August, 02 2013, 01:54pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director 301-270-6477
Environmental Groups Tell NRC to Strengthen Rules Barring Foreign Ownership of U.S. Reactors; Bring Them Into Line With Congressional Intent
A cross-section of national, regional and local environmental organizations from every part of the country today joined in comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission urging strengthening of the agency's rules that implement the Atomic Energy Act's prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination of a U.S. nuclear reactor project.
WASHINGTON
A cross-section of national, regional and local environmental organizations from every part of the country today joined in comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission urging strengthening of the agency's rules that implement the Atomic Energy Act's prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination of a U.S. nuclear reactor project.
The NRC Commissioners ordered a review of its regulatory guidance in a March 11, 2013 order upholding the denial of a construction/operating license to UniStar Nuclear--a company owned by Electricite de France (EDF)--for the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor in Maryland on foreign ownership grounds.
Earlier this week, EDF announced that it is permanently leaving the U.S. nuclear power market and will no longer attempt to build new reactors here.
The four organizations which successfully intervened against the Calvert Cliffs-3 license--Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen and Southern Maryland CARES--were joined by 62 more groups in submitting the comments.
The comments said the NRC that the agency does not have the authority to allow 100% foreign ownership, whether direct or indirect, of a U.S. reactor project. The groups also warned the NRC that some of the areas it sought comment on appear to be an effort to undermine the law, which Congress has left intact since 1954.
The groups wrote, "In short, there is no need for greater clarity on the question of whether a corporation that is 100% foreign owned is eligible for an NRC license. It simply is not. The only legitimate questions are, for an entity that is less than 100% foreign owned, what is the standard for control or domination? "
An examination of the legislative history of the foreign ownership provision of the Atomic Energy Act conducted for NIRS revealed that Congress initially had proposed to ban any foreign ownership of more than 5% of a U.S. reactor. However, witnesses for the nuclear industry and other interests testified that it is difficult for publicly-traded companies to even know if they are as little as 5% foreign-owned, and suggested that the language be similar to the Federal Communications Act, which then--as it remains today--prohibited more than 25% foreign ownership of a broadcast facility. In response, Congress dropped a numerical cap and added the phrase prohibiting foreign "control or domination." No witness, and no Member of Congress, suggested that foreign ownership of more than 25% would ever be acceptable.
Over the years, however, the NRC has tried to interpret the Act as allowing a significant portion of foreign ownership, and its regulatory guidance has been inadequate to allow full examination "control or domination" issues in increasingly complex corporate structures.
The issue has come up again at the South Texas Nuclear Project, where intervening organizations have charged that the two nuclear reactors proposed there would be owned, controlled and dominated by the Japanese company Toshiba. The NRC staff agrees with the intervenors and issued a letter stating that a license cannot be granted for the project. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has scheduled a hearing on the matter in October.
The groups urged the NRC to bring its guidance into compliance with Congressional intent by taking three steps:
"We recommend that NRC's FOCD guidance be improved, and brought into compliance with the letter and intent of the Atomic Energy Act, by:
* Clarifying that majority foreign ownership, whether direct or "indirect," of a U.S. reactor project will always be grounds for rejection of a license application, and revising the guidance to reflect legislative intent by limiting foreign ownership to no more than 25% of a U.S. reactor project.
* Requiring Negation Action Plans in cases of significant minority foreign ownership (e.g. 5-25%), but refusing to consider them in cases of majority foreign ownership.
* Revising the guidance to address the increasingly complex nature of many of the corporate structures that have been proposed by license applicants in recent years.
The NRC therefore must thoroughly examine corporate structures submitted by applicants to ascertain whether foreign "control or domination" may be present. This includes not only the nature of ownership of the applicants themselves, but also ownership of Limited Liability Corporations and other subsidiaries associated with the project; whether, in cases where more than one company is involved (i.e. a joint partnership or similar structure) one of the partners involved is also an owner of one or more of the other partners; the financial stake of each of the partners in the project; the nature of financing for the project; the presence of other participants in the project (whether or not they may have a direct ownership stake) that may add to control or domination issues."
The comments prepared by NIRS and endorsed by 65 other organizations are available here: https://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/foreignownershipcomments8213.pdf
This press release is available here: https://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/foreignownershippr8213.htm
The NRC staff invited a panel to brief the staff on foreign ownership issues on June 19, 2013. NIRS' Powerpoint presentation to the NRC at that meeting is available here: https://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensing/Focd61913.ppt
The NRC has scheduled a webinar, with additional panelists, on the foreign ownership issue for August 21, 2013. Information is available here: https://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1320/ML13204A235.pdf
Nuclear Information and Resource Service is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.
LATEST NEWS
Bernie Sanders Says US Must 'Fundamentally Rethink' Its Foreign Policy
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people."
Mar 18, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called for a "revolution in American foreign policy" that replaces "greed, militarism, and hypocrisy" with "solidarity, diplomacy, and human rights."
In a lengthy piece published in Foreign Affairs, Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that "it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy," a shift that starts with "acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity."
"If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions," the democratic socialist senator wrote. "Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war."
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people," Sanders argued. "This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power."
Sanders' article examines U.S. foreign policy since World War II, underscoring commonalities between the many wars and acts of aggression perpetrated by Washington over the decades.
"Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts," the senator wrote, noting the U.S.-led war in Southeast Asia in which as many as 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians and more than 58,000 American troops were killed.
Sanders also highlighted the U.S. record of perpetrating or backing coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries, "often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty."
"Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests," he wrote.
Sanders then moved on to the 21st century, when the George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by committing "nearly 2 million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a 'Global War on Terror' and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"—the latter "built on an outright lie."
