Nuclear Nightmare

Published on Saturday, March 19, 2011

by Ralph Nader from Commondreams.org

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back” means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12 billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that arrangement.

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky. Under the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists. Huge decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of State Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the shutdown of Indian Point.

6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete against energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient, quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting the tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce far more carbon per dollar (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear power on economic and safety grounds (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to meet a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play Russian Roulette!

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

DEIS Deserves an F

DEIS F grade deserves supplemental effort
Tuesday, 23 March 2010 03:17
by Sen. Ben Pangelinan
Marianas Variety

THE recent grade given the draft environmental impact statement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency merits an extra step in the National Environmental Protection Act process before it goes to final. This is the lowest grade possible and speaks to the inadequacy and technical deficiencies of the document in addressing the impact of the military buildup on our community.
In response, I sent a letter to Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the Council of Environmental Quality, to step in and order a supplemental impact study, which directs the military to develop and commit to changes in their plan to adequately addresses the concerns raised by the USEPA experts, our own local environmental experts and the economic experts who pointed out blatant errors in the technical assumptions and conclusions of the DEIS.


Below, I share my letter to her with you.

“Dear Ms. Sutley:

In November 2009, the Department of Defense completed close to an 11,000 page draft environmental impact statement that attempted to detail the impact on Guam of relocating 8,000 Marines and 12,000 dependents from Okinawa, dredging the only harbor to allow visiting Aircraft Carrier Berthing, and the creation of an Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force.

“During the 90-day comment period, the citizens of Guam, many of them professionals in the environmental field outlined and submitted thousands of comments identifying defects in the analysis of how the proposed activity will impact Guam and her residents.

“On February 17, 2010, the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency issued a ninety-five page report titled: EPA Detailed Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact statement for the Guam and the CNMI Military Relocation.” In the report, USEPA issued a rating of environmentally unsatisfactory; inadequate information (EU-3); the worst rating that the USEPA could assign to the DEIS.

“Review of USEPA’s comments indicate that the DEIS is “unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality,” and thus subject to referral by USEPA to the Council of Environmental Quality pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. It is also clear that the issues raised are of national importance because of the threat to the national environmental resources or policies.

“In July 2006, the Civilian/Military Task Force established a working group between the government of Guam, federal agencies and the DOD to create a master plan for the proposed buildup and address all the environmental and socioeconomic issues created by this unprecedented peace time troop movement.

“Subject matter experts from government of Guam agencies that signed confidentiality agreements with the DOD were provided an advanced copy of the DEIS before its release in order to identify any gaps or issues that were not properly addressed.

“Between the creation of the C/MTF, the advance review of the DEIS and the official release of the DEIS, the government of Guam has documented its concerns with the scope and severity of the potential impacts of these projects.

“The contents and substance of the DEIS evidences that little or no progress was made in resolving these differences between government of Guam, its agencies, federal agencies, and the DOD. This is further evidenced by the periodic reports by the United States Government Accountability Office on the progress of the DOD projects on Guam over the time period between the scoping meeting and the release of the DEIS. Review of the DEIS makes clear that the potential adverse environmental impacts are extreme in each of the following categories:

(a) Possible violation of national environmental standards or policies.
(b) Severity.
(c) Geographical scope.
(d) Duration.
(e) Importance as precedents.
(f) Availability of environmentally preferable alternatives.

“As a senior member of the Guam Legislature representing over 150,000 U.S. citizens on our island, I am requesting that Council of Environmental Quality be proactive by ordering a supplemental environmental impact statement be performed that addresses the many issues identified by USEPA and the citizens of Guam during the comment period.

“The SEIS must include corrections to erroneous analysis, identification of compatible alternatives and equitable mitigation. In addition, the SEIS must be completed prior to the issuance of the final EIS and the record of decision by the Department of Defense in light of the volume and scope of the DEIS, and in order to allow the citizens of Guam to fully review and comment on the new plans and revised studies.

“Guam continues to answer the call to support the United States with her resources and citizens; however, we are in need of assistance to ensure that the interests of the federal government, especially the Department of Defense are not placed above the vitality, viability and equitable survival of our homeland and our people.

“Thank you for taking an interest in these important matters that affect both our environment and quality of life. It is my sincerest hope that the council will act expeditiously to protect Guam from any unnecessary and irreversible harm resulting from any proposed actions of the Department of Defense.”

DEIS outlines training procedures on Tiyan

DEIS outlines training procedures on Tiyan

Monday, 28 December 2009 04:27
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

THE proposed Tinian-based U.S. Marines training facilities cited in the draft environmental statement impact cites certain priorities for proper use and management focused on the areas including personnel, environmental and civilian safety.

According to the impact statement, the military would schedule any training activities one week in advance, and would also engage in public notification initiatives through the media.

Additionally, the draft study states that “biosecurity training would be coordinated through informal consultations,” with the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources through regional training authority one-week prior to training events.

Environmental briefings, including brown tree snake control, would also be completed prior to departure.

Cultural resource briefing would be completed prior to departure. Authorized USDA inspectors would conduct inspection of supplies and equipment before such shipments bound for Tinian are to be cleared.

The construction of fences, security gates, and range flag poles would be constructed around designated training areas to ensure that necessary portions of the training site are “clear of non-participating personnel during live firing to avoid the potential for injury from ricochet or misdirected shots.”

The draft impact study also assumes that “access to the [military lease area] would be in accordance with Marine Corps safety regulations and would vary depending on the type of training activity that is being conducted. As an example, live-fire activities on proposed ranges would require limited access to the [lease area] on the eastern side of Tinian.”

Limitations to access and various security requirements would be “part of the standard operating procedures for all ranges. The extent of fencing has not been determined, but roads would be gated and range control personnel would survey the area for unauthorized people.

Available monitoring capabilities would be utilized to assure public safety during training events. Training units would have direct communications with range control, and would fly a large red flag when the [training area] is in use,” according to the study.