageous ways
for developing countries;
the AIDS campaign has their red ribbons.

We can achieve this.  Maybe this letter is simply stating the obvious, but
this note is my plea for those of you directly  taking on this gargantuan
task.

In Peace,
Debby Reelitz-Bell
50 Sheldon Lane
Highland Park IL 60035
[phone]
[e-mail]

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #74
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.