In case you haven’t heard, PG&E has proposed creating a facility to store "spent fuel" rods from the nuclear power plant here on the coast. Of course, "spent fuel" is another one of those benign sounding industry euphemisms: The uranium fuel rods that have been "cooking" inside the reactor lose their juice after about 18 months of service and must be removed. However, when they come out of the reactor they are thousands of times more radioactive than when they went in, and contain many deadly elements such as cesium and strontium. PG&E plans to store tons of this material in above-ground canisters lined up on a bluff overlooking the coast — in a seismic region and in full view of the Pacific Ocean. The project is known as an ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation).

Obviously, in the wake of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism that we live with, one would hope that obtaining the maximum security and defense for this defacto radioactive waste dump would be paramount on the minds of those who regulate the nuclear industry. Sadly, this was not to be, as the NRC in a preliminary judgement has denied us the opportunity to hold full and open public hearings in this matter. And so, we are going to take them to court. The theme of our petition is:

We believe that before licensing PG&E’s proposed facility for storage of spent nuclear power plant fuel, the NRC was required by the National Environmental Policy Act to publish an Environmental Impact Statement addressing the environmental impacts of terrorists attack or other acts of malice or insanity against the facility, and weighing alternatives for mitigating or avoiding those alternatives. The purpose of our lawsuit is to force the NRC to provide the crucial measure of environmental accountability required by NEPA. (see full Petition for Review at: www.mothersforpeace.org)

Thus begins another chapter in the David vs. Goliath battle to make sure we can sleep soundly at night. The good news is that we are gathering support and momentum, including some help from friends in high places, like the California Attorney General’s office. In a 2003 letter to the NRC, they wrote:

"The Attorney General of the State of California has reviewed the Panel Decision and the NRC Decision and find them deficient and troubling. With respect to several of the petitioners’ contentions, the ASLB panel acknowledged that the petitioners had submitted substantial evidence that the proposed ISFSI presents a significant safety issue, but ruled nonetheless that public hearings will not be held on the issue. Moreover, in evaluating petitioners’ environmental contentions, the panel relied exclusively on NRC regulations that, in the panel’s view, obviate any need for public hearings on those contentions, without carefully evaluating whether the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. ß 4321 et seq.) ("NEPA") requires hearings on those contentions. Finally, in its determination of the referred contentions regarding the environmental consequences of potential acts of terrorism directed against the proposed ISFSI, the NRC relied on a flawed understanding of NEPA and an assumption about the likelihood of such acts of terrorism that is at odds with statements made by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Accordingly, we request that the NRC order public hearings on the significant safety and environmental issues raised by the petitioners, as set forth more fully in this letter."

In short, the Attorney General is letting the Federal regulators know, "you can’t have it both ways" telling us that there is the impending threat of terrorism on nuclear facilities, and then not doing anything to shield or "harden the facilities." The technology and engineering exists to make this facility safer — but it costs money that the utilities don’t want to pay. Well, what price can be put on the homes and families of those of us who live on the Central Coast, and those downwind communities of Santa Barbara and L.A.?

This lawsuit has the remarkable opportunity to set a precedent that might have consequences for all nuclear reactors across the country, but the undertaking is not cheap: The lawsuit is estimated to cost $100,000. The good news is that through the generosity of so many individual donors, most from within this county, we have raised over $40,000 in just the past few months. This puts us almost at the halfway mark. With your help, we will be able to reach our goals in the early part of 2004.

If you would like to read more about the case, or to make a tax-deductible donation on-line, please go to website: www.mothersforpeace.org and sign up.

It would also be helpful to thank the Attorney General, and asking for his continued support. You can send him a note at: Bill.Lockyer@doj.ca.gov

Together we can make sure that our safety is preserved. Please help support our efforts.

David Weisman is a film maker, film editor, writer, lives in Morro Bay and is a regular contributor to HopeDance.

<back | top^