News

California officials join Friends of the Earth to demand formal public hearings

Adam Russell — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:53:14 -0400

New evidence exposes more major safety concerns

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the heels of a pointed ruling by a panel of judges against Southern California Edison’s scheme to rush the experimental restart of a severely damaged reactor at San Onofre, elected officials have joined Friends of the Earth in demanding that there be no restart decision until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds a formal adjudicatory public hearing with testimony from local citizens and expert witnesses.

On Monday, the Atomic Safety Licensing Board -- in a devastating judgement against Edison and the NRC -- affirmed a petition for such a hearing, filed by Friends of the Earth. But NRC officials since then have said the ruling does not necessarily trigger the hearing.

Elected officials from cities throughout southern California, including Irvine and San Diego, have submitted letters to the NRC expressing their opposition to Edison's license application. The elected officials raised issues such as the increased risk of accident, concerns over the potential release of significant radiation into the environment, and the consequences for human health, including increased radiation dose rates and the ability of emergency services to manage such a crisis.

Elected officials from cities throughout Southern California, including San Diego and Irvine, have submitted letters to the NRC expressing opposition to Edison's license application. The elected officials raised issues such as the increased risk of accident, concerns over the potential release of significant radiation into the environment, and the consequences for human health, including increased radiation dose rates and the ability of emergency services to manage such a crisis.

“It’s an elected official’s first duty to protect the citizens they represent, and Southern Californians should be proud of their public servants for telling the NRC that Edison’s scheme is dangerous and that it’s unthinkable that the agency is seriously considering allowing restart without a formal license review,” said Kendra Ulrich, nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “We join them in telling the NRC that to approve Edison’s request would be to utterly disregard the safety concerns of millions of people.”

Today, the last day for public comments on Edison’s license application, Friends of the Earth and the Natural Resources Defence Council submitted to the NRC a legal analysis, supported by expert declarations, that further demonstrates there is no credible basis for approving restart of San Onofre reactor Unit 2 on Edison’s terms. The utility is ignoring significant and serious safety hazards identified since San Onofre shut down in January 2012 after a leak of radioactive steam. The documents (parts 1, 2 and 3) include a declaration from former NRC Commissioner Victor Gillinsky, new technical evidence from Joe Hopenfeld, a former NRC steam generator specialist with four decades of nuclear industry experience, and international nuclear engineer John Large of London.

The Friends of the Earth expert analysis includes details on fatigue damage not addressed by Edison or the NRC, such as information on multiple types of wear mechanisms that will lead to further steam generator tube damage and likely rupture. The potential consequences include loss of cooling function for the reactor core and a major release of radioactivity into the environment.

The three-judge ASLB panel -- charged with weighing Friends of the Earth’s contentions by a unanimous vote from the NRC Commissioners -- agreed that the damage to San Onofre’s team generator tubes is “unprecedented” in the U.S. nuclear industry, and that Edison’s restart scheme is a risky and unproven “experiment.”

The ASLB made clear that Edison’s restart plan violates the terms of San Onofre’s operating license. The process under which the NRC is currently reviewing the utility’s request, including the agency’s preliminary finding of No Significant Hazards, in no way addresses the major safety issues plaguing the nuclear reactor. The ASLB found that the destructive vibrations in the San Onofre steam generators at San Onofre are not taken into account in the reactor’s official safety blueprint. These are not being addressed either in the current license application or Edison’s restart plan.

“Three senior ASLB judges have ruled that Edison’s prediction for future steam tube damage in the reactor ‘is grounded on theory that is not yet supported by actual experience,’ ” said Shaun Burnie, nuclear program director for Friends of the Earth. “This judgement blows apart the NRC's current plan to give Edison a No Significant Hazards ruling and restart approval for San Onofre. The evidence we have filed today further demonstrates that restarting San Onofre carries a major risk of accident.”

Submissions to the NRC include elected representatives from the cities of San Diego, Laguna Beach Solana Beach, Del Mar, Encinitas, Redondo Beach, Malibu and Irvine, as well as California Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins and Assemblymember Shirly Weber. National and local environmental organizations have also submitted comments to the NRC, including the Sierra Club (Los Angeles chapter), Beyond Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Los Angeles chapter), San Clemente Green, together with thousands of individual citizens comments opposing Edison's plans and NRC approval.

###

Contact:
Kendra Ulrich (216) 571 7340, kulrich@foe.org
Shaun Burnie (202) 251-1862, sburnie@foe.org

Federal judges: No San Onofre restart without formal relicensing hearings

Shajuti Hossain — Tue, 14 May 2013 10:52:20 -0400

Atomic Safety Licensing Board grants Friends of the Earth’s petition

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a stunning rebuke to Southern California Edison’s bid to start up the crippled San Onofre nuclear power plant, the U.S. Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled today that the reactors can not be restarted before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds a formal license amendment proceeding with full public participation. The prospects for Edison's plans to restart the San Onofre nuclear reactor unit two this summer have been dealt a major blow by this important decision.

A three-judge panel of the ASLB granted a petition from Friends of the Earth asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to require Edison to undergo a trial-like license amendment process before a judge, including public hearings, sworn testimony from expert witnesses and rules of evidence.

Last month, Edison asked the NRC for permission to restart one of the reactors by this summer and run it at partial power – a request the agency has indicated it would do with no prior public hearing. Today’s ruling, which was in response to a Friends of the Earth petition arguing that a March 2012 Confirmatory Action Letter from the NRC to Edison marked the start of a de facto license amendment process, prohibits the agency from taking that step.

“This ruling is a complete rejection of Edison’s plan to restart its damaged nuclear reactors without public review or input,” said Damon Moglen, energy and climate director for Friends of the Earth. “The ASLB has announced that the restart plan is an 'experiment' and calls the tube wear at San Onofre’s defective steam generators 'unprecedented,' as we have asserted all along."

The ruling by the ASLB requires a license amendment because the restart plan is an 'experiment' under Section 5090(ii) of NRC regulations, which would allow the unit to operate beyond the scope of the existing license and without compiling with applicable technical specifications.
Senator Barbara Boxer in a statement said the order sets “a legal framework for a full public hearing before any final decision on the restart of the San Onofre nuclear power plant is made by the NRC.”

"Given that the NRC commissioners asked the (Atomic Safety and Licensing) Board to undertake this review and given that these judges were appointed by the NRC, I expect the commissioners to follow their lead,” said the California Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees the NRC.

Read the ASLB's ruling.

###

Contact:

Damon Moglen, (202) 222-0708 or (202) 352-4223
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911

Biden comes out against Keystone pipeline – Friends of the Earth’s response

Adam Russell — Wed, 08 May 2013 10:02:37 -0400

WASHINGTON, D.C. – According to news reports, Vice President Joe Biden said recently that he is against granting a permit for construction of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, but he is “in the minority” in the Obama administration. Here is the reaction of Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth:

Vice President Biden is to be commended for his blunt talk. No matter how hard the pipeline’s supporters try to ram this project through, it’s clear that the more we know about Keystone the less sense it makes. Together with the recent stinging critique by the EPA of the State Department’s environmental review, it’s encouraging that at least some members of the administration are open to science and facts rather than PR spin and oil money. The vice president’s comments should provide further encouragement to Secretary Kerry and President Obama to reject this dangerous, dirty pipeline.

###

Contact:
Damon Moglen, 202-222-0708, dmoglen@foe.org
Adam Russell, 202-222-0722, arussell@foe.org

Senator Graham supports plutonium fuel project, puts Energy Secretary nominee on hold

Lisa Matthes — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:49:27 -0400

Senate hearing could bring MOX fireworks

Washington, D.C. – Senator Graham (R-S.C.) has placed a “hold” on the nomination of Dr. Ernest Moniz for secretary of the Department of Energy, drawing attention to a troubled plutonium management program that Sen. Graham is seeking to protect. The controversy over the hold and the costly plutonium program that Sen. Graham has taken under his wing could result in a Senate showdown at today’s Department of Energy budget hearing.

The hold on the nomination is over a grossly mismanaged Department of Energy program to produce plutonium fuel -- mixed oxide fuel (MOX) -- from surplus weapons plutonium at the DOE’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Shaw AREVA MOX Services, a French government-owned plutonium and nuclear services company, is constructing the MOX facility at SRS and cost estimates have jumped from $4.9 billion to $7.7 billion. Operating costs alone have soared to an estimated $543 million per year.

“Due to mounting problems, the plutonium MOX program rightly merits total elimination,” said Tom Clements, Friends of the Earth’s Southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator. “It is no surprise, given Sen. Graham’s parochial interest in protecting the contractors involved in the MOX program, that he has mounted a feeble attempt to salvage it,” added Clements.

Graham’s strategy of challenging the Moniz nomination could well back fire, according to Friends of the Earth, and bring on increased scrutiny of the program, which is at risk of being terminated for being far over budget and far behind schedule. Friends of the Earth has tracked the MOX program since its inception in the mid-1990s and endorses disposal of plutonium as waste, a cheaper, quicker and safer option than introducing weapons plutonium into commerce via MOX.

While the Department of Energy has refused to release a life-cycle cost of the overall MOX program, Friends of the Earth estimates the cost to be at least $22 billion. Spiralling costs, schedule delays and technical challenges may well result in termination of the program, which Sen. Graham is seeking to prevent given the economic impact in Aiken, South Carolina, home of SRS.

The White House announcement of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget on April 10 noted that the MOX program in South Carolina “may be unaffordable…due to cost growth and fiscal pressure.” And that the administration would “assess the feasibility of alternative plutonium disposition strategies, resulting in a slowdown of MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility construction in 2014…”

“Sen. Graham’s efforts to protect the financial interests of a French government-owned plutonium company, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer is unconscionable,” said Clements, “and underscores the urgent need for a full review of management and spending of the MOX project, which has spiralled out of control.”

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 21-1 to confirm Dr. Moniz, with Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina being the lone voice against the nominee. Senator Scott’s questioning of Dr. Moniz during his nomination hearing on April 9 was solely about MOX. That both South Carolina senators are drawing the line over the MOX program underscores that it has become an inefficient jobs program for South Carolina, according to Friends of the Earth. The nomination is now in the hands of the full Senate.

The Senate Energy & Water Development Subcommittee will hold a hearing today on DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs, which covers plutonium MOX.

Aerial photos of MOX plant at Savannah River Site available for use.

Contact:
Tom Clements, Columbia, SC, 803-834-3084, 803-240-7268 (mobile)
Shaun Burnie, Washington, D.C., 202-222-0733

###

Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

Notes:

1. Aerial photos of the MOX plant, taken on March 29, 2013. Photo credit: Friends of the Earth:
http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/6a/b/2857/MOX_plant_1_3.29.2013.JPG
http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/fc/3/2858/MOX_plant_2_3.29.2013.JPG

2. White House (Office of Management and Budget) statement of Department of Energy funding for Fiscal Year 2014, including on the review of plutonium disposition: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/energy.pdf

3. DOE budget volume for FY2014, with MOX section starting on page DN-111: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Volume1.pdf

4. Friends of the Earth life-cycle cost analysis of MOX program, April 4, 2013 - $22 billion left to be spent:
http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/74/f/2859/cost_of_MOX_looking_foward_4.4.2013.pdf

5. Senate Energy & Water Development Subcommittee hearing, April 24, on DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs, which covers MOX:

Energy and Water Development Subcommittee (Chairwoman Feinstein)
Time and Location: 2:30 p.m., in Room SD-192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building

Agenda: A review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 funding request and budget justification for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Witness: The Honorable Neile L. Miller
Acting Administrator
National Nuclear Security Administration

Keystone XL pipeline: Can John Kerry’s State Department finally get it right?

Ross Hammond — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:51:16 -0400

In February John Kerry took over at the State Department, providing a glimmer of hope to those demanding that the agency finally serve as an honest broker on the review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Kerry, a fierce advocate for bold action on climate change, certainly has his work cut out for him.

Since the Canadian pipeline company TransCanada first submitted its application in 2008, the State Department’s handling of the Keystone review has been plagued by conflicts of interest, insider influence and a heavy pro-pipeline bias. It began almost immediately after the State Department allowed TransCanada to solicit and screen bids to conduct the initial environmental review of the pipeline. On TransCanada’s recommendation, the State Department hired the consulting firm CardnoEntrix, even though the firm listed TransCanada as a major client (a fact which should have disqualified it under the National Environmental Policy Act).

Not surprisingly, CardnoEntrix’s review – which the EPA politely called “insufficient” -- downplayed the climate impacts of the pipeline and the risks of potentially catastrophic spills. A Freedom of Information Act request by Friends of the Earth uncovered documents showing that State Department officials had been working closely with TransCanada on its permit application. Multiple e-mails showed State Department employees coaching TransCanada lobbyist (and former Hillary Clinton campaign official) Paul Elliott in his efforts to build support for the pipeline.

Following an outcry by environmental groups and members of Congress, the State Department’s Inspector General investigated the agency’s handling of the review process. In February 2012, it recommended changes in the contractor selection process. Yet given how the State Department has handled the most recent environmental review of the pipeline, it’s clear that those recommendations have been ignored and that TransCanada is still calling the shots.

The new environmental review, released late on a Friday afternoon in March, was conducted by Environmental Resources Management which, incredibly, also counts TransCanada as a client. State Department employees made a clumsy attempt to cover up the firm’s ties to TransCanada by redacting the company’s conflict of interest filing. To make matters worse, ERM subcontracted critical parts of its report to consulting firms with deep ties to oil and pipeline companies that stand to benefit if Keystone is built. This “new” review, which is now an official government document, also downplays the climate impacts of the pipeline. State has refused to turn over the supporting documents that provide the analytical basis for the report’s controversial finding that the tar sands would be fully exploited whether or not the pipeline is built.

To reject this flawed review, Secretary Kerry will have to tune out an army of Washington lobbyists and public relations firms that TransCanada and the Province of Alberta have hired to make sure that the Obama administration rubber stamps the permit application. These include three former U.S. ambassadors to Canada as well as former Kerry, Obama and Hillary Clinton staffers such as Kerry presidential campaign staff members David Castagnetti and Broderick Johnson. They also include former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn (who once worked under Kerry at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). Dunn’s firm SKDKnickerbocker, which is stocked with many former Kerry and Obama staffers, is being paid an undisclosed amount by TransCanada to help with its efforts to secure approval for the pipeline. According to The New York Times, Dunn has met with top White House officials more than 100 times since leaving the administration in 2009.

Speaking on the floor of the Senate last year, then-Senator Kerry spoke sharply against “coalitions of politicians and special interests that peddle science fiction over science fact. A paid-for, multi-million dollar effort that twists and turns the evidence until it’s gnarled beyond recognition. And tidal waves of cash that back a status quo of recklessness and inaction over responsibility and change.” Although Kerry was speaking about the Senate’s failure to pass comprehensive climate legislation, he could just have easily been talking about the expensive disinformation campaign that TransCanada and the Province of Alberta have mounted to guarantee that pipeline construction proceeds without any further delay.

It is now clear that Secretary Kerry has inherited a fatally flawed review process in which TransCanada and Alberta continue to call the shots. How he responds to the State Department’s scandalous handling of the environmental review will signal whether he is willing, as he said in his speech last year, to “confront the conspiracy of silence head-on and allow complacence to yield to common sense, and narrow interests to bend to the common good. Future generations are counting on us.

New report reveals massive climate changing emissions for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

Adam Russell — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:39:16 -0400

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new report out today from environmental groups shows that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would, if approved, be responsible for at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year, comparable to the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars or 51 coal-fired power plants.

In documenting the emissions associated with the controversial pipeline project, the report makes real the scale of climate impact and the further hurdles the project would create for the battle against climate change, putting the State Department’s “business as usual” scenarios into doubt.

The major findings of “Cooking the Books: How The State Department Analysis Ignores the True Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline” are:

The 181 million metric tons of (CO2e) from Keystone XL is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars. This is more cars than are currently registered on the entire West Coast (California, Washington, and Oregon), plus Florida, Michigan, and New York -- combined.
Between 2015 and 2050, the pipeline alone would result in emissions of 6.34 billion metric tons of CO2e. This amount is greater than the 2011 total annual carbon dioxide emissions of the United States.
The International Energy Agency has said that two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves must remain undeveloped if we are to avoid a 2 degree C temperature rise. Constructing the Keystone XL pipeline and developing the tar sands make that goal far more difficult, if not impossible, to reach.

“When evaluating this project, the State Department should apply a simple test: Does its completion bring the U.S. closer to meeting its climate goals? The answer is clearly no, and therefore the project must be denied,” said Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International.

In its 2012 World Energy Outlook, the IEA is very clear about the impact of climate policy on U.S. oil demand. If meaningful climate policy is pursued, U.S. oil demand would necessarily be cut 50 percent by 2035 and 70 percent by 2050 based on a 2012 baseline.

“Alberta’s premier was just in Washington, DC noting how essential the pipeline is to meeting increased production of the dirtiest oil on the planet. The numbers in this report make it clear that we can’t afford to help Big Oil meet that goal,” said Elizabeth Shope of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

U.S. demand for oil has declined since 2005 by 2.25 million barrels per day -- or the equivalent of almost three Keystone XL pipelines.

"Any objective analysis of the impact of building Keystone shows that it would be a climate catastrophe," said Ross Hammond, senior campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "Instead, the State Department seems ready to buy into the pipeline propaganda of an army of lobbyists who are trading on their ties to Secretary Kerry and President Obama to taint the decision. The president must act in the national interest, not the interests of Big Oil, and reject the Keystone XL pipeline."

“Today's report clearly demonstrates that we can't protect future generations from the worst impacts of global warming while allowing ourselves to become hooked on even dirtier sources of fuel,” said Daniel Gatti, Get Off Oil Program Director for Environment America. “We need President Obama and Secretary Kerry to say no to tar sands, and no to the Keystone XL pipeline.”

“If he’s to keep his promise to confront climate change to protect America’s wildlife and communities, President Obama should say no to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” said Jim Murphy, senior counsel at the National Wildlife Federation. “Our leaders can’t have it both ways – if they’re truly committed to protecting America’s wildlife and communities from climate change, they need to say no to Keystone XL and massive amounts of climate-disrupting carbon pollution it would deliver.”

###

Oil Change International – Natural Resources Defense Council – 350.org – Environment America – National Wildlife Federation - Friends of the Earth – Sierra Club – Greenpeace

Contact:
Ross Hammond, 415-559-5082, rhammond@foe.org

Keystone XL: Friends of the Earth files for release of State Department records on massive lobbying operation by TransCanada and Province of Alberta

Adam Russell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:42:44 -0400

FOIA request shines light on Kerry and Obama links to pipeline proponents

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The environmental watchdog group that uncovered conflicts of interest between the State Department led by Hillary Clinton and lobbyists for the Keystone XL pipeline today demanded the release of records that could illuminate a continued cozy relationship between pipeline proponents and Clinton’s successor John Kerry, as well as President Obama.

Friends of the Earth filed a sweeping Freedom of Information Act request for the release of all communications since October 2011 between the State Department and lobbyists for TransCanada and the Province of Alberta. Because State is in the final stages a new environmental review that is key to whether it recommends that the president approve or reject a permit for the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, Friends of the Earth asked for expedited compliance with the FOIA.

The FOIA request identifies more than two dozen Washington lobbyists, lawyers and consultants helping to push the pipeline who have close ties to Obama, Kerry, Clinton or other elected officials with a stake in the outcome.

Heading the list is Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director and senior advisor to the president’s re-election campaign and the former communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under then-Senator Kerry. Dunn is now a principal with the lobbying firm SDKnickerbocker, which represents TransCanada. According to The New York Times, Dunn has met with top White House officials more than 100 times since leaving the Administration in 2009.

After Friends of the Earth revealed in 2011 how Keystone lobbyists tainted the first environmental review of the pipeline, the State Department promised to tighten its lobbying rules to assure objectivity in the next round. But Friends of the Earth said it is clear that the permit process remains compromised by conflicts of interest, secrecy and deceit.

The new environmental review is being conducted by consultants with deep financial ties to TransCanada and oil companies who would benefit from the pipeline -- connections the State Department tried to cover up. Like the earlier review, which had also been prepared by a consultant firm with deep ties to the oil industry, a draft of the one now being finalized contends that the pipeline will cause little environmental harm and absurdly suggests that the pipeline will not spur development of the climate-wrecking tar sands in northern Alberta.

“The State Department’s handling of the environmental review of the Keystone pipeline has been hopelessly compromised by TransCanada, the Province of Alberta and their army of lobbyists,” said Ross Hammond, senior campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “It is clear that Sec. Kerry inherited a flawed review process in which TransCanada and Alberta continue to call the shots. A full investigation of the role played by pipeline lobbyists and consultants in inappropriately influencing the review is needed to give Americans the truth before the president makes this momentous decision.”

Friends of the Earth’s investigation has yielded a dossier of Keystone lobbyists and their connections to Obama, Kerry and Clinton. Besides Dunn, the list includes:

Paul Elliott, chief lobbyist for TransCanada, a top Clinton operative in her 2008 presidential campaign and a key figure in the 2011 conflict of interest scandal over the earlier environmental review.
David Castagnetti of Mehlman, Vogel & Castagnetti, who was director of Congressional relations for Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president; and Brandon Pollak of Bryan Cave LLP, who also worked on Kerry’s campaign.
Three former U.S. ambassadors to Canada: David Wilkins of Nelson, Mullins et al, which has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Province of Alberta; Gordon Giffin of Long & Albridge, a top fundraiser in Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Jim Blanchard of DLA Piper, also a top Clinton fundraiser.

“Release of these records will shed more light on lobbyists’ influence on the State Department’s Keystone review, but it is already clear that State can not be trusted to manage the review process objectively,” said Damon Moglen, energy and climate director at Friends of the Earth. “Sec. Kerry has been a champion of bold action on climate change. His response to the State Department’s scandalous conduct will signal whether a new era of transparency has arrived at the department, or whether the insider clout and money of the oil industry will prevail once again.”

###

Contact:
Ross Hammond, (415) 559-5082
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911

The NRC - Edison's atomic lapdog

Kendra Ulrich — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:52:40 -0400

To say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- charged with ensuring the safe operation of the nation’s aging, degraded nuclear fleet -- is a paper tiger would be far too kind. Rather than just de-fanged and flimsy, on Wednesday, they went rogue -- disregarding the demands of federal legislators and acting as a law unto themselves -- in order to remove a critical regulatory barrier for restarting an incredibly damaged nuclear reactor, San Onofre Unit 2.

Both San Onofre reactors -- which sit in a coastal seismic zone between San Diego and Los Angeles -- have been shut down for well over a year following a radiation leak from the Unit 3 reactor due to a failure of a steam generator tube in January, 2012. Inspections following the accident revealed unprecedented tube damage in the nearly brand new replacement steam generators of both San Onofre reactors -- critical equipment that provides an essential barrier to the release of radiation into surrounding areas.

After the discovery of the pervasive damage, the NRC launched an investigation into to cause of the tube wear. Edison supposedly conducted a “root cause analysis” and submitted an experimental restart proposal for reactor Unit 2 -- claiming that safety could be assured at reduced power -- 70 percent for five months. Its twin reactor with identical steam generators has been all but declared legally dead -- too damaged to even discuss restart.

Only a few pesky problems remained before Edison thought they’d get the NRC’s green light to fire up their damaged nuke -- namely that the root cause of the problems has not been found, their own experts disagree on the cause of the tube damage and the time left until another accident might occur, and that their risky restart proposal doesn’t comply with their current operating license.

In the wake of a controversy sparked by a secret report -- only made public by Congressional demand -- the NRC announced an expansive investigation of the San Onofre steam generator debacle and of Southern California Edison’s culpability. The public was shocked to learn that Edison knew about serious problems with the radically redesigned steam generators and chose not to fix those problems -- gambling that the problems wouldn’t cause too much of an issue in spite of significant concerns.

Edison is asking the NRC to allow them to do the same thing now -- take a risk on the safety of their proposal, without evidence to back it up, in the interest of Edison’s time and bottom line. NRC staff are still in the process of reviewing technical data that Edison claims will show they can restart safely -- based upon not only woefully inadequate assessments, but also unvetted and experimental research data.

In the midst of this, Edison announced that it would apply for a “voluntary” license amendment to try to sideline concerns that they are not in compliance with their license -- specifically a license term that requires them to demonstrate tube integrity over the full range of normal operating conditions -- including 100 percent power.

Tube integrity -- seems important when the loss of tube integrity is exactly what caused the radiation leak and emergency shut down of the Unit 3 over a year ago -- and is at the center of the controversial restart plan. However, instead of addressing the significant safety concerns raised by cranking up a reactor experiencing pervasive tube damage of unknown cause to any power level, Edison proposed a footnote license amendment that amounts to little more than wordsmithing -- it literally makes safety a footnote at the bottom of the page. Even more stunning, Edison also requested that the NRC issue a ‘no significant hazard consideration’ determination for their footnote amendment.

No significant hazard?

Let’s just be clear: Edison is asking to amend a license term -- called a technical specification -- for tube integrity. And they are requesting this amendment for a reactor that is experiencing unexplained, pervasive tube damage. Worse, they are requesting this amendment for two years, when the only analyses they’ve submitted are for five months.

The no significant hazard consideration would effectively strip the public of any meaningful role in the process through an adjudicatory hearing – which could then take place after the amendment had been issued and would amount to a dog and pony show.

An outside onlooker might have taken heart when NRC Chairman, Allison Macfarlane, stated in January of this year that, "We aren't doing this as an experiment. We would want to make sure that the plant can operate safely, period.”

However, when the top brass for Edison met with representatives from Nuclear Reactor Regulation -- the branch of the NRC that handles licensing -- at NRC HQ a little over a week ago, Edison affirmed that their plan was to test their hypothesis that reduced power operation would improve the functioning of the steam generators for five months and then shut it down and inspect them. However, even more shocking, they revealed that they planned to do so four or five times in the coming two years.

Now, isn’t forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing the results the very definition of an experiment?!

I’m all for scientific inquiry, but certainly not when it puts lives at risk -- and here we’re talking about the lives and livelihoods of 8.7 million people living within 50 miles of these damaged nuclear reactors in Southern California that would be unnecessarily and unacceptably jeopardized by Edison’s nuclear experiment.

One would think that any regulatory agency worth their name would want to have all the relevant information in hand before approving such a request. After all, the terms of the operating license are not simply words -- they are in place to ensure safety.

However, at last week’s meeting, the NRR showed themselves to be anything but a regulatory watchdog -- they were as docile and complacent as a bunch of sleepy puppies -- yapping lines about “just following the process” and that giving Edison a license to operate didn’t constitute allowing them to operate, so they didn’t actually need any technical justification or data to approve this amendment. And while these pups did quite an impressive job of jumping through Edison’s mental hoops in order to get to a place where they could reason away removing this license amendment request from the context of the significant safety questions raised by Edison’s proposal, the NRR’s hand-licking and appeasement of those they are supposed be regulating is anything but cute. It represents a significant failure on the part of the NRC as a whole and puts public safety at unacceptable risk.

On Tuesday, Senator Boxer, Chair of the Senate NRC oversight committee -- Environment and Public Works -- and Congressman Markey, sent a letter to NRC Chairman Macfarlane that explicitly stated that all open investigations should be completed prior to any decisions -- preliminary or final -- regarding the restart, license amendment, and no hazard determination being made, and that issuing a no significant hazard consideration would put the public at risk. The NRC's response to that letter was due by COB Wednesday.

In a surprising and audacious move on Wednesday -- and rather than respond to the members of Congress -- the NRC sent out, without fanfare on their listserve, a 15 page document that announced that it was not only accepting a footnote license amendment application from Edison but also preliminarily accepting the no significant hazard consideration.

While I'd like to give the NRC the benefit of the doubt, it seems a bit odd that a 15 page document announcing acceptance of Edison's application and a finding of no significant hazard could be drafted, finalized, and signed mere days after the application was received -- having only just been filed on Friday, April 5th -- if the regulators had actually conducted a thorough review of all relevant safety issues. This smacks of nothing more than a quick glance and a fast rubber stamp.

Now there comes a time when -- no matter how apparently sweet the puppy -- they decide they just don’t have to listen: they chew apart the couch, maybe tear through the garbage, and just generally make a mess of things.

The NRC has certainly decided to run amuck. The complete disregard and disrespect for the California State Senator and Chair of their oversight committee, Barbara Boxer, is rather recklessly bold. They could not be bothered to even acknowledge her letter -- co-signed by Congressman Markey -- with a response before doing exactly the opposite of what she had requested.

If the NRC isn’t going to even pretend to be a watchdog for the people, or protect public health and safety, then they at least need to be brought to heel before their rash decisions open the gate for their friends at Edison to crank up an incredibly damaged nuke and potentially trash Southern California.

In a statement issued in the hours following the NRC’s announcement, Senator Boxer said, “The NRC staff proposal, which could pave the way for the restart of the San Onofre nuclear power plant before the investigations of the crippled plant are completed, is dangerous and premature. It makes absolutely no sense to even consider taking any steps to reopen San Onofre until these investigations look at every aspect of reopening the plant given the failure of the tubes that carry radioactive water. In addition, the damaged plant is located in an area at risk of earthquake and tsunami. With eight million people living within 50 miles of this plant, the staff proposal is beyond irresponsible.”

We, at Friends of the Earth, could not agree more and applaud both Senator Boxer and Congressman Markey for their leadership. In spite of what the NRC believes, or how much they want to appease and sit pretty for those they are supposed to regulate, they are not a law unto themselves. They must answer to Congress.

For our part, we are currently engaged in two open proceedings before the Petitions Review Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and are committed to ensuring that Edison's proposed nuclear experiment with Southern California is stopped.

Photo credit: Creative Commons, Mlhavý, via Flickr.com

How to Stretch a Penny (Ask Robin Hood)

Karen Orenstein — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:17:03 -0400

Though a number of wealthy countries attending a State Department-convened climate finance ministerial meeting on mobilizing private money have been trying to escape their obligation to use public funds to help the world’s poor confront the climate crisis (which, incidentally, the poor did not cause), Robin Hood found them today and demanded to be heard. He and his many supporters stood outside the hotel where the elite group had gathered in Washington, D.C. and loudly called for the implementation of a Robin Hood Tax (a.k.a. financial transaction tax), an extremely promising, untapped source of revenue that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to create jobs; provide education, housing and global healthcare; and fight climate change.

Passers-by witnessed an epic tug-of-war between people and the planet on one side, and big banks on the other. It was the walruses, polar bears, Robin Hood and ordinary folks versus the fat cat bankers. They were struggling over a tiny tax on big banks, symbolized by a giant penny.

Spokesperson for Wall Street tycoons

According to a spokesperson representing Wall Street and City of London tycoons standing on the right side of the rope, “If I lose the money, I will not be able to fly in my private jet. Oh wait, that’s not true. I will still have enough money to fly in my jet. I might make way less money! Oh wait, actually there’s no data to back that up. I will not be able to afford healthcare! Oh wait, actually if there was a Robin Hood Tax, healthcare would be affordable for everyone. Well, dammit, I just don’t want to give up any of my pennies!”

At which point, Robin Hood retorted, “But, Banker, the Robin Hood Tax is waaaayyyy less than a penny!”

Mr. Hood was correct. At no more than half-a-penny, the Robin Hood Tax is a micro-tax on Wall Street trading that would curb harmful speculation and raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue to pay for urgently-needed public goods and services, like helping the poor cope with the threats to public health and food shortages caused by our changing climate. It would simply levy a teeny tiny fee on financial transactions—most of which are traded not by people, but by computers in a matter of micro-seconds—involving stocks, bonds, currency exchanges and derivatives. As Robin Hood likes to say, “It’s small change for the banks but big change for the people.”

Throughout the tug-of-war, Robin Hood’s supporters – even those of the animal kingdom – could be heard chanting:

No more budget cuts on our backs;

Fight climate change with a Robin Hood Tax!

Public money’s good,

Says Robin Hood;

Robin Hood Tax now!


Representative from Norwegian ministry addresses those gathered

As they dispersed, Robin Hood’s supporters expressed cautious optimism that their message was well-received. After all , they had interacted with ministry representatives from the U.S., U.K., Poland, Japan, Canada and Norway. Norway’s representative even joined in the fun to show his support for Robin Hood.

Rather than focusing on how to guarantee high returns for Wall Street and the City of London, the U.S. and other countries should finally start taxing them to help pay for global public goods and services, like meeting the adaptation and mitigation needs of ordinary people in developing countries, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

Bipartisan legislation introduced to end corn ethanol mandate

Adam Russell — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:05:14 -0400

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Representatives Goodlatte (R-Va.), Womack (R-Ark.), Costa (D-Calif.) and Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the Renewable Fuel Standard Reform Act, which would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard and cap the amount of ethanol that can be in a gallon of regular gasoline at 10 percent. Friends of the Earth Tax Analyst Ben Schreiber had the following statement on the bill:

“Unfortunately the promise of corn ethanol has been replaced with a reality of rising food prices, polluted water and smog filled air. It is simply unconscionable to mandate the use of corn ethanol now that we know its impacts.

“It is past time for Congress to reevaluate our support for corn ethanol and that is exactly what the Renewable Fuel Standard Reform Act does. This bipartisan group of congressmen have worked together on an important bill that would reduce government support for corn ethanol and help create the space in our fuel supply that we will need if we are ever to have truly sustainable biofuels.”

###

Contact:
Ben Schreiber, 202-222-0752, bschreiber@foe.org