California Coastal Commission Submission by Russell D. Hoffman June 13th, 2001

To: "Governor Gray Davis" <graydavis@governor.ca.gov>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Logical Inconsistences present by the CCC et al, March 13th, 2001
Cc: "Dianne Feinstein, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@feinstein.senate.gov>, "Barbara Boxer, Senator (CA, D)" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>

Logical inconsistences presented during the Tuesday, March 13th, 2001 meeting of the State of California Coastal Commission by its staff, the NRC, and the applicant (SONGS)
(Agenda Item No. 5.a.)

1) TSUNAMI, GLOBAL WARMING, AND RUN-UP

On pages 80 - 83, Senior Geologist Johnson mixes up the problems, claiming that if global warming increases the highest tide level by 0.8 feet, or even 1.6 feet, it will only increase a Tsunami's "reach" by 0.8 feet or 1.6 feet.

The Tsunami is made of water.  It is a product of the amount of water above an earthquake and the size of the Earthquake.  A 1.6 foot rise in sea level means 1.6 feet more water across the entire surface of the Pacific Ocean.  If the Tsunami is caused by a DISTANT earthquake,  that's A LOT more water between the causing event and San Onofre.  More water can carry the energy better -- AND, a BIGGER Tsunami can be formed because of the extra water around the source.  And islands it passes are comparatively smaller in size than they were, etc.

Your learned geologist ignored these facts in his answer.  AND he ignored the fact that GLOBAL WARMING will cause an increased turbulence in the atmospheric conditions on the planet generally.  Hurricanes are expected to be bigger.  There will be more and bigger droughts, record snowfalls, changes in the Jet Streams, etc. etc.  Everything gets worse under pressure.  There will be more and bigger Tsunamis.  Your Geologist never mentions this.  He ONLY considers the mathematical concept that there might be a 1.6 foot rise in sea levels alone.

2) ON WHETHER THE PERMIT CAN BE REVOKED OR AMENDED IF NEW EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION COMES UP:

The Commissioners ask (pages 115 to 118) whether or not the permit can be changed or even revoked if new earthquake information makes it blatantly apparent (even to them, I guess this means, because it's already blatantly apparent to everyone else) that a 7.1 or larger Earthquake is reasonably likely near San Onofre.  Their staff and the NRC gang up to respond, that absolutely, new information WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT if it presents itself.  Yet what it turns out they mean is that NO, THERE IS NO WAY TO REVOKE OR CHANGE the license for the life of it, once it's granted.  In other words, the very thing the commissioners sought to be reassured on, they were denied, but the words used in the denial were those of an assurance: 'Yes, there is a mechanism for that" when in fact, the answer to the commissioner's question was "no, once you've decided, YOU can't change it.  The NRC can, but you can't".

At least one commissioner got that they will NOT be able to change it, and yet thanked the staff and the NRC for clearing that up.  Yet it was clear as mud that what the commissioners said they wanted was a way to go back on their decision if overwhelming evidence made it seem reasonable to do that.  They were denied this right, and they were satisfied with that.  The Coastal Commission might as well not exist if it makes a decision and then can't change it when scientific knowledge changes the circumstances, like the earthquake information or global warming and so forth.  Would a Tsunami hitting Oregon of a size that could wipe out San Onofre had it hit here change anything?  It would not revoke the license.  Evidently the NRC takes the license over from the CCC after it is granted -- and only the NRC can close the plant, even for the very reasons the CCC was involved in the first place. (There are other reasons to close it that the NRC and the CCC won't look at, like, wind ener gy is the cheapest energy source, and one of the easiest to build, these days).

3)  THE GEOLOGIST NEVER ACTUALLY TESTIFIES (DELIVERS HIS SCIENTIFIC OPINION) BEFORE THE PUBLIC:

The Geologist does not, in front of the public ever explain his reasoning for recommending approval.  More specifically, is it because he thinks a 7.1 or greater Earthquake is extremely unlikely, not very likely, reasonably unlikely, or what?

Impossible?  What?  What does he think?  He needs to put his views into numbers.  Cold hard numbers like "we should expect one Earthquake of maximum magnitude X in the next 100,000 years" or something.  The public -- and the commissioners -- need something they can bite into.  Instead, on page 119 (lines 19-24) he makes a "minor point of clarification" in which he absolves himself of ALL RESPONSIBILITY.  He states: "...I indicated that the stability is assured to the greatest extent feasible.  I apologize for any confusion that statement has caused.  I am speaking as a scientist, and was addressing scientific certainty, not the assurance generally found that we need to find for consistency with the Coastal Act."  He then tries to make clear what he originally meant (see page 119-120), but it's clear he's simply substituting "minimize the risks" for "greatest extent feasible" and stil l is not laying down any firm numbers. Next, Staff Council recommends the phrase "to the greatest extent feasible" be deleted everywhere it appears.  Chair Wan agrees to this.  Shortly thereafter Commissioner Kruer gushes with praise for Johnson, saying he "comes from no point of view".  Such praise appears unearned from the numberless testimony this "scientist" gave.  Then Commissioner Kruer claims, page 121, lines 19-22) that "...the State of California and we are preempt from imposing on any nuclear power plant operator any new regulatory requirements concerning radiation hazards, and nuclear safety" Then why are they looking at the matter at all, asking about safety issues, and claiming their purpose is to assure the public that this is safe?  Are they really as toothless as they claim to be?  Then why does the Commission exist at all?

4) ASSUMES A PERMANENT REPOSITORY WILL BE BUILT:

The commission, on page 108, lines 1 to 17, makes the ASSUMPTION that a permanent waste facility will be built somewhere.  Executive Director Douglas suggests (lines 8-10) that the Commission "might want to ask the representative of the NRC whether they have picked a site..."  They call up Steve Baggett, who says they have a GOAL of "this stuff being moved around to dry storage in 10 to 20 years, so we are not looking for these places to be permanent repositories".  It is an utterly unsubstantiated assumption that there will be a storage location ever, let alone in "10 to 20 years".  We are 40 years into trying to build one. YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS NOT ONLY UNCERTAIN, IT IS UNLIKELY.  Yet still the commission pretends they have a solution at hand.  Neither the Commission nor the NRC should put any confidence in the "Waste Confidence Act" mentioned by Mr. Baggett in his testimony.  Acts have failed to make a repository a reality in 40 years.  They are failing now.  It is illogical to assume any confidence in Mr. Baggett's assertion.  Commissioner Dettloff asks, appropriately (page 109, line 13-14) "When does one say, stop, we cannot provide local sites any longer.  Has there been any dialogue in that area?"  Well, yes, Commissioner Dettloff, there has.  The time to stop San Onofre from making MORE WASTE is NOW.  Instead, Commissioner Dettloff then thanks Mr. Baggett when he mentions Yucca Mountain again, the NRC's current Holy Grail.  Earlier, on page 96 (lines 10 to 15), Commissioner Estolano states, "the federal government has an obligation to provide a nationwide site, we shouldn't be encouraging the federal government to not meet that responsibility by extending a permit, and extending storage on a facility long past their obligation date."  No, Commissioner Estolano, we shouldn't.  And the federal government is now 40 years past its deadline, and will rea ch 50 years before one gram of waste ever reaches YUCCA MOUNTAIN if it ever is approved.  How long is "long past their obligation date" to Commissioner Estolano and the rest of the CCC?  I don't think 1000 years would be too long for them!  On page 113 (lines 7 - 24) Commissioner Dettloff expresses concern that there may never be a long-term repository ("this thing could go on and on, and we would have to provide storage") but all the Commissioner does with this worry is "hope that we may have a little more authority than we do now".  Authority to do what?  "To at least indicate -- and I think we should indicate to the NRC, or the Energy Commission, that this is a potential problem for the State of California".  That's it? They have the power to condemn this plant, and they wish they had the power to tell the NRC they have a slight worry about all that fuel being stored here for "on and on"?  That's all the effort to f ace this problem they can make?  It's hard to believe these Commissioners were picked to be anything more than rollovers, because that seems to be all they are.

5) THE COMMISSIONERS ASK ABOUT EMBRITTLEMENT, BUT DON'T BOTHER TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

On page 103, lines 17-20, Commissioner Mc Coy asks, "how long before you see embrittlement, and the need to, you know, keep it safe?  would be one issue; or, does embrittlement not play into dry storage?"  It does indeed!  But the answer by Mr. Hertel, a speaker for the applicant is: "I am not an expert in that.  I, again, indicate that is going in the area of nuclear regulations and safety, and so if it is your pleasure, I will call someone up to answer that question."  It is not off-topic, but they want the commission to believe it is.  In any event, they call up Jim Reilly, the "Director of Decommissioning and Fuel Storage at San Onofre".  He tells the commissioners that "We don't expect any embrittlement.  It is not like the reactor vessels.  It is not in the same kind of environment, where you see kind of metal embrittlement that you may be talking about."  Thus, Reilly makes an assumption of the kind of embrittlement Commissioner McCoy is talking about, and says that kind of embrittlement won't happen in the dry casks.  But in reality, "that kind of embrittlement" is already happening and would not STOP happening inside the dry casks!  The highly radioactive fuel continues to bombard and decay the cladding, and it will still be becoming brittle.  Some will surely be nearly visibly embrittled when the spent fuel is placed in dry casks -- if the CCC is foolish enough to approve this permit.  All of the fuel rods suffer from some amount of embrittlement.

6) THE COMMISSION WANTS A 20 YEAR TERM -- BUT WANTS IT TO COINCIDE WITH THE NRC, WHICH MIGHT BE A 100-YEAR LICENSE (OR MORE):

There is repeated confusion over the term of the license, but it is clear that unless explicitly stated otherwise, the Commission is likely to allow the NRC to relicense the facility at will for the next 100 years, although the Commission seems to nevertheless be asserting that what they think they are doing is to license the Dry Cask Storage facility for just 20 years, presumably starting in 2002, or maybe 2007, or later if additional power outages like the four-month one Unit III just suffered, push back the start date of Dry Cask storage.  So they are precluding newer and smarter commissioners from including newer and more reliable earthquake studies from affecting the decision for possibly 100 years.

7)  COMMISSION THINKS "RECYCLING" THE FUEL MIGHT WORK:

The commission is shown that it is relying on someone who has nearly a total ignorance of the facts about spent fuel when Executive Director Douglas (page 107, line 22) suggests that perhaps we will be recycling the nuclear fuel later.  It's USELESS stuff.  It's the worst stuff on earth.  If there was something we could do with it that made sense, in 40 years of trying to get rid of it, we would have figured that out as well!

8) UTTER OBFUSCATION OF HOW THEY ARE THINKING:

Right now, we can't even be sure whether or not the Commission is approving San Onofre and it's new Dry Cask Storage horror because they have decided that it magically can probably withstand a 7.6 earthquake, even though it is only built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, which is a huge difference, or because they have decided there simply WILL NOT BE a 7.1 or greater earthquake near San Onofre (this would be despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, i. e., there CAN be, and that the NRC does not take the evidence into account at all, even though most geologists seem to agree that it CAN happen here).

9) SENIOR GEOLOGIST JOHNSON BECOMES A LEGAL EXPERT:

On page 114, line 24 through page 115, line 3, Johnson states, "It is my opinion, with the information that we have right now, we can assure geological stability as we normally do with respect to the Coastal Act now.  I don't see any mechanism for a trigger to come back to look at additional items later."  In fact there are plenty of reasons NOT to be assured of the geological stability of the site but in any event, Johnson is here offering a legal opinion, not a scientific one.  Commissioner Woolley then asks, "... you can say at this point, pretty assuredly, that the design will meet whatever geological conditions can be found later on?"  What a convoluted question that is!  Johnson rises to the challenge, and obfuscates back: "Well, I can say that with the information that we have in hand now."

