[decomm_wkg] (corrected!) PR | Groups Release Vogtle Truth Report on eve of Feds' visit to new Vogtle reactors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Alex Frank, afrank@hastingsgroupmedia.com | 703-276-3264

PLANT VOGTLE:
 The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the U.S.
Georgia groups release damning report on the most expensive, unneeded electricity on Earth

ATLANTA 5/30/24: Will Georgia’s new reactors at Plant Vogtle be the last nuclear reactors ever completed in the United States? It’s a plausible outcome according to a new report, Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States, released today by six Georgia consumer and environmental groups. 

The new analysis details how the U.S. Department of Energy, Georgia Power, and the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC), conspired to force Georgians into purchasing the most expensive electricity in the world, costing ratepayers $10,784 per kilowatt, compared to $900 - $1,500 per kilowatt for wind, solar, or natural gas. A separate analysis shows that ratepayers should expect a monthly electricity bill increase of $35 on average, more than double the Georgia Power disclosed estimate of $15 per month. 

The report was commissioned by six Georgia groups and co-authored by Patty Durand, former president of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and a recent candidate for the Georgia PSC; Kim Scott, executive director of Georgia WAND; and Glenn Carroll, coordinator of Nuclear Watch South. The groups seek to warn officials in other states not to believe claims that nuclear energy is cost-competitive, required for clean energy, or necessary to meet large growth projections, claims that were made repeatedly to Georgians leading up to and throughout the project and are expected to continue tomorrow at the U.S. Department of Energy’s unveiling ceremony in Waynesboro, GA. 

Key findings in the report include:

• Plant Vogtle is expanding Georgia Power's rate base, the assets on which they earn a guaranteed rate of return, by over $11 billion. Yet their share of Vogtle is only 1,020 megawatts, making it the most expensive electricity in the world at $10,784/KW. Normal (wind, solar, natural gas) generation prices range from $1,000 to $1500/KW. 

• Vogtle Units 3 & 4 took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost. 

• Vogtle independent construction monitors documented that Georgia Power provided materially inaccurate cost estimates for at least ten years, amounting to falsehoods used to justify expanding Plant Vogtle. Similar false cost estimates sent South Carolina utility executives to jail for that state’s failed nuclear plant, which started construction at the same time as Plant Vogtle.

• Georgia Power pocketed $17 billion in profits while racking up $18 billion in cost overruns during Vogtle construction. Georgia Power profited from the delays and cost overruns and the Public Service Commission enabled it.

Patty Durand, report co-author, former president of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and a recent candidate for the Georgia PSC, says: “If other states are paying any attention, the two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle should be the last reactors ever built in the United States. They never should have been completed in the first place. Again and again, the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) was warned about the astronomical cost of these reactors and the financial toll it will bear on Georgians for decades to come. Commissioners repeatedly declined to protect ratepayers from cost overruns and ignored PSC staff recommendation to cancel the project. People went to prison for actions like this in South Carolina, yet we have had no accountability for the same, and worse, behavior here. 

Brionté McCorkle, executive director of Georgia Conservation Voters which co-released the report, says: “Vogtle is a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. Here in Georgia, we’re stuck with the most expensive power ever produced, nothing to take pride in. Georgians deserve safe, clean and affordable energy, Vogtle is the opposite. Imagine all of the renewable power, battery storage and energy-efficiency investments we could have made in the time it took to build the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle at a fraction of the cost. Imagine what we could have done with the $36.8 billion dollars instead of dumping them in this radioactive money-pit. What a waste of time and valuable resources. Shame on Georgia Power. Shame on everyone who lined their pockets at the expense of Georgia’s future.” 

Kimberly Scott, report co-author and executive director of Georgia WAND, says: “Now that Vogtle’s new reactors are complete, Georgia Power ratepayers are stuck with the highest power bills in the US. So it is clear that Georgia Power is looking out for its own economic interests and is not concerned about moving Georgia to a clean-energy economy, let alone protecting the health of Georgians who live in and around nuclear power Plant Vogtle.”

Glenn Carroll, report co-author and coordinator of Nuclear Watch South, says: "Georgia Power has successfully used Plant Vogtle to transfer $36.8 billion from the pockets of hard-working Georgians to its own bank account and shareholders. Enabled by the Georgia Public Service Commission, U.S. Department of Energy and Georgia General Assembly, Georgia Power is placing Georgia, South Carolina and the Savannah River at serious risk from two unneeded nuclear reactors which are steaming up the overheated climate and piling up radioactive waste with no place to go. As the White House wrongfully pursues nuclear energy, we urge citizens and leaders of other states to be on guard to prevent their utilities from following Georgia Power's playbook."

###

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Report sponsors:

Center for a Sustainable Coast

The Center for a Sustainable Coast uses science, media, and the law to defend, restore, and improve coastal Georgia’s environment and quality of life.

Concerned Ratepayers of Georgia
A consultancy working to ensure cost-effective electric rates for Georgia Power customers by conducting rigorous economic analyses of the utility’s capital expenditures.

Cool Planet Solutions

A consultancy that focuses on helping energy stakeholders such as utilities, commissions, and businesses understand residential consumer motivations, values and knowledge around energy.

GCV Education Fund

Georgia Conservation Voters Education Fund mobilizes Georgians to advance climate and environmental justice for a more just and sustainable future.

Georgia WAND

Georgia WAND (Women’s Actions for New Directions) Education Fund Inc. is a non-profit advocacy group focused on quality-of-life issues, health hazards resulting from nuclear energy and weapons, and social justice grounded in building racial equity.

Nuclear Watch South

Grassroots direct-action environmental group founded in 1977 to phase out nuclear power, promote conservation and renewable energies, abolish nuclear weapons, and promote ethical environmental radioactive waste management.

Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States

For Immediate Release: May 30, 2024 Media Contact: Alex Frank, afrank@hastingsgroupmedia.com |  703-276-3264 Georgia WAND Contact: Kimberly Scott Georgia WAND, Executive Director Phone: (404) 524-5999 Email address: kim@georgiawand.org and info@georgiawand.org REPORT: NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS TO COST GEORGIA RATEPAYERS EXTRA $420 ANNUALLY, ON AVERAGE Most Expensive Electricity on Earth: $35/month Bill Increases Coming After Vogtle Units 3 & 4 Begin Commercial Operation, 7 Years Late and $21 Billion Over Budget ATLANTA – MAY 30, 2024 – Will Georgia’s new reactors at Plant Vogtle be the last nuclear reactors ever completed in the United States? It’s a plausible outcome according to a new report, Plant Vogtle: The True Cost of Nuclear Power in the United States, released today by six prominent Georgia consumer groups.  The new analysis details how the U.S. Department of Energy, Georgia Power, and the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC), conspired to force Georgians into purchasing the most expensive electricity in the world, costing ratepayers $10,784 per kilowatt hour, compared to $900 - $1,500 per kilowatt hour for wind, solar, or natural gas. A separate analysis shows that ratepayers should expect a monthly electricity bill increase of $35 on average, more than double the Georgia Power disclosed estimate of $15 per month.  The report was commissioned by six Georgia groups and co-authored by Patty Durand, former president of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and a recent candidate for the Georgia PSC; Kim Scott, executive director of Georgia WAND; and Glenn Carroll, coordinator of Nuclear Watch South. The groups seek to warn officials in other states not to believe claims that nuclear energy is cost-competitive, required for clean energy, or necessary to meet large growth projections, claims that were made repeatedly to Georgians leading up to and throughout the project and will continue this Friday at the U.S. Department of Energy’s unveiling ceremony in Waynesboro, GA.  Key findings in the report include: Plant Vogtle will allow Georgia Power to expand its rate base, the assets on which they earn a guaranteed rate of return, by over $11 billion. Yet their share of Vogtle is 1,020 megawatts, making it the most expensive electricity in the world at $10,784/KW. Normal (wind, solar, natural gas) generation prices range from $1,000 to $1500/KW.  Vogtle Units 3 & 4 took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost.  Vogtle independent construction monitors documented that Georgia Power provided materially false cost estimates for at least ten years, falsehoods used to justify expanding Plant Vogtle. Similar false cost estimates sent South Carolina utility executives to jail for that state’s failed nuclear plant, which started construction at the same time as Plant Vogtle. Patty Durand, report co-author, former president of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative and a recent candidate for the Georgia PSC, said: “If other states are paying any attention, the two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle should be the last reactors ever built in the United States. They never should have been completed in the first place. Again and again, the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) was warned about the astronomical cost of these reactors and the financial toll it will bear on Georgians for decades to come. Commissioners repeatedly declined to protect ratepayers from cost overruns and ignored PSC staff recommendation to cancel the project. People went to prison for actions like this in South Carolina, yet we have had no accountability for the same, and worse, behavior here.  Brionté McCorkle, report co-author and executive director of Georgia Conservation Voters, said: “Vogtle is a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. Here in Georgia, we’re stuck with the most expensive power ever produced, nothing to take pride in. Georgians deserve safe, clean and affordable energy, Vogtle is the opposite. Imagine all of the renewable power, battery storage and energy-efficiency investments we could have made in the time it took to build the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle at a fraction of the cost. Imagine what we could have done with the $35 billion dollars instead of dumping them in this radioactive money-pit. What a waste of time and valuable resources. Shame on Georgia Power. Shame on everyone who lined their pockets at the expense of Georgia’s future.”  Kimberly Scott, report co-author and executive director of Georgia WAND, said: “Now that Vogtle’s new reactors are complete, Georgia Power ratepayers are stuck with the highest power bills in the U.S. So it is clear that Georgia Power is looking out for its own economic interests and are not concerned about moving Georgia to a clean-energy economy, let alone protecting the health of Georgians who live in and around nuclear power Plant Vogtle.” ### Center for a Sustainable Truth about Plant Vogtle Report The Center for a Sustainable Coast uses science, media, and the law to defend, restore, and improve coastal Georgia’s environment and quality of life. Concerned Ratepayers of Georgia A consultancy working to ensure cost-effective electric rates for Georgia Power customers by conducting rigorous economic analyses of the utility’s capital expenditures. Cool Planet Solutions A consultancy that focuses on helping energy stakeholders such as utilities, commissions, and businesses understand residential consumer motivations, values and knowledge around energy. GCV Education Fund Georgia Conservation Voters Education Fund mobilizes Georgians to advance climate and environmental justice for a more just and sustainable future. Georgia Wand Georgia WAND (Women’s Actions for New Directions) Education Fund Inc. is a non-profit advocacy group focused on quality-of-life issues, health hazards resulting from nuclear energy and weapons, and social justice grounded in building racial equity. Nuclear Watch South Grassroots direct-action environmental group founded in 1977 to phase out nuclear power, promote conservation and renewable energies, abolish nuclear weapons, and promote ethical environmental radioactive waste management. About Georgia WAND Georgia WAND Education Fund, Inc. (“Georgia WAND”) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Our focus on quality of life issues, health hazards resulting from nuclear energy and weapons, and social justice are grounded in building racial equity. We understand the intersectionality between racism, poverty, and unjust environmental policies that burden underserved and underresourced communities in Georgia. We work to defend people, underserved communities and our climate future together. Gifts to Georgia WAND Education Fund, Inc. are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

Feds: Indian Point owner Holtec had laid-off workers agree not to testify against company

LOHUD ARTICLE CLICK HERE 

Feds: Indian Point owner Holtec had laid-off workers agree not to testify against company

Thomas C. Zambito  New York State Team
published 3 a.m. ET May 29, 2024

Indian Point’s owners had workers sign agreements saying they would not say discuss safety concerns with outsiders after they stopped working at the shuttered nuclear power plant, an investigation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found.

The NRC last week cited Holtec International, the plant’s New Jersey-based owners, for including language in the severance agreements of employees who left the company in 2022 and 2023 that would restrict or discourage them from testifying as a witness in a proceeding that could damage Holtec.

Additionally, the NRC said, Holtec required the employees to tell Holtec if they received “subpoenas, correspondence, telephone calls, requests for information, inquiries or other contacts” from government agencies or other third parties.

“This language restricts the employee from voluntarily testifying on behalf of the NRC in a matter adverse to Holtec (for example, in a matter involving a potential violation) and restricts the ability of the employee to engage in back-and-forth communications with the NRC without informing Holtec,” the NRC writes.

At least seven union employees affiliated with the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) signed the agreements between July 2022 and December 2023.

NRC relies on plant workers to speak freely

The NRC conducts regular reviews of activities at the plant, which shut down in 2021 after nearly six decades producing power for Westchester County and New York City.

“It is essential that current and former plant workers feel free to raise safety concerns with the NRC,” spokesman Neil Sheehan said. “They are (or were) at the plant on a daily basis and can have knowledge of issues that are not available to us.”

Barges:By barge, rail or truck? Feds propose travel routes for Indian Point's nuclear fuel

Sheehan would not say how the NRC learned of the agreements. A spokesperson for the UWUA said no one was available to comment.

The NRC investigation did not turn up evidence the agreements prevented employees from acting as so-called whistleblowers or accusing the company of jeopardizing the safety of workers or the public.

But the commission said there was a possibility the use of such agreements could be more widespread, noting that “the language appears to be in ingrained in corporate documents” used at other Holtec facilities regulated by the NRC.

Holtec owns shuttered nuclear power plants in Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey.

Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said the company has corrected language in future separation agreements, which “ensures that all employees understand their rights and responsibilities when it comes to reporting issues adverse to safety.”

“We take this, and all violations seriously,” O’Brien said. “Our number one focus is on safety, especially nuclear safety, and encourage all of our employees and contractors to report issues through the proper channels, up to and including the NRC, as soon as they are identified.”

Funds:Indian Point owner Holtec used $63K in ratepayer funds for sports teams, fashion show

Holtec reverses course...again

This is the second time in recent months Holtec has reversed course after the NRC caught the company violating federal regulations.

In February, the NRC cited Holtec for spending $63,000 of ratepayer funds meant for the demolition of Indian Point to sponsor a high school fashion show, sports teams and a golf outing. Holtec had to reimburse the money, which it took out of some $2 billion in decommissioning trust funds it inherited after buying the plant from Louisiana-based Entergy.

Holtec sued the state of New York last month over a law signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul that bans the discharge of treated radiological water into the Hudson River.

Lawsuit:Indian Point owner sues NY to overturn law banning radiological water in Hudson River

The company had plans to discharge a million gallons of treated radioactive water from reactor cooling pools into the river, prompting an outcry from environmental groups and state lawmakers.

In the spring of 2023, Holtec vice president Richard Burroni said the teardown would be stalled and the company would be forced to lay off workers if the state interfered with its discharge plans.

