Petition to The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Do NOT relicense the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is applying for a license renewal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate their aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant for another 20 years unless we voice our opposition. Here's why we are petitioning to prevent the plant's relicensing: The plant sits on or near 2 MAJOR ACTIVE fault lines and at least 11 other fault lines. Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Diablo Canyon Chief Resident Inspector Dr. Michael Peck has testified that the seismic design of the plant is inadequate, based on PG&E's own seismic studies. The plant is located in the tsunami hazard zone in the seismologically active state of California. The plant has numerous design and construction flaws, including one recently discovered flaw in the critical electrical system. Seven NRC engineers have filed a 2.206 petition within the NRC that calls for the shutdown of all nuclear plants in the US that contain this design flaw, including Diablo Canyon. The plant lacks cooling towers, contributing to ocean water warming and causing 80% of loss of marine life on the California coastline. More than 6 Million pounds of highly radioactive spent fuel is stored on site, and there is no permanent repository designated by the US government. Radioactive waste may remain onsite up to 300 years. If the nuclear waste canisters leak or crack, they would release millions of curies of radiation into the environment. Emergency plans in the event of a meltdown which would force the evacuation of communities in and around San Luis Obispo County are completely inadequate. If the plant melted down, the radioactive fallout would spread throughout California and into the Pacific Ocean, affecting millions of people, making the area uninhabitable, and destroying the major agricultural region of California. Nuclear radiation is a man-made toxin that causes cancer in all living organisms and would will turn our coastline into a contaminated "look only" zone. The plant is licensed to operate until 2024 and 2025, which is when it was originally scheduled to decommission. Pushing it another 20 years would be a huge risk to the environment and the living beings who call it home. PG&E has had history of negligence and is in litigation on several charges, including in the loss of human life due to fires caused by faulty and old gas lines in San Bruno, as well as Calaveras County. Please sign and share this petition to help decommission the plant as well as to dismantle the power structures that continue to try and operate this dangerous technology on the coastline of California. Let us radiate love and good energy. Thank you.
Petition to Stephen Burns
Close Pilgrim Nuclear Station before it’s too late
The shaded area of the above image represents Fukushima’s fallout plume from 25 hours after the accident, superimposed on Pilgrim, which has the same type of reactor as Fukushima. Within a day of a Fukushima-type accident at Pilgrim, radiation contamination could extend from Gloucester to Worcester to Providence, RI to Long Island,NY and the Connecticut shore, including Cape Cod and Greater Boston. To Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Stephen Burns and Commissioners: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts, one of the oldest commercial nuclear reactors, is the same design as the 3 reactors which exploded at Fukushima, Japan due to loss of coolant. Pilgrim is owned by Entergy corporation, and for several years has been ranked by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as one of the three least-safe reactors in the nation. Recent NRC reports show that nothing has improved. In 1972, when Pilgrim was first licensed, top government regulators realized it’s design is unable to contain a severe accident. This deficiency was demonstrated in 2011 when Fukushima Units 1, 2, and 3 suffered meltdowns. Those accidents are ongoing, and 100,000 people may never return home. The NRC has allowed Entergy to let Pilgrim Station ignore its own management plan, ignore industry best practices, and skip ‘required’ fixes that could make the difference between a controlled or uncontrolled release of nuclear material. Among many other violations, the NRC has allowed Entergy to: skip implementation of fire safety regulations; falsify 200 fire watch records over a 2-year period; ignore a non-functioning weather monitoring system necessary for an effective evacuation; operate for months with broken equipment; fail to replace critical equipment as many as 30 years past its replacement date; and put off needed repairs or inadequately implement them. Such is the NRC’s implementation of “lessons learned” from Fukushima. Last month a leaked email written by the head of the NRC’s special inspection team, Don Jackson, revealed that Entergy’s management had allowed an ineffective safety culture “that a lot of talking probably won’t fix,” and that Pilgrim has a “team of employees who appear to be struggling with keeping the nuclear plant running.” Plant workers fail to follow well-established programs. Broken equipment doesn’t get properly fixed. Plant “experts” lack required expertise. Staff members do not understand their roles and responsibilities. Corrective actions in the recovery plan seem to have been hastily developed and implemented, and some have been circumvented as they were deemed too hard to complete. And we learned recently, that even though the terrorist threat to this nation has escalated, Entergy’s management failed to follow security regulations - not once but nine times in the past year. People on Cape Cod are downwind of Pilgrim much of the time, yet they have no evacuation plan. Because one or both bridges would be closed, they are expected to shelter in wooden homes which offer little protection from fallout. The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency has a plan to “relocate” hundreds of thousands of residents after an accident, if needed. Home insurance does not cover nuclear disasters; your home value could drop to zero overnight. For these reasons and more, we are asking the NRC to close Pilgrim now, ahead of the planned refueling scheduled for this May.
Petition to Andrew Cuomo, New York State Department of Public Service
We Support the Inclusion of Nuclear in the New York Clean Energy Standard
For decades, New Yorkers have depended on our upstate nuclear plants — Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station, Ginna Nuclear Generating Station, and FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant — as sources of safe, clean, and reliable energy. Nuclear energy is the state’s largest source of clean energy because it emits no air pollution, including CO2, NOx, SO2, mercury, particulate matter, or ozone. The three plants in upstate New York avoid 16 million tons of carbon emissions annually. That’s the equivalent of keeping over 3 million cars off the road or preventing the burning of over 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline, each and every year. Furthermore, these plants are economic powerhouses. They support 24,000 direct and indirect jobs, pay nearly $145 million a year in state and local taxes, and contribute over $3 billion annually to the state’s economy. Losing any one of these plants would have devastating impacts on our state’s economy, environment and the reliability of our electric grid. That is why we commend Governor Cuomo and the New York Public Service Commission for including upstate nuclear in the proposed Clean Energy Standard and his continued commitment towards a solution for the Fitzpatrick facility to remain in operation. Preserving our upstate nuclear plants is a proven cost-effective solution for achieving New York’s clean energy goals. We thank Governor Cuomo for recognizing the integral role of these plants to the state’s economy and environment and urge the adoption of the Clean Energy Standard immediately. Your signature will demonstrate your support for the proposed New York Clean Energy Standard and our commitment to protecting upstate jobs and the New York State environment.
Petition to United States Department Of Energy, John Kotek, Office of Nuclear Energy
Help support nuclear-generated electricity in the United States for a better future.
Imagine a dry, lifeless planet where the only rain comes with hurricanes and other deadly storms, where the cities are flooded, and the forests are burning. That is the future of Earth. “PRO/CON: The World’s Getting Warmer, Can Nuclear Power Help Us?” by Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela, “Nuclear Power: Our Energy Future Or Danger To Society” by Word Generation, along with “A Charge For Climate Change” by Time For Kids, with an addition of “PRO/CON: Is Now The Time For Climate Change Laws in the US” by McClatchy-Tribune News, adapted by Newsela query the positive and negative outcomes of an emission-free form of electricity. It is true that nuclear power plants are expensive to build and leave radioactive waste behind, but the United States Department of Energy should generate electricity through nuclear power to combat climate change because nuclear power is carbon-free, reliable, and reduces the need for oil. First of all, nuclear power is the best way to produce carbon free electricity. In fact, “Carbon pollution directly results in asthma, heart disease, and cancer”(Time For Kids 1). This is relevant because the evidence shows how carbon can lead to multiple health hazards. Carbon is emitted by burning fossil fuels, the most common form of generating energy. This proves that carbon emissions not only contribute to global warming and climate change, but the also harm people directly through disease. Furthermore, “This power plant make electricity by heating water with a controlled nuclear reaction”(Word Generation 1). This positively results in the carbon-free production of nuclear power. This helps because carbon-free electricity is something the world is desperately in need of. In short, nuclear power provides electricity without releasing harmful carbon-containing gases into the atmosphere. Another reason that the United States government should use nuclear power is because it is reliable. For example, “Wind power and solar power can also produce energy without releasing carbon. However, they are not constant. To work, the sun has to be out, or the wind has to be blowing. Nuclear power plants run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are the only constant source of power that does not emit greenhouse gases”(Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela 2). This shows why nuclear power should power the future because it is reliable. Also, it is safe. To prove it, “The nuclear power industry has an excellent safety record”(Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela 2). This shows how nuclear power is reliable not only in generating power and also being safe. This is why the United States should use nuclear power plants. Finally, nuclear power reduces the need for oil. According to Tribune News Service, “Electric vehicles powered by nuclear-generated electricity would dramatically reduce the need for oil”(Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela 3). If less oil is used, then less carbon is released in the air, helping to prevent climate change. In addition, “If the world built nuclear reactors at the same rate as France and Sweden have, the effect would be enormous. In 25 to 34 years, all the electricity now produced through burning coal and natural gas could be produced by nuclear power”(Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela 3). The evidence could possibly suggest that the Department of Energy should start building nuclear reactors now so in 25 to 34 years the idea of climate change would be abolished. Consequently, nuclear power can replace the oil that humans need. A lot of people say that nuclear power is dangerous. That could be true but as a matter of fact, “The first commercial nuclear reactor began producing electricity more than 50 years ago. In all that time, there has not been a single death or injury from a radiation-related nuclear power plant accident in the United States”(Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela 2).This statement proves that nuclear power is not generally hazardous which shows that people are have nothing to worry about. The United States Government should now take the idea of frequent use of nuclear power into deeper consideration because there can be no opposition towards it regarding the health and safety of nuclear power plant workers. Ultimately, the United States should use nuclear power to combat climate change because nuclear power is reliable, safe, reduces need for fossil fossil fuels, and is the best way to produce carbon free electricity. All in all, the United States should use nuclear power to combat climate change.