To: PAO@energy.state.ca.us, TParkiso@energy.state.ca.us
California Energy Commission
Media and Public Communications Office
1516 Ninth Street, MS-29
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
From: Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad, CA
Date: July 21st, 2005
To the Commissioners:
I have recently learned that there is a "citizens" panel on the California Energy Committee, consisting of two people, who are supposedly representing the common Californian and, I presume, common sense.
One of the two people on the panel is Dr. Victor Gilinsky. When I learned he was on the panel, and that he is the same Dr. Gilinsky who is a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissioner, I decided to do some investigation of his credentials to be on this panel. The result of my research (shown below) is unequivocal: He does NOT belong on the panel!
Nuclear power plants are dangerous, dirty, and inefficient, they are targets of terrorism, the environmental effects from their day-to-day operation have been grossly understated, they don't save us money, and to top it all off, they provide intermittent power, prone to sudden and prolonged outages.
Yet in 2002 Dr. Gilinsky advocated that Dry Cask Storage on-site at our nuclear power plants is a safe and reasonable alternative to SHUTTING THEM DOWN. Such an opinion utterly ignores the damage that a terrorist could cause. I have outlined in prior testimony to various regulatory authorities (such as the NRC, the DOE, etc.) numerous methods, ANY ONE OF WHICH would render a dry cask ON FIRE.
Dr. Gilinsky's support for nuclear power is untenable in light of the facts against the continued operation of these plants on a day-to-day basis, as has been expressed thousands of times before (and ignored, thousands of times before), at hearing after hearing at the state and federal levels, by citizens who are highly qualified and experienced, with credentials equal to or surpassing those of Dr. Gilinsky. The truth -- "shut 'em down now!" -- has also been pleaded by citizens who are merely self-educated, thoughtful, and concerned for the welfare of humanity.
Furthermore, nuclear power plants require off-site power AT ALL TIMES or they must, themselves, shut down. (It's the law.) Thus, our four nukes (along with Arizona's cluster of three) are at constant risk of initiating a massive power grid failure such as happened on the East Coast on Aug. 14, 2003, when power interruptions forced nuclear (and other) power plants to shut down in a cascading sequence, causing approximately 50 million people to go without electricity for as long as a week or more. Nuclear power plants cannot be brought back online as quickly as other power plants, and often, when they shut down, a list of "to-do's" has to be accomplished before they can be restarted. Fluctuations also occur during startup -- nukes can suck 100 megawatts of energy FROM the grid during startup (that's about 10% of full output). This can happen over and over during a restart.
Perhaps all this power-wattage stuff seems like "small potatoes" when balanced against the occasional bird kill and perhaps some construction accidents for wind power, or against the scourge of black lung for coal miners (and asthma for their children). Or against any war for oil in the Middle East.
But nuclear power plants can also cause the PERMANENT evacuation of the ENTIRE AREA OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA or an equivalent area in the middle of the state. An accident at either San Onofre or Diablo Canyon could render Los Angeles and its environs UNINHABITABLE, and its robust and vibrant millions sick with cancer and other ailments of the nuclear age -- leukemia, heart disease, fetal deformities, etc. etc..
And the danger is not just from a meltdown of the reactor cores themselves. The destruction of just ONE dry cask would cause a disaster of such a magnitude as to PERMANENTLY BANKRUPT the State. Our medical debts alone would crush us, in addition to the loss of property, loss of life, and loss of status as a great and powerful state, with clean beaches (such as they are), and LAND of OPPORTUNITY.
To not have citizens' representatives who are demanding shutdown is both unscientific AND undemocratic. It is the commission's responsibility to face the truth. But if they won't even hear it, there is no hope for justice. An accident will be on the Commissioner's hands, for ignorance is NO EXCUSE.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
Attachments:
1) Documentation showing Dr. Victor Gilinsky is a pro-nuclear, biased, short-sighted shill for the nuclear establishment and, worse, has apparently fooled activists such as Rochelle Becker into thinking he is a "good guy."
2) Related documents and links to prior work by this author, including animations and other educational programs which are submitted as part of this testimony and which may be freely copied, the author being the owner of all relevant copyrights.
3) THIS JUST IN (July 21st, 2005): a4nr press release only advocates EVENTUAL shutdown (in 2022 (San Onofre) and 2021/2025 (Diablo Canyon)).
4) Comments on aging nuclear power plants (regarding Oyster Creek specifically, but many of these comments apply to San Onofre)
==========================================================
Subject: In the matter of Victor Gilinsky...
To: nuclearshutdown@yahoogroups.com
Subject: In the matter of Victor Gilinsky...