The move prompted Thomas Carey, the president of the AFL-CIO affiliate at the plant, to accuse Holtec of stoking worker fears.

NuScale Power surges as Korea's Doosan reportedly to supply nuclear equipment

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4110769-nuscale-power-surges-as-doosan-reportedly-to-supply-nuclear-equipment

NuScale Power surges as Korea's Doosan reportedly to supply nuclear equipment

May 28, 2024 10:43 AM ETNuScale Power Corporation (SMR) StockBy: Carl Surran, SA News Editor

NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) +13.8% in Tuesday's trading to its highest in more than two months following reports that South Korean heavy equipment manufacturer Doosan Enerbility secured orders totaling 2T won ($1.46B) for NuScale's small modular reactor project in the U.S.

NuScale (SMR) reportedly is in the final stages of a multi-billion-dollar deal to supply 24 SMRs to Standard Power, a U.S. information technology infrastructure firm, starting in 2029.

NuScale (SMR) is said to be working on details of the deal with Standard Power, with an announcement expected over the next few weeks.

As part of the deal, Doosan reportedly has agreed to supply reactors, steam generator tubes and other key components for NuScale's (SMR) construction project.

Doosan invested $104M in NuScale (SMR) during 2019-21 and agreed to supply key components for its projects, and the Korean company has since established the world's first dedicated SMR production line.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/may/25/nuclear-sites-feeling-the-heat-as-climate-change-stokes-wildfires-drought/

Nuclear sites, including Hanford, feeling the heat as climate change stokes wildfires drought

Officials scramble to up security at facilities with radioactive materials

By TAMMY WEBBER, Associated Press

Published: May 25, 2024, 5:45am

As Texas wildfires burned toward the nation’s primary nuclear weapons facility, workers hurried to ensure nothing flammable was around buildings and storage areas.

When the fires showed no sign of slowing, Pantex Plant officials urgently called on local contractors, who arrived within minutes with bulldozers to dig trenches and enlarge fire breaks for the sprawling complex where nuclear weapons are assembled and disassembled and dangerous plutonium pits — hollow spheres that trigger nuclear warheads and bombs — are stored.

“The winds can pick up really (quickly) here and can move really fast,” said Jason Armstrong, the federal field office manager at Pantex, outside Amarillo, who was awake 40 hours straight monitoring the risks. Workers were sent home and the plant shut down when smoke began blanketing the site.

Those fires in February — including the largest in Texas history — didn’t reach Pantex, though flames came within 3 miles (5 kilometers). And Armstrong says it’s highly unlikely that plutonium pits, stored in fire-resistant drums and shelters, would have been affected by wildfire.

But the size and speed of the grassland fires, and Pantex’s urgent response, underscore how much is at stake as climate change stokes extreme heat and drought, longer fire seasons with larger, more intense blazes and supercharged rainstorms that can lead to catastrophic flooding. The Texas fire season often starts in February, but farther west it has yet to ramp up, and is usually worst in summer and fall.

Dozens of active and idle laboratories and manufacturing and military facilities across the nation that use, store or are contaminated with radioactive material are increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather. Many also perform critical energy and defense research and manufacturing that could be disrupted or crippled by fires, floods and other disasters.

There’s the 40-square-mile Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, where a 2000 wildfire burned to within a half mile (0.8 kilometers) of a radioactive waste site. The heavily polluted Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Southern California, where a 2018 wildfire burned 80% of the site, narrowly missing an area contaminated by a 1959 partial nuclear meltdown. And the plutonium-contaminated Hanford nuclear site in Washington, where the U.S. manufactured atomic bombs.

“I think we’re still early in recognizing climate change and … how to deal with these extreme weather events,” said Paul Walker, program director at the environmental organization Green Cross International and a former staff member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I think it’s too early to assume that we’ve got all the worst-case scenarios resolved … (because) what might have been safe 25 years ago probably is no longer safe.”

That realization has begun to change how the government addresses threats at some of the nation’s most sensitive sites.

The Department of Energy in 2022 required its existing sites to assess climate change risks to “mission-critical functions and operations,” including waste storage, and to develop plans to address them. It cited wildfires at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories and a 2021 deep freeze that damaged “critical facilities” at Pantex.

Yet the agency does not specifically consider future climate risks when issuing permits or licenses for new sites or projects, or in environmental assessments that are reviewed every five years though rarely updated. Instead, it only considers how sites themselves might affect climate change — a paradox critics call short-sighted and potentially dangerous.

Likewise, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers only historical climate data rather than future projections in licensing decisions and oversight of nuclear power plants, according to a General Accounting Office study in April that recommended the NRC “fully consider potential climate change effects.” The GAO found that 60 of 75 U.S. plants were in areas with high flood hazard and 16 were in areas with high wildfire potential.

“We’re acting like … (what’s) happening now is what we can expect to happen in 50 years,” said Caroline Reiser, a climate and energy attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The reality of what our climate is doing has shifted dramatically, and we need to shift our planning … before we experience more and more of the extreme weather events.”

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s environmental safety and health division, which oversees active DOE sites, will conduct an internal review and convene a work group to develop “crucial” methodologies to address climate risks in permitting, licensing and site-wide assessments, John Weckerle, the division’s director of environmental regulatory affairs, told The Associated Press.

The agency said last year that climate change could “jeopardize the NNSA mission and pose a threat to national security.”

“We all know the climate is changing. Everybody’s thinking about, what effect are we having on the climate?” Weckerle said. “Now we need to flip that on its head and say, ‘OK … but what do we think is going to happen as a result of climate on a particular site?’”

Assessments before and after projects are built are critical to protecting infrastructure and waste materials, said Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“We know that climate change makes it likely that these events will happen with increased frequency, and that brings the likelihood for unprecedented consequences,” Spaulding said. Sites “can be better protected if you are anticipating these problems ahead of time.”

One of the most dangerous radioactive materials is plutonium, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. It can cause cancer, is most dangerous when inhaled, and just a few hundred grams dispersed widely could pose a significant hazard, he said.

Experts say risks vary by site. Most plutonium and other radioactive material is contained in concrete and steel structures or underground storage designed to withstand fire. And many sites are on large tracts in remote areas where risk to the public from a radiation release would be minimal.

Even so, potential threats have arisen.

In 2000, a wildfire burned one-third of the 580-square-mile (1,502-square-kilometer) Hanford site, which produced plutonium for the U.S. atomic weapons program and is considered the nation’s most radioactive place.

Air monitoring detected plutonium in nearby populated areas at levels higher than background, but only for one day and at levels not considered hazardous, according to a Washington State Department of Health report.

The agency said the plutonium likely was from surface soil blown by the wind during and after the fire, though site officials said radioactive waste is buried several feet deep or stored in concrete structures.

Because the Hanford site is fire-prone — with 130 wildfires between 2012 and 2023 — officials say they’re diligent about cutting fire breaks and removing flammable vegetation.

The 2018 Woolsey Fire in California was another wakeup call.

About 150,000 people live within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a former nuclear power research and rocket-engine testing site.

The fire burned within several hundred feet of contaminated buildings and soil, and about 600 feet (183 meters) from where a nuclear reactor core partially melted down 65 years ago.

The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control said sampling by multiple agencies found no off-site radiation or other hazardous material attributable to the fire. But another study, using hundreds of samples collected by volunteers, found radioactive microparticles in ash just outside of the lab boundary and at three sites farther away that researchers say were from the fire.

The state ordered demolition of 18 buildings, citing “imminent and substantial endangerment to people and the environment because unanticipated and increasingly likely fires could result in the release of radioactive and hazardous substances.”

It also ordered cleanup of old burn pits contaminated with radioactive materials. Though the area was covered with permeable tarps and did not burn in 2018, the state feared it could be damaged by “far more severe” wildfire, high winds or flooding.

“It’s like these places we think, it’ll never happen,” said Melissa Bumstead, founder and co-director of Parents Against Santa Susana Field Laboratory. “But … things are changing very quickly.”

Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said he and others successfully urged federal nuclear security officials to include a wildfire plan in a 1999 final environmental impact statement for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The next year, the 48,000-acre (19,000-hectare) Cerro Grande Fire burned 7,500 acres (3,035 hectares) at the laboratory, including structures, and came within a half-mile (0.8 kilometers) of an area with more than 24,000 above-ground containers of mostly plutonium-contaminated waste.

The plan’s hypothetical fire “eerily matched the real fire,” Coghlan said, adding that it “could have been catastrophic,” if containers had been compromised and plutonium become airborne. But the lab had cut fire breaks around the area — and since then, most containers have been shipped to a permanent storage site in southern New Mexico.

Remaining radioactive material — including from the World War II Manhattan Project — now is underground with barriers to prevent leaching, or in containers stored under fire-retardant fabric-and-steel domes with paved floors until it can be processed for disposal.

The amount of radioactive material in each container is kept low to prevent a significant release if it were compromised, said Nichole Lundgard, engineering and nuclear safety program manager at DOE contractor N3B.

The lab also emphasizes fire preparedness, including thinning forests to reduce the intensity of future fires, said Rich Nieto, manager of the site’s wildland fire program.

“What used to be a three-month (fire) season, sometimes will be a six-month season,” he said.

Wildfires aren’t the only climate-related risk. Flooding from increasingly intense rainstorms can wash away sediment — especially in areas that have burned. Floods and extreme cold also can affect operations and have forced the shutdown of several DOE sites in recent years.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California was evacuated during a 2020 wildfire, and last year the lab was forced to shut down for three weeks because of heavy flooding.

The 2000 fire at Los Alamos was followed by heavy rainstorms that washed away sediment with plutonium and other radioactive material.

In 2010, Pantex was inundated with 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rain that forced the plant to shut down, affecting operations for almost a month. The plutonium storage area flooded and corrosion later was found on some containers that’s since “been addressed,” said Armstrong, the field office manager.

In 2017, storms flooded facilities that processed nuclear material and led to power outages that affected a fire alarm control panel.

Then in 2021, Pantex was shut down for a week because of extreme cold that officials said led to “freeze-related failures” at 10 nuclear facilities and other plants. That included failure of a sprinkler head in a radiation safety storage area’s fire suppression system.

Pantex has since adopted freeze-protection measures and a cold weather response plan. And Armstrong says there have been upgrades, including to its fire protection and electrical systems and installation of backup generators.

Other DOE sites also are investing in infrastructure, the nuclear security agency’s Weckerle said, because what once was considered safe now may be vulnerable.

“We live in a time of increased risk,” he said. “That’s just the heart of it (and) … a lot of that does have to do with climate change.”

[decomm_wkg] Oyster Creek - "... License Termination Plan Delays Submission”

https://www.thesandpaper.net/articles/deficiencies-in-former-nuclear-plant-license-termination-plan-delays-submission/

Deficiencies in Former Nuclear Plant License Termination Plan Delays Submission

May 22, 2024

By Gina G. Scala

TICK, TOCK: Decommissioning of the Oyster Creek Generation Station site is expected to finish in 2025. (Photo by Ryan Morrill)

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s preapplication readiness assessment of the Oyster Creek Generation Station’s license termination plan turned up areas that require additional information, although overall it aligned with federal regulations.  

“Based on this, Holtec (Holtec Decommissioning International) has decided to postpone submitting the Oyster Creek License Termination Plan,” said Neil Sheehan, public information officer for NRC’s Region 1.  

It’s unclear what the new timeline for submitting the license termination plan will be. Decommissioning of the Oyster Creek plant is expected to be completed by 2025. Holtec officials will ask for a partial site release, with the only exception being the onsite dry cask storage pad. In 2021, the last multipurpose canister of Oyster Creek irradiated fuel was placed in dry storage, leaving its reactor building bare of all fissile material. HDI moved used fuel from its place in the spent nuclear pool to an onsite dry storage facility after the nuclear waste had cooled for 2½ years. 

NRC staff completed its review last month. HDI, the decommissioning operator for Oyster Creek, requested the assessment, which was limited to “the content associated with the design and planning for the final status survey” of the former nuclear power plant site in Lacey Township as well as addressing how to approach compliance with the radiological criteria for termination, according to the NRC.  

“HDI should consider the entirety of the NRC staff observations provided during the preapplication,” Marlayna Doell, project manager, reactor division branch, division of decommissioning, uranium and waste programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguard, said in a letter to HDI leadership. “If necessary, reevaluate the application submission date based on your elevation of the time needed to address the readiness assessment observations. The NRC staff remains committed to working with HDI in ongoing and future engagement activities.” 

Doell’s missive also noted that due to the nature of the readiness assessment, additional items not previously identified could come up during the formal review of Oyster Creek’s license termination plan. 

Among the NRC’s observations are the approach and criteria to assess dose from subsurface residual radioactivity, groundwater elimination and the development of derived concentration guideline levels, including compliance and alternative exposure scenarios.  

Oyster Creek was once the nation’s oldest operating nuclear power plant. In February 2018, the former owner, Exelon Generation, announced plans to permanently shut down Oyster Creek more than 14 months before a December 2019 deadline agreed to with the state. Doing so negated the state’s calls for retrofitting the plant with cooling towers at the Route 9 site. It ceased permanent operations in September 2018.  —G.G.S.

Constellation responses to NRC RAIs re: Peach Bottom Unit 1 decommissioning schedule proposed change

Subject: Supplemental Information in Support of Request for Alternative Schedule to
Complete Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years of Permanent Cessation of
Operations

PeachBottomUnit1DecommScheduleProposedChangesRAIResponses.5-2024.pdf

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Mistras Group

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release

No: 24-039 May 23, 2024

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Mistras Group

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to Mistras Group documenting mutually agreed-upon actions to address an apparent violation of NRC requirements at the company’s Trainer, Pennsylvania, facility. Mistras performs activities such as testing heavy lifting equipment at nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC.

A December letter to the company cited one apparent violation of NRC requirements for falsification of calibration records for instruments used to examine the structural integrity of cranes at nuclear power plants. The violation was identified by the NRC’s Office of Investigations.

Before making a final enforcement decision, the NRC provided the company with an opportunity to request a predecisional enforcement conference or seek alternative dispute resolution. Mistras requested ADR mediation and met with NRC officials in March to discuss corrective actions. A preliminary settlement agreement was reached at the session, and the issues agreed upon were incorporated into the Confirmatory Order.

Two former Mistras employees pleaded guilty in federal court to falsifying documents and were banned in January from participating in NRC-licensed activities for periods of five and two years, respectively.

24-039.pdf

Summary of April 11, 2024, Public Meeting with Constellation Energy Generation, LLC Regarding Proposed Alternative to Implement American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance Code Case OMN-32 (EPID L-2024-LRM-0050)

Subject: Summary of April 11, 2024, Public Meeting with Constellation Energy Generation, LLC Regarding Proposed Alternative to Implement American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance Code Case OMN-32 (EPID L-2024-LRM-0050)

ADAMS Accession No.: ML24128A251

ADAMS Hyperlink: https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML24128A251

Using Web-based ADAMS, select “Advanced Search”

Under “Property,” select “Accession Number”

Under “Value,” enter the Accession Number

Click Search 

GAO - For Immediate Release - GAO Report: NRC Inadequately Addresses Climate Disruption Threat to Reactor

The GAO report - NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change  -- asserts that,  “NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] doesn't fully consider potential increases in risk from climate change.” 

 

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Use:  Friday, April 5, 2024

Contact:  David Kraft,  (773)342-7650 (o); (630)506-2864 (c);  neis@neis.org

GAO Report: NRC Inadequately Addresses Climate Disruption Threat to Reactors

CHICAGO—A Government Accountability Office Report draws conclusions about nuclear reactor operation that should make public officials, agencies and policy makers from the most nuclear-reliant state in the U.S. take notice – and action.

The GAO report - NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change  -- asserts that,  “NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] doesn't fully consider potential increases in risk from climate change.”

“Illinois has the most operating nuclear reactors (11), has recently repealed a moratorium on constructing new ones, and is keen on opening the doors for new experimental reactors.  This report should be a warning shot that more preparation and attention to ongoing nuclear safety in an increasingly  climate disrupted world is in order,” observes David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, a 42-year old nuclear power watchdog organization, based in Chicago.

The Report indicates seven likely climate-related effects that could have safety implications for operating nuclear reactors, both present-day designs and future, experimental reactor types like “small modular nuclear reactors.” (SMNRs)

“…nuclear power plants can be affected by natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, sea level rise, and extreme cold weather events—some of which are expected to be exacerbated by climate change, with effects varying by region….”

“Risks to nuclear power plants from these [climate disruption] hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns.”

“Some of these climate-related effects have already occurred in Illinois and elsewhere,” Kraft notes. “The severe Illinois drought in 1988 resulted in 100 reactor-days of operation being curtailed or completely shut down.  That drought was ‘climate disruption lite,’” he reports.

Illinois has already experienced heightened levels of heat (p.15) and area drought, and periodic regional flooding – which the GAO reports as being high probability (p.20).  Illinois has also shown a dramatic increase in tornado frequency, leading the nation in 2023 with 136.

In its defense the NRC claims that its current regimen of reactor safety review provides “adequate assurance” that reactors are operating safely and the public is protected.

“We wonder how many NRC officials book flights on airlines that provide only ‘adequate’ fuel levels and maintenance to their aircraft?” Kraft asks.

NEIS also notes that the Report highlights that there is a significant difference between claiming assurances and proving them:

“The GAO notes that, “NRC primarily uses historical data in its licensing and oversight processes rather than climate projections data. NRC officials GAO interviewed said they believe their current processes provide an adequate margin of safety to address climate risks. However, NRC has not conducted an assessment to demonstrate that this is the case.” (emphasis ours)

“Talk is cheap,” states NEIS’ Kraft.  “When one bad day at the office can turn Illinois into the Belarus of North America, Illinois officials at all levels should insist that NRC actually conduct reassessments of their reactor standards, anticipating climate changes,” he asserts.

The GAO makes three recommendations to begin to address this NRC failing:

·The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to assess whether its licensing and oversight processes adequately address the potential for increased risks to nuclear power plants from climate change. (Recommendation 1)

·The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to develop, finalize, and implement a plan to address any gaps identified in its assessment of existing processes. (Recommendation 2)

·The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to develop and finalize guidance on incorporating climate projections data into relevant processes, including what sources of climate projections data to use and when and how to use climate projections data. (Recommendation 3).

“While we welcome any and all efforts to improve reactor safety, we also must point out how pathetic and profoundly worrisome it is that a $1+ billion Agency demonstrates such a lack of foresight, initiative and perhaps even competence to understand that the climate crisis is profoundly affecting their core mission,” Kraft laments.  “It is this seeming indifference to its task that has led many over the years to complain that “NRC” stands for ‘Not Really Concerned.’”

“Our Governor and the Illinois Delegation to Congress need to light a much needed fire under this Agency to protect Illinois,” Kraft concludes.

--30--

Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) was formed in 1981 to watchdog the nuclear power industry, and to promote a renewable, non-nuclear energy future.

NuScale Deceived Investors

To: Nuclear-Skeptics <nuclear-skeptics@googlegroups.com>, SNNR <stopnnr@googlegroups.com>, NoWestNukes <nowestnukes@googlegroups.com>, Nuclear-Free Pueblo Google Group <nuclear-free-pueblo@googlegroups.com>

Go to: https://iceberg-research.com/2024/05/16/nuscale-smr-has-deceived-investors-about-the-certification-of-its-reactor/

NRC to Issue Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Renewing Reactor Licenses

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 24-038 May 16, 2024
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Issue Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Renewing Reactor Licenses

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed the staff to issue a final rule and corresponding update to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement the agency uses when considering applications to renew operating reactor licenses.

