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

California cap-and-trade scheme could endanger rainforest peoples

Adam Russell — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:16:33 -0400

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Under California’s new cap-and-trade program, the state is considering allowing a controversial form of carbon credits that have been rejected by the European Union as ineffective and potentially harmful to rainforests in developing countries. Now an international coalition of environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Sierra Club California is urging Gov. Jerry Brown to reject the so-called REDD credits, which could endanger the lives and livelihoods of indigenous forest peoples.

Since California signed a memorandum of understanding in 2010 with Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil, the state Air Resources Board has been working to forge an agreement to allow California industries, under the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), to offset their pollution by purchasing Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation credits that supposedly promote rainforest conservation in those areas.

A consulting group to the ARB recently released recommendations for the program and is accepting public comments through May 7. The environmental groups’ letter to Gov. Brown and the ARB -- on the heels of letters of protests from Indigenous groups in Acre and Chiapas -- points out deep flaws with the proposal:

[The] proposal is not only unlikely to deliver real, additional and permanent emission reductions, but it would also prevent Californians from getting the benefits of AB 32 at home. By allowing enterprises to buy international forest offsets, the amount of industrial emissions within the state would be greater than otherwise allowed by law, exposing people here in California to greater health and environmental risks, and preventing progressive Californian companies from benefitting from new technologies and innovations.

“REDD looks like a forest protection program,” said Jeff Conant, international forests campaigner with Friends of the Earth U.S., “but it’s not. It’s a carbon offset scheme. It fails to address the real causes of both deforestation and the climate crisis.”

“We need to reduce both deforestation and industrial emissions,” said Roman Czebiniak, senior climate and forest policy analyst at Greenpeace International. “Allowing major industries to merely replace one with the other not only puts the climate at great risk but also exposes Californians to greater pollution here at home.”

Europe’s emissions trading system, the largest carbon market in the world -- itself beset by scandals and failure to reduce emissions in Europe -- does not accept REDD credits. The EU says reductions in carbon emissions from forest preservation are impossible to verify accurately, that preserving one forest in one place may only drive deforestation to another area, and that industrial pollution remains in the atmosphere for centuries while forests are more vulnerable to short-term changes.

Tropical forests have unique social, economic and cultural significance to those who live in and depend on them for their livelihoods. But REDD projects like the one California is considering raise serious concerns about violations of the rights of forest dwellers.

"Forest carbon projects are causing grave human rights abuses, including evictions, land grabs, jailing, persecution of activists and violations of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” said Alberto Saldamando, a spokesman for the Indigenous Environmental Network. "California should not repeat its mistakes of the past with regard to indigenous peoples, in order to let polluters continue to pollute."

Organizations in Acre and Chiapas who sent letters to California policymakers last week denounced the proposed program as “neocolonial” and “incoherent.” Objections have also been sent by Friends of the Earth Latin America and Caribbean and Oilwatch International urging that “common sense requires that we end fossil fuel addiction, not let corporations continue to profit while setting the planet ablaze.”

Environmental justice advocates also pointed out that communities in the shadow of polluting industries, like Chevron’s refinery in Richmond and Shell’s in Martinez, see REDD as a failure to address their concerns as well.

"We have struggled to ensure that ARB addresses the needs of low-income communities and communities of color in AB 32 implementation,” said Strela Cervas, coordinator of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. “But they have continued to pass harmful and ineffective offset programs that only benefit big polluters. ARB has shown little concern for communities of color here at home -- how can we expect them to ensure a California REDD program will protect the rights of communities abroad?"

“To really tackle tropical deforestation at its root,” the letter recommends, “California policymakers should consider examining how the state’s existing policies…may enable rainforest destruction through contributing to demand for petroleum, timber, soy, paper, palm oil, and other commodities.”

###

Contact:
Jeff Conant, +1 (510) 900-0016, jconant@foe.org

Mark Zuckerberg, unfriend Big Oil!

Adam Russell — Wed, 01 May 2013 12:43:51 -0400

Clean energy activists will protest at Facebook HQ at noon today

MENLO PARK, Calif. – A protest today at Facebook headquarters will target founder Mark Zuckerberg’s support for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Clean energy activists from Friends of the Earth, CREDO, 350.org and others will gather at 1404 Willow Road in Menlo Park to call out Zuckerberg’s funding of a series of TV advertisements promoting construction of the pipeline and opening up the wildlife refuge to oil and gas exploration.

Zuckerberg’s new political action committee, FWD.US, was supposedly founded to support immigration reform, but is running the ads to curry favor with pro-oil members who are on the fence about immigration. Key players in the PAC also include SolarCity Chairman Elon Musk and venture capitalist John Doerr.

Here is a statement from Ross Hammond, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, who will be at the protest today.