At 03:53 PM 7/15/2005 -0700, beckers@thegrid.net wrote (clip):
"Victor Gillinsky (sic) is a good guy."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let's talk about Dr. Victor Gilinsky:
In a 2000 report, he didn't think North Korea should receive nuclear power equipment from the U.S. until "North Korea is a trustworthy recipient." After that little matter is taken care of, why of course, it's okay.
He stated that "the very large size" of the nukes we were proposing to sell to North Korea "makes the project both uneconomic and unsafe." Smaller nukes, however, would have been entirely OKAY with Dr. Gilinsky.
He worked at the Atomic Energy Commission for several years starting in 1971, as assistant director for policy and program review. Nothing anti-nuke there, that's for sure. In fact, those were some of the strongest years for nuclear power development in America's history. And he obviously helped.
From 1973 to 1975 he was head of the RAND Physical Sciences Department. The RAND corporation has always been a pro-nuclear "think tank" as you may know, and a revolving door for those with militaristic thinking and world domination on their minds.
Then it was back to government, and a stint at the new NRC from 1975 to 1984 where he was "heavily involved in nuclear export issues" according to one brief biography. So I wonder how many of the rest of the world's ~335 nuclear power plants are courtesy Victor Gilinsky's efforts, don't you?
He was appointed to the NRC by President Gerald Ford and re-appointed by President Jimmy "nukes are our last resort -- and we're down to our last resorts!" Carter.
In testimony in 2002 regarding Yucca Mountain he proclaimed that onsite storage of nuclear waste allows for "ample opportunity" for the continued -- and even expanded -- use of nuclear power -- that Yucca Mountain is not needed for this reason. So we can EACH have mini-Yucca Mountains -- without the mountains -- at our nuclear power facilities.
His view of the near disaster at Davis-Besse in 2002 due to corrosion was that "a serious accident was barely averted." This in no way impacted his support for nuclear power. To call the potential loss of the state of Ohio and an increase in worldwide radiation levels merely a potentially "serious accident" IS an understatement. It was a catastrophe that was averted, and that by pure luck.
There ARE good people who were formerly nuclear industry insiders who have learned the truth and become whistleblowers, but Gilinsky doesn't appear to be one of them. In fact, it is an insult to those who actually have taken that extremely difficult route to suggest that Gilinsky is anything but a life-long shill for the nuclear industry.
The most positive statement I found by him is that he thinks that nuclear reactors and their fuel, especially those in "iffy" (he has a doctorate to use that term) countries, will "always need close IAEA oversight." I refer to my previous email for comments about the IAEA's ingrained bias towards nuclear power.
Now, you say Gilinsky is a good man, and attack me for questioning it. I say he supports nothing you've claimed to me you believe in, but if you know something about Dr. Gilinsky the rest of the world longs to hear, please share it with us.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
=================================================
Subject: What % of Americans would vote for a nuclear shutdown, especially if offered a cheaper renewable energy alternative?
July 15th, 2005
Dear Shutdown group,
I'm very pleased to have been invited onto this new list.
I certainly believe the only reasonable position anyone can advocate today is for an immediate shut-down of all nuclear power plants around the world. A wide variety of clean alternative energy sources exist -- that's not the problem. It's the tiny fraction of society which makes money by the bucketful while generating thousands of tons of nuclear waste (and "valuable" nuclear weapons raw material) which is the problem.
And those who regulate them.
But of course, I'm sure everyone on this list knows that. I believe society as a whole is largely against nuclear power, and usually, the more they know about it the more they oppose it.
I contacted my Congressman's office this morning and asked for an appointment to meet with him. Another Congressperson had forwarded a copy of my recent book (or "booklet" if you prefer) about my concerns regarding San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station. My Congressman's office said, when I called, that they had received it "yesterday" (July 14th, 2005).
I had, foolishly I suppose, overlooked completely the idea of sending the book to him myself. Having decided I could only afford to send it only to a few people, I chose to send it to all the Democrats in the State legislature (both House and Senate) and all of California's Democratic Congressional Representatives, of which Randy "Duke" Cunningham is not one (R-50th CA). (I've yet to hear of an anti-nuke Republican elected official, although I'm sure there are millions of Republicans who do not believe the hype about nuclear power.) I also sent the book to selected Congresspeople from other states. (If anyone on this list would like copies to send to your state or federal legislators, or for yourself or others, please let me know.)
I am awaiting a call back from Cunningham's office for an appointment. [Note: Cunningham's office called July 19th, 2005 and renounced their previous commitment to allow this writer to meet with his elected representative. -- rdh]
Next week Pamela Blockey O'Brien and I will be meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding her recent 2.206 petition, with which I am also affiliated and which is against:
"23 G.E. Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors -- so-called Nuclear Lemons - namely: Browns Ferry I, II, III. Brunswick I and II. Cooper I. Dresden II and III. Duane Arnold. Edwin I. Hatch I and II. Fermi II. Hope Creek I. James A. Fitzpatrick. Monticello. Nine Mile Point I. OYSTER CREEK (the mother of all nuclear lemons). Peach Bottom II and III. Pilgrim I. Quad Cities I and II. Vermont Yankee. Collectively and individually, with Bases.
"9 Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors -- so called "Ice Condensers" - Namely: Catawba I and II. D.C. Cook I and II. McGuire I and II. Sequoyah I and II. Watts Bar I. Collectively and individually, with Bases.
"15 Special Circumstance Reactors, namely: Salem I and II. St. Lucie I and II. Turkey Point III and IV. San Onofre II and III. Crystal River III. Calvert Cliffs I and II. Farley I and II. Grand Gulf I. Three Mile Island I. With Bases.
"2 Nuclear Death Traps from Hell, namely: NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, Erwin, TN. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATIONS PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT, Ky, with Bases.
"Requesting SHUTDOWN. LICENSE REVOCATION. CLEAN UP OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA, WORKER COMPENSATION and far more as detailed herein, including removal of any and all deadly radioactive "spent" fuel as soon as humanly possible, as detailed herein."
Pamela Blockey O'Brien is a "Former Non-Governmental Organization Delegate to the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament, 1982."
The meeting with the NRC will be by phone and will NOT include representatives from the Utilities in question (apparently by their choice), although it will include NRC lawyers, and transcriptions will be made available to the public. (Hopefully we will also be given a chance to correct these transcriptions, which inevitably have many errors (the name Dr. John W. Gofman never seems to get transcribed correctly, for example.)
A copy of the 2.206 petition under 10 CFR Ch. 20 will presumably be made available, if it is not already, through the NRC's ADAMS system so good luck finding it. Pamela's cover letter for the petition reads:
---------------------------------------------------------------
The nuclear weapons and nuclear power issue is the most important issue in the world, not only because they are inextricably interlinked, with materials and technologies required mainly the same, -- as are the establishments and science pushing both, -- but because they threaten all life on earth, damage the gene pool, contaminate the planet and contribute to global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer. The ozone layer destruction first started by high altitude nuclear weapons tests, for example.
You are receiving the enclosed Petition to the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, called a "2.206 Petition Under 10.CFR, Chapter 20" in the hope that you can help expose its contents and thereby save lives. It is an attempt to force the shutdown of some of the most bloody awful, environmentally ruinous, dangerous, vulnerable commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear production facilities in the nation. It must be understood, that nuclear power plants all produce PLUTONIUM in their fuel rods during operation, and far more besides. All these potential terrorist targets listed, are themselves terror inducing.
From nuclear plants located in mangrove swamps which threaten Miami and the Keys, to those which have no large containment dome over them, which could wipe a chunk of two or three states off the map, in terms of rendering them uninhabitable. From commercial reactors producing extra radioactive hydrogen (Tritium) for nuclear weapons use, which can not only meltdown, but explode, to one that threatens Washington DC. As well as a nuclear production facility that rivals some of the worst in the former East Bloc. All in here, with a common thread: children nearby. Our most precious children, whose health and lives are affected.
PLEASE read this through to the end. And as you read it, remember these things:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is partly funded by its licensees, the nuclear industry.
The ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) allied with the WHO (World Health Organization) recommends the most awful radiation "standards" which are accepted worldwide. It is highly selective and controlled, self-appointing, self-electing, dominated by the nuclear establishment and the medical radiological societies, with physician participation limited to medical radiologists, according to Dr. Bertell, who states: "It is, in every sense of the term, a closed club and not a body of independent scientific experts." (No Immediate Danger, R. Bertell, p. 173).
The IAEA has virtually no oversight. Within the UN system it has fiscal independence. It's principal objectives, contrary to popular believe, are to shove nuclear power, and all things nuclear Except the Bomb, down the world's throat. It's all in its charter. Due to this, it is responsible in part for nuclear proliferation, as any nation with a power plant, with enough money and know-how, can ultimately get The Bomb. Via a 1959 agreement, the IAEA can also run interference with WHO. There should be Senate Hearings and investigations on the enclosed, and the above. In case of a nuclear catastrophe, FEMA takes over from NRC. They know far less -- even the late Dr. Carl Sagan made fun of FEMA, reprinting FEMAs admonition in the event of nuclear war: "If a weapon detonates nearby; a) extinguish fires, b) repair damage. (A Path Where No Man Thought, Dr. Carl Sagan & Dr. Richard Turco).
