Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 48
Sign: Cancer
City: Salt Lake City
State: Utah
Country: US
Signup Date:
04/19/07
|
Blog Archive
[ Older
Newer ]
|
|
 |
|
Sunday, July 08, 2007
|
Mister Big Nuke Company CEO, We’ve Gotta Talk…
Current mood:  hopeful
If I had a chance to toss back a few beers with the CEO of Xcel or Exelon or Entergy… here's what I'd say.
So y'all are making some pretty extraordinary profits lately. Even so…
You've been required to pay into a money pit for 2 decades. You're allowed to pass this on to ratepayers, but it's still impacting your bottom line.
You know and I know Yucca Mountain is never going to open. You are wisely moving forward with on-site storage, and I see good faith efforts being made to work with local communities. You are, of course limited by the NRC regulations which generally don't see local communities as having a voice in approving or rejecting on-site storage. The growing recognition of the necessity of these facilities is going to be a factor in getting any future plants built, as communities focus on this an environmental risk and terrorist threat. It's also costing a pretty penny to build the facilities, and of course, you're still paying into the Waste Fund.
You make regular contributions to senators and congress people, to see that your interests are looked after, and I think you'd have to agree that this money has been well spent. Let's think about your interests for a moment… In many of the states where you do business, Renewable Portfolio Standards have been passed, which require you to produce a percentage of your power output from renewables. You are meeting this challenge, and already have sizable investments in wind and solar installations. How are these investments looking next to your nuclear holdings? Even with subsidies, and a cap on liability through the Price-Anderson Act, your capital expenses, decommissioning costs, and the volatility of the uranium market must be keeping you up at night. What does it cost to decommission a wind turbine? You can sell the steel for scrap, and actually recover some of your initial outlay.
Let's stop the bleeding. It's at best disingenuous, and at worst, theft to keep charging you for Yucca Mountain. It isn't going to happen. It's a political stalemate. It's also a budget drain, since it's been a long time since the Waste Fund actually covered Yucca Mountain as a line item.
So…
Let's start lobbying your Senators and representatives to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to abolish the Waste Fund. Further, let's assess what you have paid thus far.
Second, let's acknowledge the reality that on-site storage is already happening, and has industry approval, and change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to reflect this.
Third, let's determine a fair payment back to you for your outlay towards a project the federal government will never be able to deliver.
Fourth, let's formally shut down Yucca Mountain. Budget for expenses to close down and remediate the site, but take remaining budget amounts and put them towards paying back Waste Fund expenditures.
Fifth, since eliminating the budget line item for Yucca Mountain is probably not going to be enough to pay back the nuclear power companies, we need to figure out another source for these funds. Here's the catch: we recognize that you need to be made financially whole for your outlay, but some of this funding will have to come from budget lines currently dedicated to subsidies for nuclear power.
Sixth, we both lobby for extending renewable energy credits instead of sunsetting then every couple of years. This will protect your renewable investments, and encourage healthy competition and research and development. Your Return on Investment is much higher from renewables, anyway. The cutting edge is currently held by Denmark, Spain and Japan. As a nation (and a business sector), are we content to surrender the technological upper hand in these growing industries? With more federal investment, The Xcels, Exelons and Entergy's would be able to compete with the Vestas, Gamesas and Kyoceras in wind and solar.
Fair?
We'll need to get on the phone to our congress people and committee contacts. I'll work on the constituent political cover, you work on letting them know it's in your business interests, and their political interests to move on this.
Chew on this a bit, while I buy the next round.
6:12 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 14, 2007
|
Saying ‘No’ to Nuclear Waste, One Community at a Time
Current mood:  determined
Do you know how 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste will make its way to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (if it's ever completed)? By conventional rail line, interstate highway and barge; the same rail and highway lines on which you travel perhaps to work, recreation or shopping. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) has well researched information on the hazards these "Mobile Chernobyls" pose to the public safety. Check this link http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/hlwtransport/mobilechernobyl.htm to learn more. Go to http://www.greenactionutah.org , and take the link "Highway, Rail, Barge and Truck Routes to Yucca Mountain." Take a good look at this map. How close do these rail and highway lines pass to you or your city? Does this cause you concern?
