Protest on campus sparks anti-nuclear interest
Feasibility, overall need questioned; quake possibility pointed out
By Mitchell Rossi
Staff Writer
A refreshing feeling of involvement emanated from the crowd that formed to hear the protest against the opening of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The rally, held Tuesday in front of Tommy Trojan, was sponsored by the Students fox Economic Democracy.
“We want to show people, especially at USC where people tend to be more reserved, that it is okay to make noise, and it’s necessary to vocally show opposition to nuclear power and to bring pressure on the government to stop it. And to implement safer and more efficient forms of power,” said Randy Ziskin, a representative of the university chapter of SED.
About 100 people gathered to listen to speakers on the controversial power plant owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and located near San Luis Obispo.
The nuclear power problem is one of economics, Ziskin said. “A handful of people at the very top of society sitting on the boards of directors of the large corporations have decided for all of us what our energy policy is going to be. They have decided to make one of these energy policies nuclear power. Despite public opinion polls that show between 60 and 70 percent of the people being opposed to it. This decision-making process must be opened to everyone,” he stated.
Unable to attend the northern blockade because of class
schedules, most of the 27 campuses with chapters of SED held similar rallies across the state in support of the people at Diablo, Ziskin said. “The support on campus is just as good as going up to Diablo. It is important to stand up for what you believe in, otherwise we will continue in this nuclear madness. We are talking about survival."
“Not all of us can go up to Diablo and be arrested . . said David Lumian, president of the Alliance for Survival. His emotional speech on the movement against nuclear power seemed to hold everyone’s attention. At a time when most people were eating, many stopped to express appreciation with applause. "The more we begin to educate people about the reasons (for opposi-
tion), the more opposition will be generated to nuclear power and towards Diablo Canyon.”
The Diablo Canyon Power Plant was planned over 15 years ago and its cost estimates have risen from $350 million to $3 billion. Yet the plant has not produced one watt of power, Lumian said. “According to the California Energy Commission there is a 20-percent surplus of electricity above the peak use in this state at this time. Twenty percent more electricity than we need and they (the government) still want to license Diablo anyway,” Lumian said.
“They tell us they have to license Diablo Canyon to keep us from having any brownouts and blackouts, but the real reason they (PG&E) are trying to license Diablo Canyon is to get
their investments back out.
“They have invested $3 billion into Diablo Canyon on top of massive tax subsidies that have come out of our pockets as taxpayers. And they can't get a dime of it out until that plant starts up.”
After PG&E began construction of Diablo, the site was found to be 2 1/2 miles from an earthquake fault.
The Hosgri Fault was first reported by PG&E geologists to be a non-active fault. But last year, the U.S. Geological Service declared that the fault was active and may have the ability of producing an earthquake with the magnitude of 7.5 on the Richter scale. The Diablo plant was constructed to withstand a quake of 6.5, one-tenth
(Continued on page 8)
New facilities put on hold
By Alan Grossman
Staff Writer
A proposed Orange County facility, which would unite continuing education, law, business and engineering courses currently held in that part of the Southland, has been postponed because “in all of the proposed sites we’ve looked at to date, there would be a larger outlay of money than the (four) programs could support,” reported Jon Strauss, vice president of Administration.
Strauss said all of the sites previously considered would have cost the university between $200,000 and $300,000 (at $12 to $15 per square foot and including tenant improvements and furnishings).
The proposed facilities have been in the planning stages for at least one and a half years after a task force headed by Harvey Stedman, associate dean of the College of Continuing Education, approved the idea of such facilities.
At that time, a profile of Orange County was prepared by Veronica Tincher, then working for the Office of Institutional Studies.
“My role fot that task force was to bring in demographics of Orange County concerning characteristics of
each city, (such as) economic, educational. . . ” Tincher said.
The task force realized that a “site somewhere between Newport Beach and Irvine and bordering the San Diego freeway would be best,” explained Rosalind Loring, dean of the
College of Continuing Education.
“Most people who would come to USC-sponsored courses in Orange County and willing to pay for tuition live in that area,” Loring said.
The College of Continuing Education, along with the Law Center and the Engineering and Business schools, all primarily hold evening classes in elementary schools, junior high schools and in hotel meeting halls. The rents for these ad-hoc classrooms amount to small fortunes for each of the schools — especially
over a semester.
“A one-day workshop held in an existing classroom will usually run an average of $100,” Loring said.“A semester course might cost about $50 a night in an existing classroom, but that is only a guestimate.”
However, Scott Bice, dean of the Law Center, usually holds what he calls institutional studies (all-day seminars) and advisory programs in hotels for lawyers who Wish to keep up-to-date on current practices. Yet he does hope to hold more classes off-campus, preferably in a new university-operated facility.
“We would hold regular classes at least one day a week at the proposed Orange County campus, and instead of holding some classes at hotels or at the Law Center, we would hold
them at the Orange County campus,” Bice said.
Both Loring and Bice agreed that with a facility in Orange County, enrollment in their Orange County courses would increase.
"We have discussed with Dr. (Neil) Pings (vice president of Academic Affairs) the great desirability of having facilities there or at least an information center or local number where people could call,” Loring said.
Pings said that calling new facilities a campus would be “grandiose,” but agrees that Orange County facilities are a thought as “those schools are right now leasing space wherever they can.”
But the vice president wanted to make it clear that an Orange County facility would be in no way comparable to the University Park area.
“In my view, whatever would be done in Orange County would be modest in size and not intended to result in any significant change in the USC departments (of the four involved schools) located in University Park,” he said.
(Continued on page 8)
‘We have discussed with Dr. Pings the great desirability of having facilities there or at least an information center or local number where people could call’