The senator continued:
The Iraq War was not an aberration. In the name of the Global War on Terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and "extraordinary renditions," snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA "black sites" around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
"I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror," Sanders wrote. "But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not."
"In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen," he noted. "The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza."
"U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle," Sanders said. "For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets."
Revisiting a major theme from his two Democratic presidential runs, Sanders contended that "economic policy is foreign policy."
"As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population," he said. "That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest 1% of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99%—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases."
"The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs," Sanders wrote. "The United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy."
"The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action," he added, "not militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Want to Be Heard': Chattanooga Volkswagen Workers File for Vote to Join UAW
"A reckoning is coming," said a strategist for UAW president Shawn Fain. "Workers are standing up—and they are going to win."
Mar 18, 2024
Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee filed a petition Monday with National Labor Relations Board formally requesting an election to join the United Auto Workers, which is campaigning aggressively to organize nonunion plants in the U.S. South and across the country.
The UAW tried and narrowly failed to organize Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant in 2014 and 2019, but the union's historic strike and contract victories at the Big Three automakers last year emboldened its unionization efforts.
"We want to be heard," Crystal Jenkins, a logistics worker at the Chattanooga plant, says in a video released by the UAW on Monday. "The reason I'm voting yes for the union is to have a voice."
Volkswagen is one of more than a dozen nonunion automakers that the UAW is targeting as part of what's been described as "the largest organizing drive in modern American history."
"A reckoning is coming," Chris Brooks, a strategist for UAW president Shawn Fain, wrote on social media. "Workers are standing up—and they are going to win.
The UAW said Monday that "a supermajority" of the more than 1,000 workers at the Chattanooga plant—Volkswagen's only assembly facility in the U.S.—signed union cards in just 100 days, a sign of broad support for the organizing effort.
"I come from a UAW family, so I've seen how having our union enables us to make life better on the job and off," said Yolanda Peoples, a production team member in assembly. "We are a positive force in the plant. When we win our union, we'll be able to bargain for a safer workplace, so people can stay on the job and the company can benefit from our experience. When my father retired as a UAW member, he had something to fall back on. VW workers deserve the same."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressional Progressives to Fed: Cut Rates to 'End This Squeeze' on Workers
Lawmakers warned Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell that keeping interest rates high "needlessly worsens housing market imbalances" and "could threaten" workers' jobs and wages.
Mar 18, 2024
Progressive lawmakers in the House and Senate urged the Federal Reserve on Monday to begin slashing interest rates in the near future, warning that the increasingly tight monetary conditions the central bank has imposed over the past two years risk imperiling strong post-pandemic job and
wage growth.
In a
letter to Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined 19 House Democrats in calling for a "prompt timeline for future rate reductions," noting that the central bank has hiked rates 11 times since March 2022 and that inflation has nearly fallen "into line with the Federal Reserve's target."
"Today's excessively contractionary monetary policy needlessly worsens housing market imbalances and the unaffordability of home ownership, creates risks for banking stability, and could threaten the achievements of strong employment and wage growth and its attendant reductions in economic and racial inequalities," reads the letter, which was sent a day ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) March 19-20 meeting.
If the Fed waits too long to begin cutting rates, the lawmakers cautioned, overly restrictive monetary policy could "reduce employment and real wage growth."
"We worry that higher unemployment and a harmful economic slowdown could result from a lagged effect of the prior 11 interest rate hikes since March 2022," the lawmakers added. "We believe it is critical for the FOMC to present the public with a clear and rapid timetable for reducing interest rates, ideally beginning at the May FOMC meeting in order to ensure a strong labor market and full employment for working Americans."
The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates 11 times in the last 2 years, keeping working people from being able to get a raise, a mortgage, or car.
Today, @SenSanders, @SenWarren, and House progressives call on the Fed to finally lower interest rates.https://t.co/VvFNPwZ8lS
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) March 18, 2024
Since the Fed started raising interest rates for the first time since 2018 just over two years ago, progressive lawmakers, advocates, and economists have been arguing that jacking up borrowing was not the solution to inflation fueled in large part by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and corporate price gouging. According to one recent study by the Groundwork Collaborative, corporate profiteering drove more than half of inflation between April and September 2023.
Last month, following a strong jobs report, Groundwork's Bilal Baydoun called for rate cuts, arguing that "the data is very clear that we never had to sacrifice jobs for lower prices."
"High interest rates will only slow our clean energy transition and put families in more debt," said Baydoun. "Chair Powell must change his tune and cut rates in March."
But the Fed is not expected to announce rate cuts following the two-day FOMC meeting that begins on Tuesday. The Associated Pressreported Monday that "Powell and his fellow Fed officials are expected to play it safe when they meet his week, keeping their rate unchanged for a fifth straight time and signaling that they still need further evidence that inflation is returning sustainably to their 2% target."
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) report released last week showed that overall inflation was 3.2% year-over-year—a slight uptick from January's reading but far below the 9.1% peak in 2022.
Hiring, meanwhile, has remained strong even as Powell has explicitly targeted the jobs market and workers' wages. Employers added 275,000 jobs last month, according to the U.S. Labor Department, and unemployment stayed low at 3.9%.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement Monday that "the American economy recovered from Covid because congressional Democrats and President Biden partnered to invest in workers over corporations and created paths to economic security for people who had been locked out before."
"Unnecessarily high rates put all that at risk," Jayapal added. "They will only punish everyday Americans: exacerbating the housing crisis, hindering the deployment of clean energy, and throwing the future of the Biden recovery into uncertainty, while threatening the wages and jobs that our communities depend on. It's past time for the Fed to end this squeeze on working- and middle-class families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular