California Energy Commission
Media and Public Communications Office
1516 Ninth Street, MS-29
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
To the Commission:
As a California resident I support the California Energy Commission's
(CEC) recommendation to "evaluate the long-term implications associated
with the continuing accumulation of spent fuel at California's
operating [nuclear power] plants, including a case-by-case evaluation
of public safety and ratepayer costs of on-site interim storage of
spent fuel versus transporting spent fuel offsite for interim storage."
It is time for California to address how many additional tons of
high-level radioactive waste we will be allowed to be stored on our
state's earthquake active coastal zones and what legacy this means for
our children.
The CEC's Report stated that given, "the high level of uncertainty
surrounding the federal waste disposal program, California's utilities
will likely be forced to retain spent fuel in storage facilities at
currently operating reactor sites for an indefinite period of time."
[1] As a resultof the CEC's concerns, I further support an
investigation into phasing out the production and limiting the storage
of high-level radioactive waste at California's operating nuclear
plants by the end of current license terms.
The radioactive waste from the daily operation of Diablo Canyon and San
Onofre may place our state at risk for generations, if not forever.
These risks are heightened by the recent terrorist attacks in: New
York, Madrid, London, Jordan and a possible thwarted attack at a
nuclear plant in Sydney, Australia in November 2005.
The CEC and California residents are not alone in concerns regarding
the increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste on our
nation's coasts and waterways. My support of the CEC recommendation is
based on increasing doubts that a permanent disposal facility for
high-level radioactive waste at California's operating nuclear plants
will ever be available. These doubts have been substaniated by nuclear
experts, federal and state oversight agencies and both Republican and
Democratic Senators from Nevada and Utah.
· Senator Bennett (R-Utah)declared "I remain committed to fight against
any effort to bring spent nuclear fuel to Utah, and firmly believe that
this waste should be stored where it currently is until we work out the
economics and technology to reprocess it." [2]
· Senator Reid (D-Nevada) said he would no longer stand in the way of
Utah lawmakers who are trying to block a nuclear waste complex on the
Goshute Indian reservation in their state by having the nearby area
designated government-protected wilderness. Reid's announcement came
several weeks after Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, pledged in a Senate
speech that he was withdrawing his support for the nuclear waste
repository the Department of Energy wants to build at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada.[3]
· Former NRC Commissioner and Yucca consultant, Victor Gilinsky stated
that "Despite enormous expenditure and heavy political backing, the
project is in deep trouble. It is caught up in a mess of technical,
legal, and managerial problems from which I don't think it is going to
extract itself, and as a consequence, I don't think it is ever going to
open, not at least if it gets any kind of a fair review. [4]
· Executive Director of the Nevada Office of Nuclear Project, Robert
Loux, "I think from our perspective it's safe to say that we believe
the Yucca Mountain project is in an advanced state of disintegration,
for a whole variety of reasons, and it has a number of obstacles it has
to overcome before it can actually go forward, some of which we believe
are completely unresolvable for the most part. [5]
Further evidence confirming the public's concern that our state may
become one a permanent high-level radioactive waste storage site in
perpetuity can be found in the Congressional vote to cut funding for
the nation's only proposed permanent site in November 2005. The final
figure was also less than the House and the Senate passed during
earlier debates. More delays in the oft-delayed project caused
lawmakers to curb Yucca Mountain's budget. [6]
The economic risks to California posed by the storage of this highly
radioactive fuel should be taken into consideration when performing a
cost/benefit study analyzing replacement generation for the Diablo
Canyon and San Onofre Nuclear Plants. Reactor communities should be
first in line for new clean electric generation facilities, which would
provide jobs, taxes, infrastructure and financial benefits that will be
lost when this dangerously sited nuclear plant ceases operation.
California's Governor and state legislators should work with the CEC,
the CPUC, the CCC, SCE and PG&E to plan for future energy needs and
while decreasing our state's risks from a radioactive release due to an
act of terrorism, malice or insanity, earthquake or age-related
accident.
[1] CEC IEPR September 2005, Nuclear Chapter
[2] http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&frame=News&file=arti...
[3] http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Nov-09-Wed-2005/news/4219215...
[4] 2005 IEPR pages 173-179
[5] ibid. Pages 63-84
[6] http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/13166660.htm (c) 2005 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
To sign this letter, and/or change your details, please follow this link...
http://a4nr.org/actionLetters/11.17.2005-cecltr/ActionLetter_confirmForm?subid=00159Hskpw