---------------------------------------------------------------
The entire 2.206 petition runs 63 pages (typed, single-spaced) -- an awesome accomplishment for anyone, but especially for a anyone as ill as she has been lately. It took her about nine months to complete the document.
We have been assured that the NRC officials we will speak to will have read her petition BEFORE we speak with them. (I'm preparing a series of questions I can use to help assure us of that fact.) I'm hoping that representatives from other federal agencies will also be on the line, of course, especially since the operation of many, if not all, of these nuclear facilities is a crime against humanity -- "murder," she wrote.
For those on this list whom I have not met yet, below are web sites I've created with additional information about nuclear power, its history, current status, methods of operation, etc. etc..
I'm hoping to be in Nevada August 4-7.
Warmest regards,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
Please visit these web pages.
POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States:
How does a nuclear power plant work? Animations of PWRs and BWRs:
Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom":
List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist orgs,
specs, etc.:
SHUT SAN ONOFRE!:
STOP CASSINI web site:
NO NUKES IN SPACE: (FLASH animation):
or try:
List of ~300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection
(donations welcome!):
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here (written with Pamela Blockey-O'Brien):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The item shown below came in near the final editing pass on the above letter to the California Energy Commission. It advocates for a "phase out" and to stop "relicensing." However, the plants are currently licensed through 2022!!! As long as the plants stay open, every couple of weeks another dry cask's worth of nuclear waste is created. Our elected officials are uninformed, misinformed, and disinformed. Shutdown is the only option that makes sense, and the only position nuclear activists should feel comfortable supporting. -- rdh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: newsletters@a4nr.org
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Subject: Alliance invited to address aging nukes before state agency
Alliance invited to address aging nukes before state agency
California must assert state's rights to avert the economic risk of dependence on power from aging nuclear plants - which daily produce radioactive waste. This August the Alliance will tell the California Energy Commission that 6000+ tons of high-level radioactive waste sitting on California's coast is enough.
Should we fix the problem or add to it?
California is NOT preempted from phasing out nuclear power plants and ceasing the production of high-level radioactive waste if it is in the state's best economic interest.
The economics of the nuclear power industry have never been presented in one forum. The nuclear economy exists in a kind of provisional reality, based on cradle to grave subsidies, exempted from financial liability for the real cost of an accident, and isolated and protected from the real-world economics of the energy market.
Adding to that dream-state, the federal government promised, when it granted operating licenses, that a way would soon be found to provide safe, permanent storage of the industry's deadly byproduct. On that basis, utilities were were (sic) told to go ahead and build. Five decades later, the problem of high-level radioactive waste remains unsolved, yet the nuclear industry is now being urged to embark on another binge of construction. Subsidies and tax breaks that could be going to the research and development of clean, renewable, sustainable and affordable energy are earmarked to go to nukes instead.
More than 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored adjacent to our nation's rivers and oceans, awaiting indefinitely that safe, permanent storage. In California, 6000+ tons of high-level radioactive waste sits on our coast, with 200+ additional tons produced each year.
Enough is enough. California must assert our state's right to reject dependency on aging nuclear plants on our coast. Our state is the world's 7th largest economy. To risk California's economic viability by continuing down an expensive and dangerous nuclear path is an unacceptable risk.
The mission of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is to amend current law to disallow license renewals for California's existing aging nuclear plants. This is the message we will bring to the California Energy Commission workshop. Since January 2005, this is the message we have been bringing to California's state legislators, businesses and individuals.
This is a feasible project. Minds are opening to the dangers of old nuclear plants with expensive and degrading components. For the first time in decades, there is a dialogue among our state's representatives and oversight agencies to discuss whether the state should depend on nuclear power for future energy needs.
Phasing out the production of high-level radioactive waste on our coast is an achievable goal. Please join us.
