Nuclear Industry Bribes
In the spring and summer of 2002,
then Majority Whip DeLay, violated Federal law and the
rules of the House of Representatives by soliciting and accepting contributions
for his Texas-based political action
committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), from
executives of the Kansas-based Westar Energy Corporation in return for
legislative assistance on an amendment to
the energy bill pending before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee that would have saved Westar billions of dollars.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/bellcomplaintsum.pdf
| 7-10-2006 07-KG&E-012-MIS |
Westar Energy has filed application for Kansas Gas and Electric Company to adjust the funding of its Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund. |
http://www.westarenergy.com/corp_com/contentmgt.nsf/publishedpages/regulatory
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- 5/16/01
CONTACT: LARRY NOBLE OR STEVE WEISS
(202) 857-0044 or editor@capitaleye.org
or editor@capitaleye.org
A Money in Politics
Backgrounder
on the Energy Industry
...The nuclear power industry was a generous
contributor to federal parties and candidates during the 2000 elections. The
Southern Co, Entergy and other companies that boast significant nuclear power
divisions—as well as industry trade associations like the Nuclear Energy
Institute—contributed roughly $13.6 million in soft money, PAC and individual
contributions to federal parties and candidates during the last elections. More
than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans. President Bush was the
industry’s top individual recipient, taking in more than $290,000 during
1999-2000, while top recipients in Congress included Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),
who received more than $100,000; Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who received nearly
$93,000; and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who took in just over $80,000. Look for
an expanded report on the industry’s political giving to be posted tomorrow on
the Center’s Web site, www.opensecrets.org.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energybriefing.htm
The global risks are even higher
when links between corruption and organized crime become clearer. Several recent
examples have highlighted how the illicit relationships between organized
criminal groups and public officials have the potential to cause serious damage
to the socio-economic structure of States(1). It
is essential to note that serious and profitable illicit activities - whether
related to ancient sculpture, nuclear material, drugs, illegal aliens or
prostitution - invariably rely at some point in time on the support of corrupt
public officials. Corruption is a necessary condition for organized criminals to
operate. The risk is that, because of the immense power that some groups
command, organized criminals may come to acquire such great power that they
would completely undermine and destroy institutions, with dire consequences for
democracy and the rule of law.
http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/corrupt.htm
23. Censorship Through Bribery
Source: The Progressive, 409 E. Main Street Madison, Wl 53703, Date: August 1992, Title: "Buying Silence," Author: Geoffrey Aronson
SSU Censored Researcher: Blake Kehler
SYNOPSIS: Many companies, especially within the nuclear power industry, frequently attempt to muzzle whistle-blowers with so-called "money-for-silence" agreements. Some would-be whistle-blowers, in fear of jeopardizing their job security, pledge not to reveal safety violations in return for token cash settlements.
Investigative reporter Geoffrey Aronson warned how tragic such agreements could be: "A confidential report, titled 'Secret Money for Silence Agreements in the Nuclear Industry,' compiled in May 1989 by the staff of the U.S. Senate's subcommittee on nuclear regulation, warned, 'If management hadn't suppressed safety information from Morton-Thiokol's engineers, the Challenger disaster could have been avoided. It is frightening to think that we may be dealing with multiple nuclear equivalents of the Challenger disaster."'
Joe Macktal, a worker at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas, settled with his employers, Brown & Root, Inc., for $35,000 (of which $20,000 went to legal fees). Macktal had been fired after he discovered potential construction problems at the plant. The company promised not to blacklist him (in an industry where news of "trouble-makers" travels fast), in exchange for a pledge not to appear voluntarily in any administrative or judicial proceedings regarding the safe operation of Comanche Peak. Grudgingly, he agreed to this and also to taking reasonable steps to resist any subpoena requiring his testimony at such proceedings.
Macktal later revealed the agreement anyway, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ruled that the restrictions imposed on Macktal's ability to communicate with federal agencies did not constitute "a violation of Federal law or NRC regulation." Later, bowing to pressure, the NRC reversed its position. "Yet whether through ignorance or guile, corporate attorneys representing the nuclear power industry are still attempting to peddle hush money settlement agreements," Aronson reports. "One draft settlement written in January 1992, for example, would require the whistle-blower 'not to cooperate in any investigation of the company by the NRC. "'
Although the NRC and the Secretary of Labor have decided to outlaw future attempts to muzzle nuclear whistle-blowers with "money-for-silence" agreements, no such protection for prospective informers and the public exists outside the nuclear industry. According to Aronson, the Toxic Substances Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Superfund and laws regulating mine safety, clean air and clean water, can all be undermined by money for-silence agreements.
In September 1991, the National Whistle-Blower Center petitioned the EPA to adopt regulations that would explicitly outlaw restrictive agreements. The EPA declined. "Without EPA action," explains Steven M. Kohn, an attorney who chairs the Whistle-Blower Center, "environmental whistle-blowers will remain without protection. Many will be gagged by outrageous hush-money restrictions."
COMMENTS: Author Geoffrey Aronson feels that the subject of secret settlement agreements to squelch further inquiry or publicity has rarely been a topic of media inquiry. Instead, Aronson said, "Concern has centered on the issue of public access to court proceedings generally, and the desire to unseal court-ordered sealed documents used in specific cases; Agent Orange and auto liability cases come to mind.
"When actions against the Comanche Peak nuclear plant were settled in the summer of 1988, there was coverage in the Texas press and an article that I wrote for the Nation in late 1989. Subsequent hearings on Capitol Hill were episodically covered in the Washington Post. To my knowledge, however, there has been no inquiry into the use of these types of settlement agreements in the other environmental arena which I discussed in my Progressive article.
"The public should be aware of the tension that exists, and the conflicts that arise in the nuclear power and other environmentally related areas when issues of public health and safety compete with corporate and private interests. Public safety may well be compromised by a legal and bureaucratic system that `privatizes' disputes relating to violations of statutes aimed at protecting the public good. I feel it is also important to illuminate the conflicts that arise when 'public interest' lawyers serve masters whose interests are not necessarily coincident -- the `public' and their individual client whistle-blowers. "Those best served by current practices (such as secret settlements) are corporate interests and government regulatory bodies with a stake in minimizing the public impact of health and safety concerns raised by whistle-blowers." Aronson also wanted to acknowledge his appreciation to the Fund for Investigative Journalism for supporting both The Nation and The Progressive articles.
http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1993/1993-story23.htm
A front page headline from the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Saturday December 28, 1996, has set off a major scandal in the Utah State Division of Radiation Control (DRC) that is certain to have wide spread repercussions nationally on low level nuclear waste disposal and clean up issues. The scandal involves the payment of close to $600,000 from the owner of a low-level nuclear dump to the former Director of the state agency in charge of regulating the facility.
http://www.downwinders.org/cstory2.html
In freshman chemistry class you learn that, before you mix two chemicals together, you need to plan where you're going to put the products of the reaction. If you're going to create a strong acid, for example, you'll need a container that can withstand attack by strong acids. In short, it is standard procedure--and common sense--to decide before you make something where you're going to put it for safekeeping.
Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has been making radioactive waste for 50 years and today the industry still has no clear idea where to put its radioactive byproducts for safekeeping.
Nevertheless, until we take pollution prevention seriously and stop making radioactive waste, something has to be done with it. So in 1980 and 1982 Congress passed two laws to deal with "low-level" wastes (the vast majority from nuclear power plants, plus small amounts from medical uses) and "high level" radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Low-level waste is radioactive tools, coveralls, rags, instruments, and liquids; high-level waste is a power plant's uranium fuel after it has become "poisoned" with radioactive elements like strontium and plutonium by undergoing nuclear "fission" for months or years. Although some low-level wastes can contain high concentrations of exceedingly radioactive elements, and some low-level waste can be very long-lived, in general "high level" waste is vastly more radioactive and much longer-lived than low-level waste. Both classes of waste are dangerous, and the government's (and the industry's) plan for dealing with them both is to bury them in the ground. Low-level waste will be buried in landfills, and high-level waste will be buried up to 2600 feet below ground, if the government has its way.
Now in 1991 it is clear that the programs established under both laws are in shambles. There are no low-level waste dumps under construction. Each proposed site is subject of intense scrutiny and fierce opposition. The only high-level waste site being considered is at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Two-thirds of all citizens in Nevada and most of their political representatives are strenuously opposing continued exploration of the Nevada site.
The nuclear industry and its supporters in federal and state governments have now unveiled bold new plans for solving the radioactive waste dilemma. The focus of the new initiatives is not science or engineering but a public relations campaign to convince citizens that radioactive waste can be transported and buried in the ground safely. We see a trend developing. Consider these facts:
** A leading public relations industry "insider's" publication called JACK O'DWYER'S NEWSLETTER on September 4, 1991, revealed that New York state's Low-level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission earmarked $900,000 for a public relations blitz in 1991 "to convince New York state residents that low-level nuclear waste facilities are not harmful." The Commission actually issued an RFP (request for proposals) and 22 public relations firms have submitted written responses, detailing how they would conduct a 3-to-5-year, multi-million-dollar PR campaign to sell a low-level waste dump to New York residents.
