NUKE WASTE - California
- - - -
HOFFMAN: Submission to the CEC for 2015 IEPR: Every state agency now has the green light to stop nuclear power...
[ http://acehoffman.blogspot.ca/ ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Ace Hoffman
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:45 PM
Subject: Submission to the CEC for 2015 IEPR: Every state agency now has the green light to stop nuclear power...
To:
"Raitt, Heather@Energy" <Heather.Raitt@energy.ca.gov>,
"Parrow, Donna@Energy" <Donna.Parrow@energy.ca.gov>,
"Miranda, Hazel@Energy" <hazel.c.miranda@energy.ca.gov>,
"Smith, Charles@Energy" <Charles.Smith@energy.ca.gov>,
"Saxton, Patrick@Energy" <Patrick.Saxton@energy.ca.gov>,
"Barker, Kevin@Energy" <Kevin.Barker@energy.ca.gov>,
"Mathews, Alana@Energy" <Alana.Mathews@energy.ca.gov>,
"Kravitz, Raquel@Energy" <Raquel.Kravitz@energy.ca.gov>,
"Laurent, Laura@Energy" laura.laurent@energy.ca.gov
To: California Energy Commission
Commissioner Andrew McAllister, Lead Commissioner for 2015 IEPR
Chair Robert B. Weisenmiller, Lead Commissioner for Electricity and Natural Gas
Dear Commissioners,
It is time to close Diablo Canyon, because planet earth, let alone California, does not contain land sparse enough to contain nuclear waste. It is also true that there are clean alternatives, such as are being provided by magnificently-run, fully unionized solar installation companies which consistently get high marks for quality, value, and service.
Not like your average nuclear power plant, which is constantly generating a waste problem no one in California can solve.
Large releases of the contents of a spent fuel dry cask are considered by the Nuclear Energy Commission to be well beyond any "design basis accident." Design-basis-accidents only result in relatively minute releases of radiation from a dry cask: Perhaps a millionth of the entire contents, for example, or a ten millionth, or even less.
Every additional ton of spent nuclear fuel that needs to be stored and/or transported is an additional risk and danger to Californians. This does not mean that the CEC, CPUC, or any other state agency is regulating "health and safety" by including in their considerations the possibility of "beyond design basis accidents," because ever since Fukushima, the NRC, SCE, and the whole nuclear industry has had to admit that beyond-design-basis-accidents can happen. So it is prudent and wise to consider the economic "what-ifs," should there be a catastrophic loss of containment at an ISFSI, or during transport to an ISFSI, or from an ISFSI to a permanent disposal site somewhere -- a site that has never existed despite 70+ years of looking everywhere on earth.
Every transport operation, every mile, is a significant added risk, though as time goes by the risk gets less and less (after ten thousand human generations, it will still be hazardous waste). How many times should the waste be moved before "final" disposal (in what is currently a fictitious, make-believe site)?
Under no circumstances must Diablo Canyon be allowed to remain open, as the COPs submission attempts to make clear -- but to adopt any plan for a "interim" storage facility, would be against prior California law against siting a nuclear waste dump within California.
MORE:
[ http://acehoffman.blogspot.ca/ ]