Our allies in Washington tell us that the time is not yet ripe to introduce our legislative proposal. In the meantime, there are still actions we can take locally to protect our communities, and influence action in Washington. This will not be the first time that citizens have risen up to protest Yucca Mountain, and it will not be the last. But, we learned from the protests against Divine Strake that citizen protest makes a difference! Here is where we start:
1. On the GreenAction web site at http://www.greenactionutah.org/yuccamountain.html is a graphic file for a "Nuclear Free Zone" sign that you can print out and display in your home, office and car. Go door to door in neighborhoods next to railroads and highways designated as waste routes, and ask residents and businesses to display the sign. Organize fellow students, neighbors, church groups, advocacy groups, the Chamber of Commerce. Blow up the image and put it on large signs for freeway-blogging or rallies.
2. Below, there is a template letter that you can send to your local city, county or tribal council members, asking them to designate your city, county or tribal community a "Nuclear-Waste Free Zone." Copy and paste the letter, print it out, print multiple copies if you can, and ask other community members to send them, along with a sample resolution. There are examples of council resolutions at http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/hlwtransport/sampleresolutionopposingnucwastetrans.htm . Direct your council members to these sample council resolutions. If we can mobilize a sufficient number of communities along the transportation routes, we can keep the spent fuel where it is. The display of signs from Step 1 will let council members know there is support for this resolution.
3. Forward this information to your MySpace friends, email lists, and other networks.
Peace and Environmental Justice IS Possible!
GreenAction Utah
Dear City Council Member, (address to an actual person's name)
In March 2007, legislation was presented in Congress to accelerate the development of the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain Nevada. While Senator Harry Reid, in his capacity as Senate Majority Leader has said that "Yucca Mountain is dead," until legislation is changed, Yucca Mountain continues to be the designated "final repository" for the nation's high level nuclear waste.
The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Project has been riddled by allegations of falsification of hydrology data, by conflicting opinions about the geologic suitability, and controversy about the illegal use of Western Shoshone land that has been ruled on by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. There are conflicting accounts of whether transportation routes have been finalized, and whether local communities have been consulted in the routing plans. While statute requires that local emergency response personnel be trained in dealing with radiological emergencies, as yet, not only has no training taken place, there is no curriculum, and no funding for curriculum or training.
Many nuclear power plants have started storing waste on site, in Hardened On-Site Storage. Former Admiral Skip Bowman, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear advocacy group, has come out in favor of on-site storage. The primary objection of power companies is the considerable amount they have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
It is time to pressure elected officials in Washington from the local level on up to abandon this expensive, illegal and dangerous project. While there are legislative proposals being made at the national level to advocate for on-site storage, make whole the power companies, and give local communities more say in the re-licensing of nuclear power plants, at the local level we can do this by resolving not to allow high-level nuclear waste pass through our community. Such resolutions have been passed by numerous communities. A list is available at http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/hlwtransport/mobilechernobyl.htm . Please introduce a resolution to the council designating our community a "Nuclear-Waste Free Zone." I have included a sample resolution for your guidance.