** The North Carolina Radioactive Waste Management Siting Authority paid a little over $21,000 to Chem Nuclear Systems, Inc. (CNSI)--the radioactive waste dump subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.--to evaluate the political feasibility of siting a low-level radwaste dump in six different counties of North Carolina. CNSI in turn hired a PR firm called Epley Associates who produced a 500-page "profile" of the six counties, including detailed evaluations of local political and environmental leaders. An employee of Duke Power (largest producer of radioactive waste in North Carolina) allowed a draft copy of the Epley Report to fall into the hands of a news reporter, and then it spread like measles. Three newspaper publishers and the NC Press Association are now suing in Wake County to get the full Epley report released under North Carolina's public records act, but no date has yet been set for a hearing on the matter. Meanwhile, we have obtained 71 pages of the 500-page DRAFT Epley Report. It contains judgments such as, "Wake [County] may be the most 'do-able' county in the state, politically.... We should be able to put together an attractive economic package for the southern Wake County area, which remains rural and feels left out of the county's prosperity.... Opposition will be strong in [the towns of] Chatham and perhaps Lee, and they must be included in any socioeconomic package."
The Epley report recommended that state authorities announce in August, 1991, that 12 or 13 sites were being evaluated and not just the "[5] to 7 real sites" because the 12 or 13 sites "are geographically spread around the state and therefore public opposition is likely to be more dispersed and not clustered in one area. It may be more difficult for environmental and citizens groups to gain strength if their activities have to be spread over a wider area of the state."
From what is going on in New York and North Carolina, it is apparent that people everywhere should be investigating the public relations budgets of the "low-level radioactive waste siting commission" in their locale. Wherever you live, it seems likely that taxpayers' money is being used for a PR campaign to "sell" you a low-level dump.
** By far the biggest public relations campaign has been launched by the nuclear industry to convince Nevada residents that a huge dump for high-level spent-fuel waste at Yucca Mountain will be safe. The plan came to light when a utility executive leaked documents to the Safe Energy Communication Council, a public-interest group in Washington, DC. The nameless executive released a letter from the President of Florida Power Corporation (Allen J. Keesler, Jr.) to members of the Edison Electric Institute's (EEI) Executive Committee; EEI is a nuclear industry trade association. Mr. Keesler's letter to EEI outlines a three-year, $8.7 million PR campaign that is actually underway now in Nevada. Mr. Keesler described "The Nevada Initiative" as "an effort to change public sentiment in Nevada from that of opposition to at least neutrality, positive at best." Mr. Keesler wrote, "And please note this document is 'Confidential.' You can understand the sensitivity with it becoming public," he wrote. You bet we can.
Attached to Mr. Keesler's memo was a 22-page "proposal" from a PR firm to "The American Nuclear Energy Council" (another industry trade group), seeking $8.7 million. The proposal is stamped "confidential" and is dated September, 1991. The proposal says, "The industry message has been focused, influential Nevadans have been recruited to help advance the industry's objectives and a working political alliance has been established with the Department of Energy, natural allies, and key decision makers. Aggressive coalition building is under way, an in- house scientific response team has been recruited, an industry boiler room operation is functioning in Nevada and a dialogue has been developed with the media. A paid advertising campaign will begin this month."
The proposal uses military language throughout, to describe what the nuclear industry is planning to do to the citizens of Nevada. "A political beachhead has been established in Nevada," the proposal says. And: "The ongoing advertising campaign will reduce the number of negative-leaning Nevadans and drive them into the undecided camp, where they will be more receptive to factual information. By softening public opposition, the campaign will provide 'air cover' for elected officials who wish to discuss benefits." A "scientific truth squad and an attack/response team of scientists" have been "trained" already to convince Nevadans that Yucca Mountain is safe, the proposal says.
The media campaign began on schedule in September and is still running, according to Grace Bukowski, director of military programs at Citizen Alert, a Nevada citizens' group that just celebrated its 16th birthday. "Our phones have been ringing off the hook since these ads began," Ms. Bukowski told us. "The people who planned this advertising campaign forgot that this is the above-ground testing state. People here learned about the nuclear industry the hard way." We asked, might such an advertising campaign succeed at all? Ms. Bukowski grew pleasantly scornful. "People are simply not going to fall for that bullshit. They're wasting their money. People are just not that stupid," she said.
We are forced to conclude that the nuclear industry is beyond desperation in its search for a credible solution to the problem of radioactive waste. They have given up on science. They have abandoned the democratic process and rational decision-making. They are now resorting to secret campaigns of bribery, persuasion and deception to convince Americans that black is white, evil is good, and danger is safety. Happily, the industry's desperation is exceeded only by its ineptitude.
--Peter Montague
Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Bribery-Deception.htm
Return to Chernobyl: 20 Years 20 Lives