Statement of Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook

The House-Senate conference agreement on airport security is a promising sign that Congress and the White House now appreciate the public's desire for strong aviation safety and security regulations. It is an important leap forward, and President Bush should sign it into law immediately.

Federally employed airport screeners, who will undergo effective training and pass criminal background checks, will be a vital part of a more effective and unified security system, and it is unlikely that many airports would opt to revert to using contract employees in the future. Stronger cockpit doors, to be locked during flight, are a second critical part of that system and should have been introduced years ago, despite resistance

from the airlines. Negotiators were also wise to increase the number of federal sky marshals on flights.

Although we had called for the Department of Justice, rather than the Department of Transportation (DOT), to oversee the strengthened aviation security system, we are encouraged that it will be managed as a separate agency under the DOT, and hope that it will not be undermined by constant industry demands for lessened security, as was the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

We are disturbed, however, that the conference agreement limits the liability for all claims against an air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor or the World Trade Center leaseholder to the value of those entities' insurance coverage. Such a precedent implicitly tells these parties and others that they are likely to receive similar relief for future attacks, thereby reducing their incentive to adequately protect the public. This is particularly true for the airlines, which for years successfully opposed improved aircraft design and airport security measures.

Another deficiency in the conference bill is that it exempts the new federal airport security personnel from the civil service system (including whistleblower protections), inappropriately subjecting them to the whims of supervisors and making them fearful of objecting to abuses. Other federal security personnel, including the FBI, are covered by civil service or similar rules. Congress should correct this defect.

NRC Issues Lukewarm Review of Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Additional research and analysis is required to substantiate proposals for a high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., according to a new review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Absent this information, the Department of Energy (DOE) should abandon plans to pursue the dump's development, Public Citizen said today.

The NRC announced on Wednesday that it had submitted preliminary comments on the sufficiency of Department of Energy's (DOE) site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain. The NRC concluded that the DOE hasn't compiled sufficient information on the dump. However, the agency said that it "believes that sufficient at-depth site characterization analysis and waste form proposal information, although not available now, will be available at the time of a potential license application."

"The NRC's sufficiency review amounts to merely a statement of faith indicating the agency's hypothetical confidence in the results of analyses not yet completed," said Lisa Gue, a policy analyst with Public Citizen. "The DOE should not be contemplating a site recommendation before site characterization activities have been satisfactorily completed."

The NRC's comments include a summary of nine "key technical issues" identified by the agency as "important to repository performance." Of the 37 sub-issues listed, only five are considered resolved, with the vast majority still requiring additional information, testing and analysis by the DOE. The NRC also identified safety and security issues as a concern, but stopped short of specifically describing the implications of a terrorist act at the proposed facility. Despite NRC's findings, the DOE has not announced any change in plans to pursue the Yucca Mountain dump.

A 1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act directed the DOE to assess the suitability of Yucca Mountain, which is located approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for development as the world's first high-level nuclear waste repository. Under the plan, 77,000 tons of radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear power plants and the DOE weapons complex would be transported through 45 states to the proposed dump.

"A nuclear waste repository would introduce new nuclear dangers in Nevada, not to mention the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country," Gue said. "Given current concerns about terrorism and security, proceeding with the Yucca Mountain proposal would be reckless and irresponsible."

Despite these and other concerns that the proposed repository might leak radioactivity, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has indicated that he intends to recommend to the president that the project move forward. A formal site recommendation is expected in early 2002. If the president refers the recommendation to Congress, as is likely, Nevada's disapproval could be overridden by majority vote.

Although the DOE intends to issue a site recommendation within the next few months and the issue could come before Congress as early as next spring, the NRC's review and the DOE's own timeline both indicate that a license application could still be several years off. But the Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifies that if Congress approves a Yucca Mountain site recommendation, the DOE must submit a license application to the NRC within 90 days.

"Clearly the act intends that any site recommendation be based upon much more concrete proposals and thorough analyses than what the DOE has developed. A site recommendation at this stage would be premature at best," Gue said.

The DOE will receive comments on its Yucca Mountain repository proposal in a supplemental public comment period that closes on Dec. 14, 2001.

###

Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org

.