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
www.a4nr.org (858) 337 2703
Upcoming Events
Important events for the Alliance
O'merde Invitational will benefit the Alliance
The O'Merde Celebrity Charity Pro-Am Invitational (Known in the highest golf circles simply as "The O'Merde") Location: Boulder Creek Golf and Country Club 16901 Big Basin Highway Boulder Creek, California 95006
www.bouldercreekgolf.com Entry fee: $125. Includes green fees, a donation to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, and not much else. Accommodations are available at the club Those wishing to be considered for a invitation ( it is an invitational, after all) should contact Bob Brandes at crashbrandes@sbcglobal.net or (415) 775-8430 to arrange an interview. After in depth analysis of you sense of humor, ability to deal with bent rules, and account balances, the competition committee will render its decision. Note - Bribes will be accepted in the form of checks made out to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. For those of you who don't wish to be considered, you might want to send in a contribution anyway. We know who you are. Swing Hard, Swing Often, The Bobinator
Read more
California Energy Commission holds workshop on nuclear power furture (sic)
The California Energy Commission is holding a public hearing on nuclear topics. This is the FIRST time in the CEC's 20-year history it has convened a public meeting on nuclear power! If you care about our energy future nationally and increasing economic risks in California you can't afford to miss this. For those who cannot attend an action letter will be sent July 15, 2005
Read more
At 20 Diablo becomes more expensive and a greater threat
20 years ago Diablo Canyon began nuclear operation. It has now been licensed as a high-level radioactive waste dump. What opportunities exist to phase out this growing nightmare on our earthquake active coast.
Read more
Breaking News
Here's the latest news
Business will reject Bush nuclear power plan, Wyden says
Read more
Disaster Costs Spark Global Warming Debate
Read more
Workers in N-plants 'risk cancer'
The biggest and most comprehensive study ever among nuclear power workers has established that the low doses of radiation they receive can increase their cancer risk.
Read more
Nuclear staff told 'stay at home'
Non-essential workers at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant have been told to stay at home on Friday in light of the London bombings.
Read more
Cost of nuclear 'underestimated'
Cost of nuclear 'underestimated' The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated by a factor of three, according to a British think tank.
Read more
You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends.
You may change your preferences at...
You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of most of our pages at a4nr.org
==========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 20th, 2005
Dear Jerseyites,
As I was landing at Philadelphia International Airport a few weeks ago to visit my 80-year old dad, the cooling towers at Hope Creek/Salem were clearly visible until the plane was "over the numbers." Easy targets? Taking off, they would be minutes away. A business jet fully loaded with fuel and explosives could be there in minutes. How many business-jet sized airports are just minutes away from Oyster Creek?
If cooling towers are built at Oyster Creek, terrorists would know (as if they don't already) the value of the various buildings next to the cooling towers (and the best directions to approach from). Even the loss of the cooling towers themselves could result in a meltdown, or at least a prolonged billion-dollar outage and a very dangerous (risky) situation.
But of course, Oyster Creaky already has lots of other problems. As plants age, everything becomes "embrittled."
"Embrittled" means the pipes are inflexible and prone to snapping when shaken, or because of thermal stresses during start-up or during shutdowns -- especially sudden, emergency shutdowns. It means the valves are stiff and prone to sticking when called on to change position -- perhaps during an emergency. It means the support structures are all rusted.
It means there are microscopic cracks everywhere.
It means there are microscopic changes in the molecular structure of the metals, especially the alloys. It means that what was once a malleable material made of a matrix of carefully-aligned molecules is now rivulets of one metal intertwined with rivulets of other metals instead of a homogeneous blend of the two, or three, or more, different metals. And let's not forget to mention water damage, boric acid damage, and, for the reactors near the ocean (such as Oyster Creek), salt damage too. Add in radiation damage, which enhances every other aging/embrittlement problem.
About 99% of every nuclear power plant is either uninspected or simply cannot be inspected -- wiring, piping, containers, pumps, valves, gauges, switches, knobs, etc.. The nuclear industry believes that all accidents are survivable -- that meltdowns cannot happen. Its one of many fantasies they live by. And kill by.
And what does "old" mean to a nuclear power plant? It means the wiring which was pinched during construction is finally fraying to the point of contact -- and shorting things out (this actually happened to a 25-year old reactor in California recently). It means that the phrase "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong" (Murphy's Law) has a chance to play itself out -- read your NRC dockets: Some of these things are SOOOO inevitable! And sound soooo silly, if only millions of lives weren't at stake.
In the course of the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, just about everything fails eventually. And you can't (or shouldn't) recycle waste metals from nuclear power plants. For example, if you install new titanium steam generators, all that titanium cannot (or should not) later be used for, say, baby strollers, computer cases, mountain bikes, etc. etc.. Nuclear power plants turn recyclable materials into non-recyclable materials.
I strongly suggest that the citizens of New Jersey do everything in their power to stop such an expensive upgrade to their deadly dinosaur. Let the coast be dotted with windmills (which, by the way, can help protect against the most difficult assault to defend against of all: The low, swift, maneuverable attack from the air).
If you shut down Oyster Creek, you'll be much safer, and consequently, everyone will sleep better at night. And the life of Barnegat Bay will be greatly improved -- plant owners' specious claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Warmest regards,
Russell Hoffman
(A friend and visitor from CA)
===============================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------