Uppity Wisconsin - Environment

No one wants to build a nuclear plant here? Then why change the law?

xoff — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:17:47 +0000

The party line from people trying to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act is that there's no reason to worry about the changes that would make it much easier to build a new nuclear reactor in Wisconsin.

No one wants to do that anytime soon, they say, so it's not a big deal.

Sen. Spencer Black, D-Madison, co-chair the Assembly clean energy committee. "stressed this week that the state only has a de facto moratorium on nuclear power anyway, since new plants could be built if they are deemed cost-effective and are supported by a federally approved site to store nuclear waste," WisPolitics reported. "But Black said reducing those standards won't spark a wave of new plants since Wisconsin's energy production is currently outpacing demand.

"Black added that by investing in energy efficiency, the state could push off the need for more power plants -- nuclear or otherwise -- for decades."

State Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), co-chair of teh Senate committee working on the bill -- and a nuclear advocate -- also downplays the nuclear changes.

"The likelihood of a nuclear power plant being built in Wisconsin any time soon is virtually nil," he told WisPolitics. "The economics just aren’t there, and the need just isn’t there."

If that's the case, why does the nuclear industry, the utilities, and State Rep. Jim Soletski (D-Green Bay). a former Kewanuee nuclear worker who is Black's co-chair of the Assembly committee, want the law changed so badly that they're willing to kill the bill if the pro-nuclear changes aren't included?

They clearly believe that at some point there will be new nuclear reactors built in the state, if the law is changed.

Black downplays the change and says it is possible to build a new reactor under existing law if conditions are met.

That's absolutely true, but one of those conditions is that there be a federal nuclear waste repository to handle the high-level radioactive waste the reactors produce. The change would eliminate that requirement, and open the door to long-term storage of the deadly materials next to the reactors. That's already happening at Point Beach and Kewaunee because there is no safe, permanent way to dispose of the waste, which is deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.

So here's a modest proposal: Since no one's in any hurry to build more nuclear reactors anyway, why don't we just leave the law the way it is? Maybe by the time someone wants to build a plant here there will be a federal waste repository. And if there's not, we can decide whether we want the waste to pile up in Wisconsin.

At least then we would be talking about a real issue, not a theoretical question. And if that were the question today -- Should we build more nukes and pile the waste up in Wisconsin? -- I'm confident the answer would be no.

Referendum, anyone?

In 1983, when people statewide were asked in a referendum whether they wanted a federal waste repository here, 89% said no. This time, we'd just be asking whether they want some smaller piles of the stuff at various locations in the state. If anyone thinks a majority of the people in Wisconsin would support that, let's ask them.

Surgery on Clean Energy Jobs Bill to make it even more pro-nuclear; could be fatal

xoff — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:28:50 +0000

The Inside Baseball Report, which may be more than you want to know about this subject:

Rumors are rampant in the Capitol about a new version of the Clean Energy Jobs Act now being prepared for rollout sometime in the next week.

It's being done in private, as usual, so it's impossible to say exactly what will be in the substitute version or omnibus amendment being drafted.

But if you're part of the Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition that's been fighting against relaxing the laws on new nuclear reactors, this is guaranteed not to be good news.

Pro-nuclear forces do not have a majority in the legislature. On its own merits, the nuclear section of the bill would never pass.

But it is tied to some positive renewable energy policies that many nuclear opponents want to see passed. They seem willing to swallow hard and support the bill, even though they oppose expanding nuclear power.

The bill is in much the same status that the health care bill is in Congress. There are no Republican votes for it, so Democrats must round up enough votes to pass it themselves. With narrow majorities in each house, it only takes two defecting Democrats to derail the bill -- or to get a concession. (Think Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman if that makes this easier to grasp.)

Unfortunately, the only Dems willing to do that and threaten to blow up the bill have been the pro-nuclear camp, notable State Rep. Jim Solestki, a pretty liberal Dem who used to work at the Kewaunee nuclear plant and thinks nukes are the greatest thing since buttons on shirts. He and a couple of other Assembly Dems apparently are willing to kill the whole bill if they don't get their nuclear fix.

No one on the anti-nuclear side is willing to play hardball, perhaps angering the leadership and causing themselves some problems in the closing weeks of the session.

