Write Your Senator

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Re "Support for Nuclear Waste Legislation" - an "anti-nuclear" bill:

Alternative message to your Senator:

S.104 will damage nuclear energy and nuclear technology in the US:

Attempting to send all nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain assures that a lightning 
rod is provided to the anti-nuclear activists for at least the next decade.
Attempting to send all nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain will result in some US
version of the 30,000 police and national guard force that escorts wastes to
the disposal site in Germany. The anti-nuclear campaign to be implemented thru 
"43 states at risk" will destroy any potential to reconsider nuclear energy in 
the US. The proposal could not be a more perfect fit to the desires of the
anti-nuclear interests. 

Attempting to send all spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain reinforces the
falacious idea that the fuel is a significant hazard. It reinforces the idea
that the materials must be sequestered under conditions and at costs that are
indicative of the storage and control of live bubonic plague viruses instead
of the insignificant risks of materials that, in any release scenario, are not 
substantially different than natural radioactivity sources and millions of
radiopharmaceutical packages routinely transported, with any accidents readily 
managed with no public health or safety risk under any release scenario. The
proposal fits the message and mission of the anti-nuclear interests about the
high risks and higher costs of using nuclear energy to generate electricity.
It meets only the needs of utilities who are equivalently anti-nuclear in the
interest of eliminating nuclear commitments at any short-term and/or long-term 
cost to the ratepayer and society. 

Attempting to send all nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain implies that the
material is a "waste" rather than a valuable energy resource that must and
will eventually be recovered for its enormous energy values. It took coal
about 75 years to be allowed after being forbidden, until England was denuded
of trees, and the steam engine came along. The proposal perfectly fits the
message and mission of the anti-nuclear interests, including many current
utility interests. 

Proposing to send all fuel to Yucca Mountain ignores the fact that dry storage 
at reactor sites is a simple, safe, and cost-effective, solution to spent fuel 
storage, now implemented at a number of sites. 

Proposing to send all fuel to Yucca Mountain ignores the fact that DOE has
100s of surplus sites/facilities around the country that are sufficiently well 
characterized to readily accept dry storage containers if there is any reason
for the fuel to be removed from a reactor site, eg the Yankee Rowe site, but
only if they are more cost-effective than leaving the fuel at reactor sites.
DOD has missile silo sites and hundreds of additional sites that are being
decommissioned at enormous cost, and many other surplus and operational
Federal sites are perfectly suitable for the little space and limited
activities, and non-existent risk, of intermediate-term dry storage. 

Proposing to send all fuel to Yucca Mountain sends more $billions of
rate-payer, NOT utility, funds down the DOE rat-hole. Dry storage at reactor
sites should be funded from the DOE waste fund, but implemented by the utility 
with the utility's ability to manage a cost-effective project, unless DOE can
firmly commit to take the fuel at a DOE-managed site/project for less cost.
Utilities that commit to on-site storage should recover revenues by ceasing
waste fund payments from its ratepayers in addition to any return of DOE waste 
funds, until all dry storage costs are covered, removing any DOE management of 
such funds. 

Making DOE responsible for anything regarding nuclear waste management is a
culpable failure of the fiduciary responsibility of any elected official on
behalf of the citizens of the US. Any member of a Corporate Board who voted to 
send funds to an organization with the performance record of DOE OCRWM would
appropriately be sentenced to a long Federal prison term. 

Does anybody want to go on?

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> >Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 09:30:09 >From: "HARRY PEMBERTON" <pemberhe@songs.sce.com>
> >
> >       SanOnofreNuclearGenertingStation employees now have another
> opportunity >       to help ensure the continued success of the company and
> the future of >       SanOnofre.
> >
> >    On April 8, 1997, the United States Senate will vote on S. 104, the
> >    Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.  You are encouraged to write a
> >    short, simple message to your Senator (Diane Feinstein/Barbara Boxer)
> >    requesting their support of this bill.  Although there is support on
> >    Capital Hill for this legislation, we must work to help ensure passage
> >    with at least 67 votes to override an anticipated presidential veto.
> >
> >    Support of S. 104 is good for our industry for these reasons:
> >
> >    o   Utilities are running out of storage space because the DOE
> >        has not kept their promise to begin taking fuel by 1998.
> >        27 nuclear units will run out of on-site storage space by
> >        1998, and it would cost consumers an additional $7 billion to
> >        expand on-site storage.
> >
> >    o   Central storage in a remote area is a sensible approach that
> >        is good for the environment.
> >
> >    o   Consumers have already paid $13 billion through a tax on
> >        nuclear generated electricity in return for the government
> >        to manage used nuclear fuel.  Further delays will cost
> >        consumers billions of dollars.
> >
> >    A short handwritten or typed note from you, your families and friends
> >    is all that is needed.  You can also call the U.S. Capital switchboard
> >    at (212) 224-3121.  Tell your Senators it is important that they vote
> >    for the bill, and thank them for their support.  Address your letters
> >    to:
> >
> >    The Honorable (Senator's name)
> >    U.S. Senate
> >    Washington, DC  20510
> >
> >    Thanks to your efforts in the past, we have been successful in
> >    impacting the decisions of our lawmakers through the communication
> >    process.  I urge you to take a few minutes and write your Senator.