Last Sunday's episode of "West Wing" about a radioactive release from a fictional California nuclear plant was a frightening scenario, but not outside the realm of possibility. California's operating nuclear plants are located on eroding and earthquake active coastal bluffs. Since 9/11/01, the administration has warned U.S. citizens that nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorist attacks ...

The twin operating reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Onofre) are soon to undergo steam generator replacement that require cutting 28 by 28 foot holes in each containment dome. And as most southern Californians are aware, the San Onofre nuclear station is adjacent to a 10 lane freeway, state park, shipping and air corridors and a heavily used rail system - all placing the site at particular risk.

Aging reactors with radioactive and embrittled components on our seismically active and vulnerable coast give Californians a cause for real concern. If a radioactive release were to result from a nuclear accident - no matter the cause - is our state prepared for a nuclear disaster? Bad news there: FEMA is the responsible agency for all disasters. We have only to look at the example of Hurricane Katrina and then add the additional risk of radioactivity in the air, water and soil to strike real fear into our hearts.

The only examples of nuclear evacuations are Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In both cases, the authorities took days to inform the public that there had been a radioactive release. Seventeen cities in Ukraine remain ghost towns and hundreds of thousands remain displaced. In this era of increasing secrecy, there is little reason to believe that next time will be different.

Hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste have been produced at California's nuclear plants since operation began in the early 1980's. Thousands of tons will be left on our coast long after the last kilowatt is produced. Licenses for California's nuclear plants expire in the mid 2020's, but both utility owners are beginning to prepare for license renewal applications.

While Los Angeles does not have its own nuclear reactor, it does sit 1/2 way between California's operating reactors. Evacuation, if ever necessary, will seriously impact the City of Angels. In addition, if the radioactive waste from these reactors ever leaves our state, it will travel through LA from both nuclear utilities on the state's overcrowded highways and dilapidated rail system.

We have waited for over 50 years for the federal government to fulfill its promise of offsite storage for radioactive waste. To date all that exists is a giant hole in the Nevada desert.

In January, the nation's only proposed temporary offsite storage facility in Utah was taken off the table and will now be a federal wilderness area. In December, Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill to keep all radioactive waste at reactor sites. Funding has been cut for Yucca Mountain for the second year and a stop work order was issued this month.

Is continuing down the nuclear path the least expensive option? No, nor is it the safest. The total price tag for San Onofre and Diablo Canyon was over $11 billion for 4000 megawatts, and that was in 1985. Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission approved $3.2 billion for 3000 megawatts. Clearly, nuclear power plants are not economical.

California is the only state in the nation with a law that prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until there is a permanent solution to offsite storage of high-level radioactive waste. The Alliance for Nuclear Respsonsibility is working toward an amendment to this policy to prohibit license renewal applications for the state's remaining nuclear plants. We ask Los Angeles residents to join us in reducing the risks to our state and keeping the "West Wing" scenario from becoming a reality.