And so the committee co-chairs, which ironically includes anti-nukers Rep. Spencer Black and Sen, Mark Miller, as well as pro-nukers Soletski and Sen. Jeff Plale, will accomodate that to pass the bill.

The original bill, which would end the requirement that there be a federal repository for high-level radioactive waste before any new reactors can be built, was bad enough.

But the redraft reportedly is making it worse -- more pro-nuclear, in other words. We'll know how bad it is when the language is unveiled. But by then it will pretty much be a done deal.

We suggested awhile back that such changes could be a deal breaker and cost the support of some of the environmental and consumer groups who were less than thrilled with the original package they reluctantly signed onto.

The first evidence of that has now appeared, with the Citizens Utility Board warning the co-chairs that it will withdraw its support for the bill if the original nuclear langauge is tampered with.

CUB has been saying all along it would not support further changes in the nuclear section. Whether other environmental groups who were part of the task force that recommended the bill will follow suit is unknown. If they do, and groups like the Sierra Club, Wisconsin Environment, Clean Wisconsin or others bail out, the delicate coalition supporting the bill may collapse.

At this point, that may not be a bad thing.

Meanwhile, the Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition, which thought the bill's original language went much too far to open the door for more nuclear reactors, sent this email today to co--chairs Black and Miller:

We are members of a Carbon Free Nuclear Free Coalition working to support Wisconsin's current common sense law on nuclear reactors.
We have asked, at public hearings and in meetings with you, that the nuclear section be removed from the bill. We think you will agree that section could not pass separately, but only as part of a package that includes some attractive renewable energy policies. The nuclear changes do not belong in a clean energy bill, since nuclear power is neither clean nor renewable.

We understand that as committee co-chairs and co-authors your charge is to pass the bill. But it is our mutual goal to protect the public and the environment. We don't think the current language does that adequately, and we are alarmed by reports that the new language you are preparing as a "compromise" will make the nuclear section of the bill even worse, removing the requirement that new reactors serve the needs of Wisconsin customers.

For those concerned about the dangers posed by expanding nuclear power in the state, this process so far has been all give and no take.

We have offered the attached language as a way to strengthen the bill and allay some of the serious safety concerns about allowing additional nuclear reactors in Wisconsin. We ask that, at a minimum, this language be incorporated into any substitute amendments or revisions being prepared for this bill.

If, in fact, the changes you propose accede to the utilities' and nuclear industries demands and weaken the nuclear section of this bill even further, without doing anything to strengthen the waste regulations and address our concerns, we may be forced to oppose the entire bill.

We would be happy to meet and discuss this if you so desire.

Thank you.

Physicians for Social Responsibility - Wisconsin

Wis. Network for Peace and Justice

Peace Action Wisconsin

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Coulee Region Progressives

Nukewatch

Down River Alliance

The language the group suggests would require that spent fuel stored at reactor sites "will be stored in facilities that are sufficiently secure that foreseeable terrorist attacks would not cause severe economic disruption and casualties outside the perimeter of the nuclear power plant."

Sound reasonable? Tell Miller and Black that. In fact, tell Soletski and Plale, too.

Say no to nuclear socialism

xoff — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:33:56 +0000

From Friends of the Earth.

And now for a little shameless self-promotion

xoff — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:30:03 +0000

I'm happy to announce that a book by my favorite author (well, after Mark Twain) is now available in audio book format.

Twelve hours? I would not have guessed it. More here.

Vermont Yankee Shut Down by Vermont Leg

Steve Hanson — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:06:30 +0000

This is not a Wisconsin story, but in light of the current debate in Wisconsin over expansion of nuclear energy, I think it's worth discussing. Although the Vermont Yankee power plant in Vermont has been poised for a license renewal, the Vermont Senate today decided that they had had enough, and voted to close the plant down in 2012. Those of you who follow these things will now ask "How the heck can that be? -- The state has no power over this". Normally true, but when Entergy purchased the plant, they agreed to let the state renew the state license for the plant at the time that the Federal license came up for renewal.Thus Vermont Yankee will soon be the first nuclear plant shut down by local government since Rancho Seco in 1989 (and that was simply because the plant had become too expensive to operate).

