The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07251995 - C79 4: 8 C.79 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 25, 1995 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Nuclear Fuels The Board of Supervisors received a letter dated July 10, 1995, from Bill Chandler, on behalf of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 20520, advising that Senator Feinstein has expressed her opposition to the U.S. Department of Energy's consideration of Concord as a possible point of entry for nuclear fuel rods transported from foreign research reactors. The Board of Supervisors expressed appreciation for Senator Feinstein's support and agreed to send a letter of appreciation. THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County Administrator is requested to prepare a letter of appreciation for the Chair's signature to Senator Feinstein. On recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a letter of appreciation is also directed to the Board of Directors, Association of Bay Area Governments. 1 hereby certify that this is a true andoomectcopyof an action taken and entered on the minutes of the c.c. County Administrator Board of superyrs on th thee date shown. ATTESTED:._.. -�-�• PHIL BAT EL Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors County Administator 8JI Oeputy r , t'`DIANNE FEINSTEIN ' 7q CALIFORNIA RECEIVED united states senate JUL 1 2 1995 WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. July 10, 1995 The Honorable Gayle Bishop Chair, Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Bishop: I wanted to let you know that Senator Feinstein has expressed her opposition to the Department of Energy's consideration of Concord as a possible point of entry for nuclear fuel rods transported from foreign research reactors. I am attaching a press release and a copy of the letter sent to Secretary Hazel O'Leary. If you have any questions or additional information to provide, do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached in our San Francisco office at (415)- 249-4777. Sincerely yours, c Bill Chandler State Director BC:keh FRESNO OFFICE: LOS ANGELES OFFICE: SAN DIEGO OFFICE: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: 1130"0"STREET 11111 SANTA MONICA BLVD. 750"B"STREET 1700 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 2446 SUITE 915 SUITE 1030 SUITE 305 FRESNO,CA 93721 LOS ANGELES,CA 90025 SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 (209)485-7430 (310)914-7300 (619)231-9712 (415)249-4777 DIANNE FEINSTEIN CALIFORNIA united ol5tatcs senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 For Immediate Release Contact: Susan Kennedy Monday, July 10, 1995 202/224-9629 SENATOR FEINSTEIN EXPRESSES OPPOSITION TO ENERGY DEPARTMENT PLAN TO SHIP NUCLEAR WASTE THROUGH THE BAY AREA WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Dianne Feinstein has called "unacceptable" a plan by the U.S. Department of Energy to import nuclear fuel rods into the United, States through a port in Northern California. Under the proposal -- one of several under review -- nuclear waste from a number of foreign power plants would be shipped into the port at the Concord Naval Weapons Station in Concord, California, and then transported through the Bay Area. In a letter released today, Senator Feinstein has told the Secretary of Energy that after reviewing Energy Department documents and talking to local officials in Northern California, her opposition to the plan "is strong and will be unrelenting." "Despite whatever confidence the Department of Energy has in the safety of the casks in which the fuel will be transported, the fact of the matter is the material in question is so lethal that any risk of an accident in populous areas -- no matter how remote -- is unacceptable," Senator Feinstein wrote in today's letter. "Second, the risk of an accident is high for this area of the country due to the well- known earthquake risk that exists. Seismic activity in the area increases the risk that transportation of the materials could be interrupted, or in fact leaked into the population centers through which trains and/or trucks will be traveling. As you know, the travel routes in question are located on a major fault, and the emergency response mechanisms in place are unlikely to be able to handle any disaster related to the transport of such lethal material," Senator Feinstein wrote. Attached is the full text of the letter sent today by Senator Feinstein to Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. FRESNO OFFICE: LOS ANGELES OFFICE: SAN DIEGO OFFICE: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: 1130"O"STREET 11111 SANTA MONICA BLVD. 750"B"STREET 1700 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 2446 SUITE 915 SUITE 1030 SUITE 305 FRESNO,CA 93721 Los ANGELES,CA 90025 SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 (209)485-7430 (310)914-7300 (619)231-9712 (4151249-4777 JUL 10 195 07:36PM SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN p,Z DIANNE FEINSTEIN COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CAUFORNIA COMMf1TEE ON THE JUPICIARY COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION united Cates *nait WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 July 10, 1995 Honorable Hazel O'Leary Secretary Department of Energy James Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Secretary O'Leary: I understand that the Departments of Energy and State are currently evaluating a plan to import nuclear fuel rods into the port of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, Concord, Califoroia -- a plan which I find unacceptable. After reviewing correspondence from several local elected officials as well as Department of Energy documents, my opposition is strong and will be unrelenting. The proposal, one of several under review, is part of a plan by the Department of Energy to ship and store U.S. origin-waste fuel from a number of foreign research reactors. There are several reasons why I feel that transporting the fuel through population centers in the Bay Area is unacceptable. First, there are six million people living in the Bay Area, and Concord-Walnut Creek is one of the fastest growing communities in the region. Additionally, ships carrying the weapon-grade material will have to travel through San Francisco Bay, an extremely congested and difficult waterway, The bay already handles a great deal of both commercial and recreational traffic. Any risk of an accident must be taken more seriously by Department of Energy officials. For example, one researcher in Alameda County has put the number of accidents involving nuclear material transported by the Department of Energy at 173 since 1975, nationwide. There have been nine accidents since 1979 in California alone. Despite whatever confidence the Department of Energy has in the safety of the casks in which the fuel will be transported, the fact of the matter is the material in question is so lethal, that any risk of an accident in populous areas -- no matter how remote -- is unacceptable. JUL' 10 195 07=3GPM SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN P.3 Second, the risk of an accident is high for this area of the country due to the well- known earthquake risk that exists. Seismic activity in the area increases the risk that transportation of the materials could be interrupted, or in fact leaked into the population centers through which trains and/or trucks will be travelling. As you know, the possible travel routes in question are located on a major fault, and the emergency response mechanisms in place are unlikely to be able to handle any disaster related to the transport of such lethal material. In fact, it is my understanding that the Department of Energy has yet to consult with the Bay Area cities in question about emergency response measures possible in the event of an accident, or about the personnel anchor equipment the municipalities will have to commit to ensure safe and efficient transport of the material. Third, it does make any sense why the Concord port would be the optimal site considering the storage sites named by Department of Energy. For instance, the fuel rods would have to travel a much longer route to get to Idaho (the storage facility of choice by the Department) than if they were brought into the U.S. through ports in Oregon or Washington. Finally, I do not feel that the Department of Energy has adequately looked at options to reprocess the waste abroad, It is certainly understandable that removing nuclear-grade material from circulation serves the Administration's policy to thwart nuclear proliferation. However, if the rods can be reprocessed into commercial-grade fuel abroad, using facilities already in place in several countries, then the Administration can both meet its stated policy goals and avoid placing American lives in danger. I urge you to reconsider the decision to place the Concord Naval Weapons Station on the list of possible ports of entry for this dangerous material. I look forward to your response. rely, i e einstein nited States Senator