Sincerely,
Your name
Sample Resolution Opposing Nuclear Waste Transportation Through Your Community
..>..>..>
..>
|
WHEREAS, according to documentation provided by the U.S. Department of Energy which indicates that high-level radioactive waste may be transported through [this jurisdiction] as early as 2017 should the national repository be opened at Yucca Mountain, Nevada;
and WHEREAS, high-level nuclear waste shipments could pass through this jurisdiction as early as 2009 should the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approve a private, nuclear industry initiated "interim storage site" for high-level atomic waste on the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah;
and WHEREAS federal studies have shown that Yucca Mountain, Nevada and Skull Valley, Utah are not suitable geologic locations for high-level nuclear waste storage or burial due to earthquake activity, water infiltration, environmental justice, and other scientific and societal reasons;
and WHEREAS, [this jurisdiction] does not have adequately trained emergency response personnel or equipment to cope with a radiological disaster that could occur as a result of high-level radioactive waste transportation through [this jurisdiction];
and WHEREAS, the federal government, under the Yucca Mountain Project, would limit funding to [this jurisdiction] for training of emergency response personnel and for purchase of necessary equipment to cope with a radiological emergency;< SPAN>
and WHEREAS, property values are likely to fall, attraction of new business is likely to decrease, and improvement of our community [or communities] may become difficult if not impossible should high-level radioactive waste be transported through [this jurisdiction];
and WHEREAS, nuclear reactors across the nation will continue to generate and store high-level nuclear waste on-site for decades into the future, and the Yucca Mountain transportation program would take 25 to 40 years to complete, providing no near-term relief from accident or terrorist risks at reactor sites nationwide;
and WHEREAS, each shipment of high-level nuclear waste through urban population centers and agricultural areas would be at risk of terrorist attack or severe accident;
and WHEREAS, we generally oppose radioactive waste transportation through [this jurisdiction];
so BE IT RESOLVED, that [this jurisdiction] is on record as opposing any and all radioactive waste transportation near or through [this jurisdiction] bound for Yucca Mountain, Nevada or Skull Valley, Utah;
and BE IT RESOLVED, that [this jurisdiction] supports the creation of an independent presidential commission to re-examine our nation's radioactive waste policy;
and BE IT RESOLVED, that [this jurisdiction] will carry this resolution to all of our elected local, state, and federal officials, and to the President of the United States | ..>..>..>..>
8:12 PM
-
0 Comments - 2 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
Repeal the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
Current mood:  optimistic
Shut Down Yucca Mountain!
What Can You Do?
Background:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 promised to nuclear power companies that the US government would take title to the waste produced by plants, and remove it to a national repository by 1998. Advocates see Yucca Mountain as the key to launching a "nuclear renaissance," and approximately 30 possible new reactor permits are being sought in the next year. There have been judgments that have awarded power plant owners financial damages since the federal government did not take title to the waste in 1998 as promised. While we cannot change the past, we can close out the unworkable strategy of 1982, and implement a new strategy.
Power plant owners have legitimate financial claims that should be made whole. Local communities are concerned about what will happen to waste produced by neighboring nuclear plants, especially when those plants apply for relicensing, when there is no solid plan for the waste. There is a great deal of confusion and misinformation circulating about spent fuel rod "recycling," and the safety issues of storing waste on-site. Municipalities are concerned about the loss of jobs from a closing power plant, and the replacement of "base load" power sources.
While Senator Reid has already stated his opposition to Yucca Mountain, there are limits to what the Majority Leader can do. We need a bold, comprehensive game plan.
The Game Plan
End the Current Unworkable Nuclear Waste Policy:
- Formally repeal the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
- This policy is an immoral law and should be repealed. Power companies who wish to build nuclear power plants should deal with the waste themselves following NRC guidelines, instead of foisting it off on someone else. This corrupt law gives unfair market advantage to one energy producing sector, while feeding the nuclear weapons complex. Because the establishment of a national repository is enshrined in law, it is necessary to repeal that law in order to consider alternatives. This will also mean the end of payments into the Waste Fund.
- Close down the Yucca Mountain Project
- This project has been riddled with fraud for years, from the "lost" geologic studies to the falsified hydrologic data. It is being built on land that by treaty is party of the Western Shoshone Nation. This land was never ceded to the US government by the Western Shoshone people. The United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its historic March 2006 decision against the United States directed the United States to "freeze, desist and stop" actions against the Western Shoshone Nation, including the Yucca Mountain project. The transportation of High Level Nuclear Waste would require rail lines and highways to carry this waste through high-population areas, including the I-80 corridor and rail line bottleneck in Salt Lake City, exposing urban areas to extraordinary risk from terrorism and accidental radioactive release. There is no comprehensive plan to train Emergency Response Teams to handle radioactive accidents, and there have already been accidents where local teams were completely unprepared to handle radioactive incidents. The Department of Energy must engage in sincere dialogue with the Western Shoshone nation on appropriate actions for closing down the site.