The Vermont Yankee plant has been troubled in recent years, having had a cooling tower collapse in 2007 (pictured here), and there have been recent disclosurs that the 38 year old plant has been leaking radioactive tritium. Entergy and the state legislature have been embroiled in controversy over the tritium leak, since Entergy claimed the plant had not underground pipes capable of leaking tritium, a claim which later turned out to be false.

Although Entergy may consider filing suit to fight the shutdown, it seems unlikely that they will succeed in the unique legal circumstances of this particular plant.

Nuclear 'tweaks' in energy bill could be a deal-breaker

xoff — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:56:49 +0000

When is a "tweak" in a legislative bill a deal breaker?

Maybe, just maybe, when the change is to an already controversial section on nuclear power that's part of the proposed Clean Energy Jobs Bill for Wisconsin.

Many activists think the language agreed upon by the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which is the basis for the bill, already goes too far in relaxing state laws on nuclear reactors.

Now, at the request of utilities which want to be able to build new reactors, changes are being considered to make it even easier.

The utilities say it's just a little "tweak" in the language, and that the original draft may be unconstitutional. But some of the environmentalists and consumer advocates who have been supporting the bill are signaling that the changes could be a deal-breaker.

Environmentalists on the Task Force reluctantly agreed to swallow a compromise that removes the requirement that a federal nuclear waste repository be operating before a new reactor can be built in the state.

What they got in return, supposedly, was protection against so-called "merchant plants" -- reactors built by non-Wisconsin companies to send power elsewhere in the country. (It solves a problem that seemingly has never been a problem, but that's another story.)

The draft of the bill now being considered by the legislature says this:

196.493 (2) (am) 4. For certifications made on or after the date specified in the notice published under sub. (3) (b), the entire output of electricity produced by the proposed nuclear power plant will be needed and used to meet the expected requirements for electricity of ratepayers or members of electric cooperatives in this state and the applicant demonstrates to the commission’s satisfaction that the output will be needed and used for this purpose.

Trading that language for lifting the requirement for a federal waste repository doesn't seem like a very good deal for those concerned about the effects of nuclear power on health, safety and the environment.

But a deal's a deal -- except when it isn't.

The ink was hardly dry on the bill draft when utilities began complaining that the language was probably unconstitutional. You can't restrict interstate commerce, they said. And you can't control where electrons go; they're bound to cross state lines.

What worries the utilties even more is a clause that says if one part of the nuclear section is thrown out by the court, the whole section is thrown out. If it weren't for that, they'd just as soon let the court take out the piece they don't like.

So they've been asking for both changes -- take out the requirement that you must use the nuclear power in Wisconsin, and get rid of that non-severability clause that says the whole section rises or falls together.

That change is what a Journal Sentinel story described as "tweaking" the bill's language, is being pushed hard by the utilities.

A representative of one environmental group says the "problem" language is what was agreed upon by the Task Force, and says the utilies are trying to renege on the deal. Katie Nekola, energy program director for Clean Wisconsin, says:

If the nuclear language in the global warming bill is unconstitutional, then why did the utilities and most other members of the Global Warming Task Force agree to it when the vote was taken last year?
The legality of the in-state requirement is not a new issue. It was discussed extensively within the Global Warming Task Force before a vote was taken, and many attorneys were consulted at that time. All members of the task force agreed to support modification of existing law with the condition that new reactors must be built to benefit Wisconsin customers, not to sell power out of state.
The statement that it’s impossible to ensure that power generated by nukes will serve Wisconsin customers because of the way electricity flows along transmission lines is simply absurd.
Utilities and merchant power plants have contracts to buy and sell power to municipal utilities and each other. Although it’s true that electrons can’t be directed along a particular path, those contracts ensure that energy reaches Wisconsin homes and businesses.
The language in the global warming bill requires that any new reactor built in Wisconsin must have a contract with Wisconsin utilities, so that if Wisconsin must bear the risks of radioactive waste storage and reactor accidents, at least we will have a supply of electricity to show for it.
Members of the Task Force entered into an agreement based on compromises, and no new information has emerged that should change that agreement. For utilities to now claim that what they agreed to is unworkable is the classic bait and switch. Lawmakers should stay true to the consensus agreement that was reached, and see this so-called “tweaking” for what it is: an attempt to renege on the agreement.

