Nuke plant should be rejected

Dear editor:

In his May 27 letter David Ascuena argues that a nuclear power plant is suited for Elmore County.

After conducting my own research and attending all of the public hearings I have come to the opposite conclusion: Nuclear power is a bad idea for Elmore County because of water use and the storage of radioactive waste near the river. And the last company we want as a neighbor in our county is Alternate Energy Holdings Inc (AEHI).

First, it is important to recognize we are not talking about a generic nuclear power reactor with a developer who practices full disclosure of information. The developer we are dealing with repeatedly makes false claims about the proposed project. For example, the reactor design cited by the developer could not feasibly be used at this plant by 2016-and may never be available according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the folks who hand out the licenses to build these things. AEHI is also wrong about its potential water consumption. A 1,600 megawatt reactor will use up to 30 million gallons of water a day--and 80% of that water would be lost to evaporation. Mr. Ascuena's claims around water consumption are inaccurate and do not represent the realities of any reactor technology licensed by the NRC or under consideration for licensing. Please see the NRC website listing of new reactor designs to verify this information: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nucQlcrt-des-bq.ht....

None of the proposed reactors awaiting a certification from the NRC operate as "dry" or "low water use reactors." One is left to wonder why AEHI doesn't know this, and if it does, why it continues to broadcast designs that could never be used at the proposed site?

Mr. Ascuena also claims that new reactor and reprocessing technology is being developed at the INL and would be completed before this plant goes on-line. This again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities around nuclear power. Reprocessing plants not only have to go through a lengthy NRC licensing process, but they are also extremely expensive and are not likely to be operational in this country for several decades, if ever. The INL's reactor technology research and development is also decades away from being available for industrial use and the technology currently being explored at the INL would not be suitable at a commercial nuclear reactor of this type.

While it is admirable that Mr. Ascuena is investigating how reactors are viewed in other communities, it is crucial that he, and all residents of Elmore County, look to the risks and hazards reactor communities are subjected to. At Vermont Yankee, accidents and operating failures have turned public sentiment strongly against the continued operation of that reactor. A 2008 poll of 400 Vermont registered voters conducted for a local news outlet in Vermont indicated that 52% of Vermont citizens do not want the reactor to keep operating, while 21% support its continued operation and 19% are unsure. In another question 65% of those polled said they were either very concerned or concerned about the reactors operating record, while only 8% said they were not concerned at all. 64% of those polled said they were willing to pay more for electric power if it meant that Vermont Yankee would shut-down. Siting this reactor in Elmore County -- or anywhere in Idaho-has serious downsides. In our county, the most significant downside is the water use and the production and storage of radioactive waste less than a mile from one of Idaho's most crucial agricultural water resources -- the Snake River.

Mr. Ascuena argues that new reactors "should be considered safe" because they are using new technology. Since when does it make sense to assume something is safe, because it has not been empirically tested? The NRC has a rigorous set of safety criteria designed to mitigate the significant risks associated with nuclear power. But, accidents, by definition, are events that are unplanned, and AEHI is not even claiming to use a reactor design that has been approved by the NRC.

Most importantly, Mr. Ascuena seems convinced that the proposed plant can help meet Idaho's energy needs and provide jobs for ldahoans. This is where, from my perspective, the credibility of AEHI falls completely apart. AEHI has yet to prove there is a utility in this state willing to buy their power. In fact, on May 21 at their annual shareholder's meeting, Idaho Power's CEO said that his company has no plans to buy nuclear power from a speculative nuclear developer.

There are a lot of reasons for that, including cost. The new reactors currently proposed are estimated to produce power between 8-30 cents per kilowatt hour -- that is 2-6 times what you are paying right now. It is clear that AEHI is willing to exploit our county, take away our farmland, use our water and leave us with radioactive waste, so they can make a penny selling their power to Californians. Hopefully, our county commission will see fit to send them away, before they waste any more of our time and valuable county resources to advance this project.

Bob Bledsoe

Hammett