NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE NOT SAFE, SECURE and VITAL IF ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS...THEY ARE OUR DEATH TRAPS!DIABLO IS OUR RALLY CRY!
Attention all GRASSROOTS organizations...if your city is in re licensing now, if your community was forced to accept a re licensing renewal over the community's objections, GET AN ATTORNEY NOW, and file a motion to overturn the decision, ask for a TRO. File a petition for REDRESS with your Congressman or woman. File a request for review with NEPA asking that the decision be vacated, and a new re licensing application started. File a formal VERIFIED COMPLAINT with NRC. In short, PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS.
In light of the Ninth District ruling on Diablo, coupled with the Supreme Court refusing to hear Pacific Gas & Electric's pathetic request, we have a chance here to GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE. We need to flood the NRC with litigation and verified complaints from ACROSS AMERICA! STAKE HOLDERS, TAKE BACK YOUR COMMUNITY from the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. Our communities are OUR HOME, not the home of aging reactors!
This case proves that the NRC erred in refusing to include terrorist attacks in the decision making process. Every community denied the chance to present their case on this important issue in the re licensing process WAS CHEATED, DENIED THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS. The time to move is NOW...NRC is going to try to do a end run around us by going to the commission...FLOOD THE COMMISSION with DEMANDS TO INTERVENE, before NRC screws you once again, and gives nothing more than LIP SERVICE to Diablo, and to the rest of the communities who were cheated, FORCED TO PLAY HOST TO DEATH TRAPS for another TWENTY YEARS.
Don't WAIT ON THE NRC TO SLAP YOU, but instead ACT NOW to deliver a serious KNOCK OUT BLOW to the aging fleet of unsafe reactors...we have the chance here to set the clock back to zero, but we must move fast. Forcing the entire re licensing process for every re licensed reactor to in effect go through a do over, throws the entire DOE Nuclear Power 2010/GNEP into complete disarray! We can use Homeland Security's own public documents on dirty bombs against the NRC....if a briefcase NUKE can send you into forced sheltering in place for over four days, what would an attack on a nuclear reactor that was successful do? Where would we stand after a terrorist attack in light of Congress extending the Price Anderson Act when it comes to MAKING US WHOLE?
SPREAD THE WORD!WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SWORD OF JUSTICE, LET US USE IT TO SHUT DOWN THESE MONSTERS THAT ARE POLLUTING OUR COMMUNITIES.
WHERE IS GREENPEACE, WHERE IS NIRS? SIGN ONTO OUR LETTER FOLKS, WE HAVE THE CHANCE WE NEED!
HOW ABOUT PETITIONS FOR RULE MAKING INCLUDING A REQUEST THAT ALL RELICENSES BE SET ASIDE? NEW RISK ASSESSMENTS? HOW ABOUT A CONGRESSIONAL LAW DEMANDING SAFETY AND SECURITY ASSESSMENTS ON THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR FLEET? WE MAY NEVER AGAIN GET A CHANCE TO HAMMER THEM LIKE THIS FOLKS, THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
DIABLO IS OUR RALLY CRY, LET OUR VOICES RISE ABOVE THE LIES OF THE INDUSTRY....DIABLO DIABLO DIABLO
Diablo case shakes nuke industry
By Ben Lando Jan 19, 2007, 23:57 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday not to hear an appeal by a California nuclear company means federal regulators will have to decide how to factor in terrorist attacks when evaluating environmental impacts of nuclear waste storage.
In denying Pacific Gas & Electric's appeal of a June 2 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the high court may have forced the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities like it hasn't in the past.
The appellate court said the NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it didn't include a terrorist attack in an environmental impact report for an application to create dry cask storage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, Calif.
PG&E, which owns Diablo Canyon, was granted the license and is constructing the storage for waste that will soon accumulate beyond can be contained in the cooling pool, where newly spent nuclear fuel is immediately placed.
The environmental impact report was part of the license.
The NRC maintains the terrorist threat should be addressed under the Atomic Energy Act, not NEPA. The commission said it will now decide to what extent it needs to address terrorism in environmental reports, while keeping the door open to challenge the court ruling in the future.
Opponents of New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear plant had hoped the ruling would help their attempt to block the plant's license renewal. The NRC, in a statement Friday, said "there are no environmental impacts that would preclude license renewal."
NRC officials said the report was completed prior to the Supreme Court's ruling. The commission's environmental impact statement for Oyster Creek's renewal had no mention of terrorism, though opponents raised the issue numerous times in public hearings.
"Basically, since we didn't know how the Supreme Court would come down, we couldn't really be planning in advance of that," said David McIntyre, spokesman for the NRC.
"And now that they have come down and said they're not going to review the case, we need to wait for the commission to decide. I don't think they're going to waste a lot of time on this," he said. "They're going to decide fairly soon."
Until then, the NRC will continue with business as usual. Opponents of the license renewal of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant plan to raise the terrorism issue at a Jan. 31 hearing on a draft environmental impact report. If the commission determines the court's ruling demands terrorist threats be included, McIntyre said it will be included in a final report.
In denying Pacific Gas & Electric's appeal of a June 2 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the high court may have forced the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities like it hasn't in the past.
The appellate court said the NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it didn't include a terrorist attack in an environmental impact report for an application to create dry cask storage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, Calif.
PG&E, which owns Diablo Canyon, was granted the license and is constructing the storage for waste that will soon accumulate beyond can be contained in the cooling pool, where newly spent nuclear fuel is immediately placed.
The environmental impact report was part of the license.
The NRC maintains the terrorist threat should be addressed under the Atomic Energy Act, not NEPA. The commission said it will now decide to what extent it needs to address terrorism in environmental reports, while keeping the door open to challenge the court ruling in the future.
Opponents of New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear plant had hoped the ruling would help their attempt to block the plant's license renewal. The NRC, in a statement Friday, said "there are no environmental impacts that would preclude license renewal."
NRC officials said the report was completed prior to the Supreme Court's ruling. The commission's environmental impact statement for Oyster Creek's renewal had no mention of terrorism, though opponents raised the issue numerous times in public hearings.
"Basically, since we didn't know how the Supreme Court would come down, we couldn't really be planning in advance of that," said David McIntyre, spokesman for the NRC.
"And now that they have come down and said they're not going to review the case, we need to wait for the commission to decide. I don't think they're going to waste a lot of time on this," he said. "They're going to decide fairly soon."
Until then, the NRC will continue with business as usual. Opponents of the license renewal of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant plan to raise the terrorism issue at a Jan. 31 hearing on a draft environmental impact report. If the commission determines the court's ruling demands terrorist threats be included, McIntyre said it will be included in a final report.
No comments:
Post a Comment