"It's disappointing that having taken a very public stand for clean, renewable energy, Mark Zuckerberg is now playing the politics of dirty oil. You'd hope the visionary behind Facebook would be looking to the clean energy economy of our future rather than falling for the pipe dreams of the dinosaur fossil fuel industry. Where's the DISLIKE button?”

###

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

Keystone XL: What is Foggy Bottom hiding?

Adam Russell — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:28:49 -0400

State Department denies request for quick release of lobbyist documents; appeal filed

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The State Department has denied Friends of the Earth’s request for expedited release of internal documents that could shed light on the web of lobbyists TransCanada and the Province of Alberta have hired in order to fast track approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Friends of the Earth today filed a formal appeal.

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth filed a broad Freedom of Information Act request for all communications between State Department officials and lobbyists for TransCanada and the Province of Alberta. The FOIA request identifies more than two dozen Washington lobbyists, lawyers and consultants helping to push for pipeline approval who have close ties to President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Clinton and other elected officials with a stake in the outcome. Among those are former White House communications director Anita Dunn and three former U.S. ambassadors to Canada.

In a letter dated April 19, the State Department asserted that Friends of the Earth’s request did not meet the criteria for expedited processing, even though the State Department is likely to sign off on the environmental review for the pipeline within a few months.

Ross Hammond, senior campaigner with Friends of the Earth, had this to say regarding the State Department’s reply.

“Something stinks in Foggy Bottom. One has to wonder what exactly the State Department is hiding.

“Given what we already know about the role of former Kerry and Obama staffers in lobbying for the Keystone pipeline, and the efforts State Department officials have made to hide the relationship between firms conducting the environmental review and TransCanada, it’s clear that the public interest would be best served by expediting our request for these documents. The longer the State Department delays turning over these documents, the harder it will be for the public to know the truth about what is really going on behind the scenes at the State Department before President Obama makes this momentous decision.”

###

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

Nearly 1.5 million objections to genetically engineered salmon filed with FDA

Adam Russell — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:27:37 -0400

Previously undisclosed documents reveal requests by several companies to obtain government approval to grow controversial salmon in U.S. facilities

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, and Food & Water Watch will join nearly 1.5 million people who have raised vehement objections, based on science, policy and law, to a proposal before the Food and Drug Administration to approve genetically engineered salmon, the first-ever GE animal intended for human consumption. The comment period ends Friday, April 26, at midnight.

The close of the comment period comes as documents disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act request raise serious questions about the adequacy of the FDA’s review of the AquAdvantage Salmon application. Among other things, while the FDA has refused to look at the environmental impacts of these GE fish beyond the Canadian and Panamanian facilities proposed in the application, it appears that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already received requests to import AquAdvantage Salmon eggs into the U.S. for commercial production.

The information further reveals that scientists within the Fish and Wildlife Service questioned the FDA’s ability and authority to review the impact of genetically engineered animals, and agreed with prominent experts that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be conducted before any decision on approval is finalized.

On the Friday before Christmas last year, the FDA released its controversial Environmental Assessment, the last step before possible approval of the AquAdvantage transgenic salmon engineered by AquaBounty Technologies. When FDA first announced its intent to approve AquaBounty’s application in the fall of 2010, the public sent more than 400,000 comments in opposition. Now that opposition has grown to nearly 1.5 million people.

“The newly revealed disclosures are very troubling,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. “They raise the question of whether the whole idea of growing these genetically engineered salmon in Panama was a regulatory ruse by the company designed to get approval, while their real intent was to sell these eggs to U.S. companies to be grown in U.S. facilities. It appears as if the FDA will have to go back to step one on this approval process and assess the impact of growing these salmon not in Panama but in several locations around this country.”

“This application is the first of its kind, and precedent-setting,” said Earthjustice Vice-President of Litigation Patti Goldman. “It is imperative that FDA not ignore the public’s repeated calls for the careful, comprehensive, timely, and open environmental review that is promised by law.”

“The FDA process is obviously flawed, and already the market is rejecting genetically engineered salmon,” said Eric Hoffman with Friends of the Earth. “The vast majority of consumers say they won’t eat genetically engineered fish and grocery stores are rejecting it. The submission of nearly 1.5 million comments in opposition to genetically engineered fish is just another sign that there is no future for this fish in the U.S.”

“Nearly 1.5 million people have commented to FDA from a broad spectrum of the public: consumers, scientists, salmon growers, doctors, students, ministers, chefs and Native American groups,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “FDA needs to put interests of the public ahead of those from the biotech industry, which appear to be GE salmon’s only proponents. FDA must put an end to this regulatory mess and acknowledge that the environmental risks and lingering food safety issues don’t justify approving this product.”

The market has already started to reject GE salmon. More than 2,500 grocery stores are committed to not sell GE seafood should it come to market and 260 chefs across the country have signed on to a letter by Chefs Collaborative objecting to the transgenic fish. A variety of other groups also have voiced their opposition, including several indigenous groups and hundreds of fisheries and fishermen’s organizations.

###

Contact:
Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5221; rismail@earthjustice.org
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2457; rbindell@fwwatch.org
Stacy Malkan, Friends of the Earth, (510) 542-9224; stacydmalkan@gmail.com
Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety, (202) 679-3370; pr@centerforfoodsafety.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: EPA objects to State Department’s ‘insufficient’ review of pipeline impacts

Adam Russell — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:13:55 -0400

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency’s stinging critique of the State Department’s latest review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is more evidence that State’s ability to objectively review the project has been compromised by pipeline lobbyists’ with close ties to the Obama Administration, Friends of the Earth said.

In its official comments on State’s draft environmental impact statement, EPA highlighted many of the criticisms that Friends of the Earth and 15 other environmental and public interest groups raised Monday in a submission to the State Department. EPA and the groups both called out State’s glossing over of the risk of serious spills, its finding that the tar sands would be fully exploited whether or not the pipeline is built, and its failure to adequately consider the impact of toxic emissions from refineries on the health of communities in the Gulf.

“The EPA’s critique highlights the growing lack of confidence in the ability of the State Department to handle the review process in an impartial and even-handed manner,” said Ross Hammond, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Since TransCanada first applied for the permit in 2008, the State Department’s handling of the issue has been plagued by conflicts of interest, insider influence and a heavy pro-pipeline bias. The State Department has effectively lost control of the review process and is allowing TransCanada to call the shots, regardless of the major risks to the environment that the pipeline poses,” said Hammond. Last week, Friends of the Earth issued a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department in an attempt to learn more about the web of lobbyists with ties to Obama and Kerry that TransCanada and the Province of Alberta have hired to try to rush approval of the pipeline.

The State Department’s draft environmental statement was written by a consulting firm that lists TransCanada as a client, a fact that State Department officials attempted to cover up. Friends of the Earth and other groups are demanding that the State Department’s Inspector General investigate the agency’s attempt to conceal the firm’s past relationship with TransCanada.

“The State Department has proven that it is incapable of conducting an objective review of the Keystone pipeline,” says Damon Moglen, director of the climate and energy program at Friends of the Earth. “It’s time for Secretary Kerry to hit the reset button on Keystone by throwing out this flawed review and launching an investigation into how such an important review could be highjacked by a foreign corporation.”

###

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

San Onofre: Los Angeles votes to oppose reactor restart without public hearings

Adam Russell — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:23:17 -0400

LA council joins other SoCal cities in concern over safety

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously today to ask federal regulators not to allow the restart of the crippled San Onofre nuclear reactors before the formal public process to determine whether Edison’s experimental restart plan is safe and all needed repairs or replacements are completed.

The resolution by District 5 Councilmember Paul Koretz and District 11 Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, which passed 11-0, expresses support for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to:

make no decision about restarting either San Onofre unit until it has fully reviewed public safety through a prudent, transparent, and precautionary process, has allowed independent experts and the public ample opportunity to comment, and has confirmed that Southern California Edison has completed any resulting mandated repairs, replacements, or other actions necessary to guarantee both short and long-term safe operation of San Onofre . . . [The City also encourages the NRC] to take the time needed to independently determine whether or not the information, analysis and actions provided by Southern California Edison constitute a solid technical basis for the adequate protection of the public and resumption of operations.

LA joins a long list of Southern California cities that have expressed concerns about the safety of restarting either of San Onofre’s twin reactors. Both reactors have been shut down for almost a year, after a leak of radioactive steam led to the discovery of widespread and unprecedented damage to the reactors’ recently installed replacement steam generators.

Edison has proposed to the NRC that it be allowed to restart reactor Unit 2 at partial power and run it as a five month test followed by two years of intermittent shutdowns and startups. Edison has also requested a license amendment with a “no significant hazard” provision that would allow restart with a public hearing to be held only after the fact. NRC staff have given preliminary approval to Edison’s request, but are taking public comments on the proposal through May 15.

“There is a growing consensus from cities in the Southland that Edison’s restart plan amounts to a dangerous experiment that gambles with the safety of millions of Southern Californians,” said S. David Freeman, former head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and a senior consultant to Friends of the Earth. “There are serious questions about what went wrong at San Onofre, whether it can be fixed, and whether it is safe to operate that can only be answered adequately in a formal legal proceeding.”

Cities that have passed resolutions or sent letters of concern to the NRC include Del Mar, Encinitas, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Monica, Solana Beach, Vista, Berkley and Fairfax. In addition, the San Diego Unified School District board passed a similar resolution.

Acting on a petition from Friends of the Earth, the NRC is conducting two official proceedings which could require Edison to seek a full license amendment with adjudicated public hearings, expert testimony and rules of evidence.

###

Contact:
Bill Walker, Friends of the Earth: (510) 759-9911
Paul Michael Neuman, office of Councilmember Koretz: (213) 473-7005