- Compensate power companies for their outlay into the Waste Fund, and stop further assessments.
- We support the recent judicial decisions that awarded damages to power companies for their payments into the Waste Fund, given that the federal government did not follow through on its obligation to open a national repository by 1998. A legal obligation was created, and due compensation should be paid. This could be done with funds currently earmarked for subsidies.
Develop an Alternative Waste Policy:
- Store existing waste in hardened on-site storage.
- Diligently safeguard the existing waste in above ground monitored facilities. This allows for constant surveillance. A hole in the ground, wherever it is located, is susceptible to leakage. Hanford, WA and Savannah River, GA are both cases where strategies for burying waste have failed, and local water supplies are being contaminated. Numerous organizations have already signed on to the HOSS (Hardened On-Site Storage) letter calling for this method. If waste is stored on-site, plant infrastructure can be maintained, and costly decommissioning expenses avoided. It prevents the dumping of the radioactive dismantled and ground up plant to other communities such as Utah. Even Skip Bowman, current president of the Nuclear Energy Institute favors on-site storage.
- Resist distracting policies: interim storage and spent fuel rod "recycling."
- Policies such as that proposed by Senator Domenici in the last Congress for interim storage in off-site possibly regional facilities, require time-intensive siting procedures, hold the risk of environmental racism in the selection and the plan as a whole was vigorously opposed by several governors. These plans would also require the transportation of waste off-site to these proposed facilities, involving all the risks of waste transportation (so-called "Mobile Chernobyls") under analysis for a national repository. Even the Nuclear Energy Institute believes that the new reprocessing technology is decades from usability in a commercial setting. Despite considerable debate about its feasibility, over $400 million is allocated for it in the proposed 2008 budget. The public must be informed about reprocessing failures and dangers in both the US and abroad.
- Revise NRC policies to allow more input by local communities
- Local communities must be given say not only on the initial siting of a power plant, but substantial say in whether it should be relicensed at the end of its initial 40 years, or whether uprates should be approved, since uprates increase the volume of waste produced. Currently, local communities are severely restricted in the objections they may bring up. Concerns about waste storage and viability of evacuation plans are currently not allowed as viable concerns in a relicensing process. These concerns are being brought forward by the communities around Oyster Creek, Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim. The NRC regularly makes agreements with states to cede authority to them over certain types of radioactive waste (Agreement States), so there is precedent in allowing local control over issues within the jurisdiction of the NRC.
- Expose the true costs and risks of nuclear waste.
- The spent fuel produced by plants can be used in many forms for the construction of nuclear weapons, and has been subject to loss, theft and smuggling. The decommissioning process requires that the radioactive plant components be broken down and buried in approved facilities, foisting this waste on others, who usually have received no benefit from the plant's operation.
Take Action!
- Support S. 784 - This bill, introduced on March 6, 2007 A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to require commercial nuclear power plant operators to transfer spent nuclear fuel from the spent nuclear fuel pools of the operators into spent nuclear fuel dry casks at independent spent fuel storage installations of the operators that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to convey to the Secretary of Energy title to all such transferred spent nuclear fuel, to provide for the transfer to the Secretary of the independent spent fuel storage installation operating responsibility of each plant together with the license granted by the Commission for the installation. Especially if you live in a state that hosts nuclear power plants, it is important for your Senators to hear from you. For the full text, search on S.784, or Nuclear Waste Policy Act at http://thomas.loc.gov Contact your Senators at www.senate.gov.
- Become involved with grassroots groups in your area. Send us a message requesting more information about groups in your area.
8:10 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