Other groups, including the Citizens Utility Board, have supported the Task Force language but have said repeatedly that if the nuclear language is changed significantly it will reevaluate its support of the bill. No doubt other environmental groups will do the same.

Meanwhile, a coalition of other groups -- the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Peace Action-Wisconsin, Nukewatch, Coulee Region Progressives and more -- believe the original bill is tilted too far in favor of the nuclear industry and have been pushing to have the entire package of nuclear changes removed from the bill and allow the existing state law to stand.

There are a lot of positive things about the bill, which moves Wisconsin away from reliance on fossil fuels and toward more renewable energy.

But it appears that partisanship will play a big role, and no Republicans are expected to vote for the bill. With tiny majorities in both houses, Wisconsin Democrats face much the same challenge Congressional Dems do in passing a health care bill -- they need almost every vote.

If pro-nuclear forces continue to push their agenda to change the bill, offering nothing in return -- such as further protections on nuclear waste disposal, for example -- the whole compromise could come undone.

Environmentalists don't want to walk away from the bill and its many positive provisions. But they've already had to swallow hard to accept the original version of the nuclear language. More changes may make it more than they can stomach.

Another fly lands in the nuclear ointment

xoff — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:22:58 +0000

Darn!

Just when the nuclear industry is doing such a great job of selling its "renaissance" as the way to fight climate change, along comes another irritating little problem.

As my mother used to say, there's always something to take the joy out of life.

This time it's a tritium leak at a Vermont plant -- something that's already happened in Wisconsin at Point Beach and Kewaunee, as noted in the map above. The AP reports:

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, has now tainted at least 27 of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants...
Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fusion, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

Is it anything to be concerned about? As is often the case when there's a lot of money at stake, it depends upon who you ask.

When tritium was found near the Kewaunee plant in August 2006, the Journal Sentinel soft-peddled it. This was the lede:

The release of tritium underneath the Kewaunee nuclear plant doesn't pose a health risk because the radioactive substance hasn't been found in drinking water, federal nuclear regulators said.
The radioactive isotope of hydrogen was found in four groundwater samples taken from narrow shafts underneath the nuclear plant, located in the Kewaunee County Town of Carlton, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report...

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Dominion Resources Inc., which owns Kewaunee, stressed that no unsafe levels of tritium have been detected at monitoring… Both Kewaunee and Point Beach do regular testing and have been in compliance with federal standards that permit tritium to be released at low levels.

Others don't treat it so lightly.The Burlington VT Free Press reports:

Nuclear industry advocates say worries about tritium leaks can be overblown. “It depends on the level and where it gets to,” said Steve Kerekes, a Washington, D.C., spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “If it’s isolated, it’s not going to be an issue. Not every operating issue rises to the level of being a safety issue.”
Critics disagree. They note that tritium leaks are usually followed by the discovery of other, slower-moving but more dangerous radioactive agents like strontium-90 and cobalt-60, which have longer half-lives than tritium. Cobalt-60 was also found in the Vermont Yankee storage trench.

“It can cause damage for 120 years,” Gunter said of tritium. “If you ingest it or inhale it at close range, it can begin to saturate down to your DNA and cause cancer and birth defects.”

No radiation exposure is safe exposure, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research says"

Plant operators and the NRC initially dismissed public concerns about leaks, saying that tritium levels measured offsite by the plant operators were well below the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter4 and were “safe”5 even though all radiation protection regulations and the most recent report of the National Academies (commonly known as the BEIR VII report)6 concluded that the hypothesis that best fits the facts is that every exposure to radiation produces a corresponding cancer risk – low exposures produce low risk, and that risk increases with exposure. There is no threshold below which there is zero risk.
The EPA's method of expressing this reality is to set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) which corresponds to zero health risk. The EPA value for MCLG for all radionuclides, including tritium, is zero.

Here's a Nukewatch report on the Wisconsin plants:

In 1975, Point Beach Unit 1 leaked approximately 10,000 gallons of radioactively-contaminated water after a steam tube ruptured. The water flowed into a retention pond and from the pond into groundwater. In 1997, another steam tube in the same reactor spilled another 10,000 gallons of radioactively-contaminated water that ran eventually into Lake Michigan. That year, Unit 2 had a leaking discharge pipe which also contaminated a stream and Lake Michigan.
In 2006, Kewaunee workers found tritium in the groundwater below the site. The NRC said the radiation had infiltrated narrow shafts beneath two buildings. The leak rate was thought to be one gallon every five minutes.

So, as a proposal to make it much easier to build a new nuclear reactor works moves along the greased skids of the Wisconsin Legislature, it's not too late to speak up. Details here.

Who ya gonna believe? Grothman v. NASA

xoff — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:55:19 +0000

Without comment, excerpts from two news stories this week.

The AP reports:

[State Sen. Glenn] Grothman issued a statement saying Wisconsin has seen two consecutive colder-than-average winters and the panels should suspend their work for two years until global warming is proven.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.
The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005.

Speaking truth to (nuclear) power

xoff — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:36:47 +0000

Let's start by accentuating the positive, this quote from a Capital Times story on the pros and cons of nuclear power:

Tia Nelson, co-chair of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming, says that while the costs of nuclear power grow and the price tag for renewable sources shrinks, it is not fiscally smart for the state to invest in nuclear energy.
“We know that nuclear power is more expensive and more dangerous than any other alternative before us today,” says Nelson, daughter of Gaylord Nelson, the late U.S. senator who founded Earth Day.

As the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act starts working its way through the legislature, coverage of the nuclear power issue -- one of the more contentious piece of the huge bill -- is increasing. That's a positive;; public education and debate is good. But there's a big helping of misinformation and spin being served up as part of the menu.

The headline in this Capital Times article assures us that the bill is not a "green light" for nuclear power.

That's true, to a degree. If the bill passes, construction won't start next week or next year. But there is no question that passage of the bill as it stands, with changes in the state law regulating nuclear power, will make it much easier to build a new plant here.

Current law says that before any new reactors can be approved, a federal waste facility must be ready to handle the high-level radioactive waste from the plants. The proposed bill would eliminate that requirement.

That is a major change, and removes the only objective measure of whether there is a safe, long-term waste disposal plan. The change would simply let the Public Service Commission approve a utility's plans for the waste, which most likely would be to store it next to the reactor. That's what is already happening at Point Beach and Kewaunee, the state's two operating commercial reactors. And that's not a long-term solution.

By the way, the high level radioactive waste produced by these reactors is dangerous to humans and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. (A mere 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.) There is no safe, permanent was to dispose of it.

The Cap Times story seems designed to assure us that there won't be any more nukes in the state whether the bill passes the way it is or not.

“I think it’s fair to say anyone who wants nuclear energy will be very disappointed with this bill,” says Scott Manley of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby...
One of the state’s biggest nuclear power proponents admits the Doyle-backed bill does little to advance the cause. One reason, says Michael Corradini, UW-Madison professor of nuclear engineering and nuclear physics, is that there are three new coal-fired electric-generating facilities under construction: two near Milwaukee and another near Wausau.
“With those new coal plants coming online now, I don’t see a need for any more substantial amounts of baseload electricity for at least 10 years,” he says.
Roy Thilly, president of Wisconsin Public Power Inc., says the bill was purposely neutral on the issue of nuclear power. “It’s not anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear,” says Thilly, who co-chaired the task force. “It’s a carefully constructed package that needs to appeal to both ends of the political spectrum.”

Well, if that's the case, and the utilities and nuclear backers really don't think this bill does anything to advance nuclear power, why don't we just agree to take that language out and leave things the way they are? Why do you suppose they pushed so hard to include that language, and are insisting it stay in the bill?

A couple of other points to clear up in the Cap Times story:

But the new Wisconsin bill still mandates that any nuclear facility here have a waste disposal plan, in addition to requiring that the plant be economically better than the alternatives.

That waste disposal plan is likely to be on-site storage at the reactors, since there is no good alternative. This is not a minor problem. We've been producing this toxic waste for 50+ years and the industry and government have been unable to solve the problem.

Wisconsin has two nuclear power facilities that have operated quietly and safely since the 1970s, providing about 20 percent of the state’s electricity.

It is true that there have been no major accidents at the plants. But safety is an ever-present issue. Only five "red findings" — the highest safety failure warnings in the industry — have ever been issued by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three of the five went to Point Beach.

The story also assures readers that "nuclear power does not create global warming carbon emissions." Nuclear power is not carbon-free electricity. At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining, milling, enrichment to construction, decommissioning and waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels and contributes greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate global climate change. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times the CO2 per unit of energy produced.

Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power. That's why a coalition of organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, a statewide network of 170+ groups, are working to keep the existing law on nuclear power while supporting the rest of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. That's what has brought this issue to the forefront of the debate on the Clean Energy Jobs Act. It's unfortunate that the Cap Times didn't speak to anyone in that coalition to get the other side of the story.

But, thankfully, they did talk to Tia Nelson, who -- despite her commitment to trying to get the bill passed as written -- accurately assessed the nuclear power alternative.

Want to know more or get involved? Start here.

Speak up: Don't let them nuke Wisconsin's climate

xoff — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:39:47 +0000

Wisconsin citizens will have their first chance on Wednesday, Jan. 27, to tell state legislators that making it easier to build more nuclear reactors should not be part of a proposed Clean Energy Jobs bill.

A special State Senate committee considering the bill, (SB 450) will hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. in Room 412 East of the State Capitol.

It is critical that people turn out in numbers to register and testify against changing the current law, which protects citizens and the environment by requiring that a federal nuclear waste repository be operating to handle high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power reactors before any new ones can be built.

The proposed new law would eliminate that requirement and open the door to more reactors here.

What's wrong with that? Well, the high-level radioactive waste the reactors produce is dangerous to humans and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. To put that into some perspective, I like to remind people that 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.

Climate change is real, and we must act. But a friend and ally on this issue, Jennifer Nordstrom, likes to say that proposing more nuclear power as a solution to global warming is like telling someone to start smoking in order to lose weight. Bad tradeoff.

We don't need nuclear power to solve our problems, and we don't need to fake the false choice between nukes and coal. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act goes a long way toward putting Wisconsin on the right track toward renewable energy. Probably 90 or 95% of it is good policy. It was recommended by the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which worked long and hard to produce a comprehensive bill.

But there were a few too many utility reprersentatives and their allies on the task force, who were able to force the outnumbered environmentalists to accept a deal with the devil and include the provisions that reopen the door to more nuclear reactors.

Groups which participated in the task force, including several organizations with solid anti-nuclear credentials from past battles, are forbidden to seek changes in the bill; they are signed on to support the whole package.

So that leaves it up to the general public, the citizens of Wisconsin, the ones who got the current law passed, to keep it on the books. That sensible law, passed in 1984, is the one that says before you can build another reactor there must be a federal waste repository to handle the waste it produces.

Why did Wisconsin pass that law? Here's what the Legislature said at the time:

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1 . Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds that :

(1) Until there is a facility available for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, the present lack of a long-term waste disposal option increases the risk that the insufficiency of interim storage space for spent fuel could lead to power plant shutdowns.

(2) Large cost overruns in nuclear power plant construction projects in other states have adversely affected ratepayers .

(3) The public service commission, by order, has found that present uncertainties in the nuclear fuel cycle regarding waste storage and disposal, uranium availability, reprocessing and decommissioning costs make it contrary to the public interest for Wisconsin utilities to commit themselves presently to any future nuclear expansion.

(4) The public service commission, by order, has required electric utilities to identify maximum cost-effective conservation and renewable energy potential in their service areas and to submit specific proposals for achieving the potential.

(5) The public service commission, by order, has recognized that wind, water and other alternative sources of energy are potentially valuable as a supplement to conventional electric generation in this state and that it is in the public interest for utilities to become more involved in the development and implementation of such sources.

The US nuclear industry has been producing that waste for more than 50 years, but hasn't been able to solve the problem of how to dispose of it safely and permanently. Neither has any other country, and despite what the nuclear advocates tell you about those clever French folks they haven't done it, either.

Please speak up. Sign this petition. Call or write your legislator. Come to the hearing. Go to this webpage and get more information and ideas.

Don't let them nuke Wisconsin's climate.