As a boy I was very attracted to the vision of nuclear energy. I read the articles in Scientific American about the bright future. Even after Three Mile Island I believed a solution could be found. But, like many, I have realized that nuclear is not a solution. It may not have a smokestack but it generates an ugly 1,000+ year exhaust pipe of radio-active waste.

Our State Legislature is considering two bills that, if passed, will open the door wide for nuclear energy in our State. Some people say the bills are just a study. Don’t believe it. Read the information below and write or call your legislators to urge them to vote no on this legislation. For additional information please visit the PSARA homepage. This legislation is on a very short fuse. We need to act fast.

Suggested email or talking points for your call to your legislators:

HB 2090/SB 5821, Integrating Advanced Nuclear Energy Into the State Energy Strategy, are two bills pending in the Washington State House and Senate. They will reintroduce nuclear fission power into the mix of energy solutions for the State’s implementation of the Clean Energy Transformation Act. I’ve read the State House and Senate bills and have a number of concerns including:

• Overall reliance on technology that, as yet, has not been commercially proven.

• Lack of limits or guardrails to the scale of nuclear fission waste that can be reintroduced into WA State.

• Legislation that does not address nuclear waste that will have to be managed for thousands of years.

I am not a scientist, but after reviewing the legislation, industry and government information on the current state of the technology, I have serious concerns with incorporating nuclear energy into our state’s energy strategy. Nuclear fission uses a radioactive fuel (U-235) for heat to drive the electric generators. The industry claims their new designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) are not subject to the risks of melt down, but this has not been proven. The industry also claims they have solved the problem of nuclear waste. But Washington State and the Federal Government have had decades of experience with nuclear waste and neither they nor anyone else has yet to resolve the issues. Managing waste cleanup at Hanford alone is now projected to cost well over $500 billion and require 70 more years of work, followed by thousands of years of storage somewhere. The industry claims they are developing recycling/ reprocessing of nuclear waste but there are no answers yet.

I have been told that HB 2090/SB 5821 only asks for a study. But this is not what the legislation says. The title of both bills is Integrating Advanced Nuclear Energy Into the State Energy Strategy. Both bills require that a plan for implementation be completed by the end of this year. Neither bill requires a return to the legislature for approval of the new strategy.

The legislation also requires the plan to be financed by outside funding consequently the nuclear industry could be funding and potentially guiding development of a plan that is regulating the industry. 

The bills essentially call for the State to allow an unlimited amount of the new nuclear power with no more review. It does this with no assurance of minimal cautions, including:

• restricting the size or number of reactors that could be introduced to Washington State;

• directing the Commerce Department to work with the Department of Environment to assure that all environmental safeguards are taken into account; or

• requiring a study that includes a full life cycle cost of the nuclear fission solution including the long-term (thousand + years) of the waste.

It is obvious that the nuclear energy industry does not want to talk about nuclear waste because they have no comprehensive solution. They continue to claim nuclear energy is a clean fuel. (If you say it enough, people will believe it). Again, I embrace the research but I believe the State should be able to see a commercially proven solution on both the generation and waste management sides of nuclear energy before they buy the product. An honest assessment of the costs, benefits and risks of new nuclear energy would be good. A strategy allowing and encouraging immediate and unlimited construction would be bad. Urge your legislators to vote no  HB 2090/SB 5821. If you click on the Bill numbers that will connect you with a comment page for your legislators.

Editor's Note: PSARA's Executive Board has voted to oppose HB 20290/ SB 5821 and HB 2103/SB 6004, which also relate to nuclear energy