Commissioner Woolley accepts this two-step dance as having provided something useful (I don't know what), and goes on to ask the staff if: "we can reopen this permit, if we find, from a conservation approach, if we find more data that demonstrates we take a look at it, is there a way to have that reopened within that huge time frame?"  ("going out to 2022" (see line 5, page 115).  Executive Director Douglas then tells his grandest lie: "Well, there may be..." he starts out.  But there isn't, and by the time the smoke clears, that is obvious to everyone, including the commissioners I think, who nevertheless appear utterly satisfied!

Director Douglas then says he has "no objection whatsoever" to people bringing in new data -- but doesn't want to be put in a position "of having to respond to information that we know we are going to get".  Well, so much for any lack of objection!  He says he's concerned about the'use of staff resources".  He then assures the commissioners that since the permit is "term limited anyway", meaning it runs until 2022, "that gives us a higher level of assurance that your question will have to be addressed as new information comes forward."  But it won't be -- it won't be looked at by his staff, if this permit is accepted, again until at least 2022.  That may be way later than when these facts come in -- especially since as far as I can tell, the facts are already in and are being ignored right now by Johnson and the staff!

10) THE APPLICANTS ACCUSE THOSE WHO OPPOSE THEM OF TALKING OFF-TOPIC, WHEN THEY ARE NOT:

Regardless of NRC and staff interpretation of the law, which appears to be designed to let the applicant get away with murder, the public, at a public hearing, especially when you only give them two or three minutes, should be able to say what they want to.  If they are still "hung up" on the idea that the California Coastal Commission is violating its charter, violating the coastal act, violating logic and reason with treason, well SO BE IT.  The Coastal Commission has left a million questions unanswered.  They have prevented us from speaking and then declared all attempts at continuing the presentation as off-topic.  They have silenced their critics in every way they can think of, and I'm sure time will show that they will think of more ways and implement them as well.  Meanwhile the commissioners, such as Commissioner Estolano on page 98 (lines 2-3), pretend it's "obvious" that they are not responsible for safety!  ("Obviously, we can't do a nything about the safety issues related to nuclear hazards...")

10) STAFF COUNCIL BOWERS REWRITES THE COASTAL ACT:

On page 124, lines 10-25, Staff Counsel Bowers misrepresents the California-Environmental Quality Act.  According to that act, alternatives MUST be evaluated "when there is a determination that a proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment" as Bowers puts it.  Bowers and staff then assume that SONGS would not have a significant effect on the environment, and thus they did not need to examine alternatives.  But right now San Onofre is filled with hundreds of thousands of curies of poison, and accidents DO happen. Alternatives should not only be "evaluated" they should be licensed and implemented.

11) THE COMMISSION IS TECHNOLOGICALLY-CHALLENGED:

They are slow to take up modern technology, as shown by their failure to put all their documentation on the web where concerned citizens can research it.  Worse still, they are slow to recognize that clean energy solutions are available, and many of these energy solutions (wind, wave, tide and others) occur near our coast, and the commissioners need to encourage and permit the right energy solutions, and discourage and forbid the wrong ones.  NO OTHER ENERGY SOLUTION IS SO FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES!

SUMMARY:

The California Coastal Commissioners have a choice of protecting the coast from nuclear catastrophe or not as they so choose, and they are making old-technology, uninformed choices.  They are forcing a dangerous, dirty, expensive energy solution on us because of their lack of understanding of the problem. If it's not a lack of understanding, it's criminal negligence.  It has to be one or the other.

June 11th, 2001
Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com





SHUT SONGS DOWN!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:

The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
Mail to: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First posted June 13th, 2001.

Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman