News

No fracking way: Keeping hydraulic fracturing out of California

Adam Russell — Tue, 21 May 2013 10:16:35 -0400

Thanks to new high-tech advances, California is on the verge of another oil boom: a fracking boom. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is commonly known, involves drilling horizontal wells and pumping toxic fluids into them at high pressure, which cracks the rocks to allow the trapped shale oil to escape.

The problems with fracking are enormous and well documented in places like Pennsylvania and North Dakota, where an oil and natural gas boom has meant a dramatic increase in the practice. Pollution, spills, accidents, earthquakes and property damage have all been tied to this dirty and destructive practice.

Right now, California doesn’t require companies to report when or where they’re fracking, or what chemicals they’re pumping into the ground. So Friends of the Earth has joined a coalition working to stop this misguided attempt to pry more filthy oil out of the bedrock of our state.

Here’s why we’re saying “No Fracking Way” to Big Oil in California:

Fracking creates serious water concerns. The process involves injecting massive amounts of water, chemicals and sand deep underground. Here in California, we don’t have water to spare for fracking. The industry claims they use between 80,000 and 300,000 gallons of water per well, though that figure is likely low. In a state where drought is common and water a scarce and prized resource, giving away our water for oil extraction seems short-sighted at best.

And scarcity isn’t the only water concern. Those chemicals I mentioned earlier -- many of them known carcinogens -- are another huge problem with fracking. Some of these toxins return to the surface in wastewater and are disposed of in evaporation pits, which can cause serious problems when they leak. And they do leak. One investigation conducted by ProPublica found more than 1,000 cases of water contamination near drilling sites.

But most of them are injected along with the rest of the wastewater deep underground, where they can contaminate groundwater and aquifers, poisoning what fresh water reserves the state has.

Some of California’s shale oil is as filthy as Canadian Tar Sands oil. California’s shale oil is incredibly dirty, carbon-intensive stuff. In fact, shale oil is so dirty that legally, we won’t even be able to refine it in California, much less use it. Thanks to the state’s new “low-carbon fuel standard,” fuel producers must lower the carbon intensity of all fuels sold in California … which means we’ll pollute our land, air and water all for some other states’ benefit.

But even if we don’t burn this filthy fuel here, just extracting it is bad enough. Drilling and fracking contribute to serious air pollution problems as well as climate change. Some of the fluid in the fracking process turns into gas at high pressures, which then vents to the surface. And, like the wastewater, that gas is filled with cancer-causing fracking chemicals. According to a report from Food and Water Watch, one recent study “found that people living within half a mile of fracking operations face significantly higher cancer risk, and higher risk of developing other health problems because of air pollution, compared to people who live farther away.”

Fracking can increase seismic activity. The journal of the American Geophysical Union published a paper documenting the link between the fracking process and increased seismic activity in areas with known faults. California is one of the most earthquake prone states in the country. The companies assure us that it’s fine -- they won’t drill into any known faults. But the Northridge earthquake, which killed 50 people in 1994, happened on an unknown fault. And no one knows what will happen when companies start injecting massive amounts of fracking fluids into unknown faults.

Claims that fracking will provide a big boost to California’s economy may not actually be true. A recent study released by the University of Southern California claims that fracking California’s Monterey Shale could increase the state’s economy by 14%, creating half a million jobs in the next two years. However, those rosy projections may not be entirely accurate. In fact, the main study cited was financed and run by -- you guessed it -- the oil companies. DeSmogBlog did some investigating and found that the report was funded at least in part by the Western States Petroleum Association. One of the co-authors is currently employed by Big Oil. Perhaps more damning is the fact that the study wasn’t peer-reviewed -- the outside reviewers who did look at the report also had ties to Big Oil -- and was published “in association with” a PR firm.

Three bills working their way through the California legislature right now would put a moratorium on fracking in the state. We’re calling on our supporters to urge their legislators to support A.B. 1301, the strongest of the three. We’re also pushing them to reject AB7, a bill that would allow fracking to continue in California and would keep fracking chemicals secret from the public.

California has a chance to be out in front of the fight against fracking by declaring a moratorium on this dangerous extraction method. Only a few states -- New York, New Jersey and Vermont -- have already enacted bans or moratoriums on fracking.

Now it’s our turn. Friends of the Earth and our new coalition will be fighting hard in the California legislature to get a moratorium passed, and we’ll be helping rally Californians statewide to call for this important ban.

California REDD: A False Solution

Jeff Conant — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:08:40 -0400

Friends of the Earth is deeply devoted to curbing both deforestation and averting catastrophic climate change. Yet FoE’s international forests campaign has been actively engaged in opposing California’s pending adoption of a program known as REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Indeed, we’ve taken the lead, along with Greenpeace, California Environmental Justice Alliance, and two dozen other groups in asking the governor of California and the California Air Resources Board to reject REDD, and have just published an Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee asking Californians to oppose the agreement.

So, if we care so much about forests and the climate, what gives?

Among environmental advocates, and especially forest defenders, REDD can be a complicated and divisive issue; among those a little beyond the inner circles of environmental advocacy, it’s downright baffling. FoE’s position is explained in our issue briefs here and here, and in past news releases (here and here), as well as in this cheeky breakdown of Ten Ways to Game the Carbon Market. Our position is also supported by a number of letters sent to California policymakers recently from Chiapas, Mexico, (“REDD will legally allow the continuation of the predatory and consumerist model”), from Acre, Brazil (“REDD represents the ‘theft’ of yet another ‘raw material’ from the territories of the peoples of the South: the ‘carbon reserves’ in their forests”), from the Corner House in the UK (“the toxic legacy of REDD would engrave the name Jerry Brown permanently in the ‘enemies of the environment roster’”), and from our sister groups in Friends of the Earth Latin America and the Caribbean (“REDD shifts responsibility for the climate crisis to the countries of the South, which do not have historical responsibility for the crisis”).

These letters are strongly worded, indicating the fierce stance that many opposing groups take to the issue. Given that proponents of REDD strongly believe that California's proposal is a win-win, I’d like to shine a little more light on our position.

REDD, which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, proposes to put a price on standing forests in order to incentivize conserving them. This leads many enviros to think it’s a conservation effort. But it’s not. It’s a carbon offset scheme, and a dubious one at that. Reducing emissions from deforestation is crucial, both for climate change mitigation and simply because we need to preserve our remaining forests – but expecting carbon markets to do the job can, and does, lead to very problematic outcomes.

For years economists have promoted carbon trading as the cheapest way to cut carbon pollution – though this notion took a major body blow recently when The Economist (among many others) declared the EU emissions trading scheme both ineffective, and, to put it plainly, dead. Swiss banking giant UBS reported that the EU scheme had cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions. These massive failings led Carbon Trade Watch and 120 other groups to note that “The use of offset projects has resulted in an increase of emissions worldwide… and has brought severe social and environmental consequences to communities where the offset projects are implemented, together with communities living next to the industrial facilities that buy the credits” and to call on Europe to scrap the European Emissions Trading System.

And this is the morass that California is wading into. While even some of our favorite media sources buy the state’s line that California can succeed where others have failed, we believe such wishful thinking is pure hubris. With even Time Magazine seeing the carbon bubble about to burst, it seems necessary to repeat what social movements and groups like Climate Justice Now! have known for years: that drastic reductions in emissions from fossil fuel use are the only way to avert the climate crisis. Indeed, Oilwatch International sent California policymakers a statement with a pretty clear message to that effect: “Don’t let Shell roast the planet.”

What these concerns point to is that emissions trading simply subsidizes the fossil fuel industry. Interestingly, many groups deeply invested in REDD are also deeply invested in fossil fuels -- a point that should give serious pause.

But enough about fossil fuels—have I mentioned forests yet? If not, it’s because forests are secondary to REDD (it’s a carbon offset scheme), and secondary to California’s plan.

Proponents of REDD as a mechanism for saving forests assert that by putting a price on the carbon stored in trees, existing economic incentives to deforest could be reversed. However, numerous studies show that failure to address the true drivers of deforestation – high demand for wood products, expansion of industrial agriculture, illegal and unplanned forest conversion, conflicts over land and resources, and extractive activities – will generally undermine any effort to ‘protect’ forests through “payment for ecosystem services” schemes such as REDD. In other words, expecting carbon markets to do the job of protecting forests can, and does, lead to very problematic outcomes.

Some of these outcomes are described by Tracey Osbourne of the School of Geography and Development at the University of Arizona, and other academics at the Public Political Ecology Lab. Osbourne, who has put in years studying carbon forestry in a Mayan community in the Lacandon Jungle of Chiapas, finds that “when the carbon market enters forest ecosystems, it targets land uses of low market value, which in many developing countries is derived from subsistence needs.” “In an early program that intended to lay the groundwork for REDD+ in Chiapas,” she writes, “subsistence activities were constrained while production of African oil palm and jatropha for biofuels received subsides from the state.”

In other words, Osbourne’s findings show that carbon forestry requires that farmers give up producing food for themselves in exchange for ‘capturing carbon’. Proponents of a market-based logic tend to see this as “providing economic opportunity.” But proponents of indigenous rights and cultural integrity tend to see it as causing cultural erosion, with the attendant negative impacts to the ecologies that have been cared for by local cultures forever, precisely through their subsistence activities.

Kathy MacAfee, Associate Professor of International Relations at SF State, argues that“Ecosystem services have become the latest in a long history of tropical-commodity miracle crops” that “are no more likely to boost prosperity for the majority in the exporting regions than did coffee, sugar, rubber, or any such commodities in the past.”

In other words, just as in coffee, sugar, rubber, and other commodity markets, the middle-men involved in REDD and carbon trading will likely capture the greatest part of the profit, while the producers go hungry.

MacAfee’s conclusions match those of the Munden Project, a comprehensive assessment of REDD+ conducted by experts in derivatives trading, which points out, “Experience with numerous commodities markets shows a generalized pattern whereby commodity producers receive an extremely limited percentage of the final commodity cost.”

It is not only concern for misplaced project benefits that worries community-based organizations in Chiapas – it is concern that REDD will continue to exacerbate land conflicts and lead to ongoing evictions in the densely forested and hotly contested Lacandon jungle. (I’ve documented these concerns extensively here, here, and here and we’ve posted current documentation about the evictions in Chiapas here.)

And this is where the rubber tree hits the tarmac. Many REDD and PES schemes, including early efforts in Chiapas and Acre, the states where California hopes to draw its REDD offset credits from, have either caused or exacerbated social conflicts. This is what we meant when, in our open letter to the Governor and California Air Resources Board, we stated that “Based on the experiences of existing REDD mechanisms and processes, we strongly believe that subnational REDD initiatives financed primarily or wholly through offsets will be inefficient, ineffective, and will lead to perverse outcomes.”

One such perverse outcome, from the early effort to promote a REDD-type project in Chiapas was noted in a press release put out by FoE last October, where Rosario Aguilar, a health promoter from Chiapas, said, “Even before California has established its market, the REDD project being implemented in our communities is causing conflict and displacement. As part of their plan to move indigenous people off the land, the government cut off medical services to the village of Amador Hernández in the Lacandon Jungle. This is why we say that REDD is promoting death, not life.”

The hope for California REDD is that it will set a high bar for social and environmental safeguards, and by submitting subnational efforts to the light of international scrutiny, will prevent any further abuses of this sort. According to the recommendations of the REDD Offsets Working Group, no state could trade emissions offsets with California unless they have strict statewide deforestation baselines and targets, ensure local communities' lives are improved, respect indigenous peoples' rights, and meet or exceed the environmental standards of California. That certainly sounds good, but the question is how it can be carried out in practice, especially in states with long histories of conflict and depredation.

Intelligent people can have different positions on REDD, as the saying goes, and support for a program such as the one proposed by California is certainly understandable among those who, justifiably, want to see money for forest protection and low-carbon development. But even in Acre, Brazil—the state touted as having the most advanced ecosystem services law in the world—a number of groups have expressed concerns about the very nature of the proposal. An open letter from groups in Acre to the state of California calls REDD “a proposal based on a limited view of the forest, aimed at benefiting business interests and a small group linked to the government, while deepening already existing environmental and social injustice.”

A central concern expressed by the critical groups in Brazil is that REDD “is not an idea that emerged from an indigenous village or forest community in Acre." They go on to point out that:

"It emerged at the international level, through the combination of, among others: (1) the conservationist interests of big environmental NGOs in the North, (2) the interests of national and sub-national governments in the North seeking low-cost alternatives to supposedly ‘offset’ their continued and excessive emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases, (3) the interests of national and sub-national governments in the South seeking to obtain financial resources for the ‘protection’ of forests in their countries, (4) the interests of corporations that could profit from market-tradable ‘offset’ credits, including through speculation on secondary (derivatives) markets, which would allow them to continue destroying the forests for the extraction of timber, minerals or oil, the establishment of monoculture plantations, etc., thus expanding their business opportunities, and (5) the interests of consultants and other actors involved in financial capital markets who want to turn ‘unexploited’ forests into a new market for this type of capital, through the commercialization of ‘environmental services’ such as carbon sequestration, among others.”

A few years ago when cap-and-trade was in Congress, a lot of environmentalists wondered why FoE opposed it. In short, it was because, unless it's fundamentally rebuilt to maximize the cap and minimize the trade, cap-and-trade is a false solution to the climate crisis, and a bad deal for the planet. (Climate scientist James Hansen called it “the path focused on corporate greed.”) Now, in California, where cap-and-trade is already on the books, another false solution is on the table. In case anyone’s wondering why we oppose REDD in California – it’s the same story: unless it can be fundamentally reformed to favor the forests by first and foremost protecting those who live in them, it’s a false solution, and a bad deal for the planet.

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