The rule, to be issued once the staff incorporates Commission direction, will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The revisions to the NRC’s environmental regulations, updated GEIS, and accompanying guidance documents fully address license renewal (40 to 60 years of operation) and subsequent license renewal (60 to 80 years of operation).

The GEIS covers environmental topics relevant to all nuclear power plant licensees seeking renewed licenses. The revised document accounts for new or revised environmental impacts, reflects changes in regulations or guidance, and applies what the agency has learned during previous license renewals. The NRC will notify the public when the final rule is published.

24-038.pdf

"Big banks have given nearly $7 trillion to fossil fuel companies since Paris Agreement, report says."

 https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/email/newsletter/1417016665

Banks financed fossil fuels by $6.9 trillion dollars since the Paris Agreement; $705 billion provided in 2023 alone; JP Morgan Chase, Mizuho, and Bank of America are worst 3 funders

Annual Banking on Climate Chaos report with an updated methodology offers the most accurate and comprehensive look at who’s bankrolling climate crisis

May 13, 2024, New York, NY — Released today, the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos (BOCC) report employs a new, expanded data set that credits each bank making financial contributions to a deal instead of only crediting banks in leading roles. It cuts through greenwash, covering the world’s top 60 banks’ lending and underwriting to over 4,200 fossil fuel companies and the financing of companies causing the degradation of the Amazon and Arctic. Backgrounder of the report’s key findings can be found here.

Since the Paris Agreement in 2016, the world’s 60 largest private banks financed fossil fuels with USD $6.9 trillion. Nearly half – $3.3 trillion – went towards fossil fuel expansion. In 2023, banks financed $705 billion in fossil fuel financing with $347 billion going to fossil fuel expansion alone.

JP Morgan Chase is the #1 fossil fuel financier in the world, committing $40.8 billion dollars to fossil fuel companies in 2023. They’re also #1 for fossil fuel expansion in 2023, while Mizuho shot up to second place in the report in both fossil fuel financing ($37.0 billion) and financing for the expansion of fossil fuels ($18.8 billion). The worst funder of fossil fuel expansion since the Paris Agreement is Citibank, providing $204 billion since 2016.

Recently, some banks increased their exposure to climate risk by rolling back their already weak policies. Bank of America, which ranks third on the 2023 list of worst fossil fuel funders, is a glaring example: they dropped their exclusions on Arctic drilling, thermal coal, and coal-fired power plants; they have neither energy ratio disclosures nor near-term absolute emission targets, and they abandoned the Equator principles. At the time of the report publication, they are the only bank major exhibiting all of these climate policy failures at once.

In an ongoing effort to continually improve the accuracy and breadth of the report, this year’s report has significantly adjusted the methodology by incorporating more primary sources. These sources track bank participation in corporate finance deals, including bonds, loans, and share issuances. Previous years of the report only credited banks in leading roles; this year each banks’ financial contributions to a deal are exposed. Every bank in the report was contacted to confirm and given an opportunity to review the deals attributed to them. A backgrounder of the methodology is here.

The report shows high bank financing for the most climate-damaging fossil fuel practices. In 2023, the worst funders of tar sands extraction are CIBC, RBC, and Scotiabank, each tied for worst place at $523 million; while Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) committed $512 million to companies doing ultra deepwater offshore drilling; JP Morgan Chase financed fracking with $6 billion, and CITIC backed coal mining with $7.6 billion. The top 60 banks by asset size unabashedly financed the harmful practices to sensitive biomes: UniCredit committed $265 million to companies involved in Arctic drilling and Bank of America committed to companies extracting oil & gas in the Amazon biome to the tune of $162 million.

Banking on Climate Chaos is authored by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald. It has been endorsed by 589 organizations in 69 countries.

Fossil Fuel Sector Trends 

(↑ indicates financing increased for this sector from 2022 to 2023, ↓ a decrease

↑ Methane Gas (LNG): The top bankers of 130 companies expanding liquefied methane gas (LNG) in 2023 were Mizuho, MUFG, Santander, RBC, and JPMorgan Chase. Overall finance for liquefied methane increased to $120.9 billion in 2023.

↑ Coal mining: Of the $42.5 billion in financing that went to 211 coal mining companies in 2023, 81% was provided by banks located in China, led by China CITIC Bank, China Merchant Bank, Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and China Everbright Group. Financing for this sector is up slightly compared to 2022. 

↑ Metallurgical coal: 48 companies active in metallurgical coal mining received commitments of $2.54 billion in financing in 2023. Top banks include CITIC, China Everbright Group, Bank of America, and Ping An Insurance Group. Financing for this sector is up slightly compared to 2022.

↓ Coal-fired power: Of the financing to the coal power companies listed on the Global Coal Exit List, 65% of financing was provided by banks located in China. In 2023, these companies received $80.4 billion from the banks in this report. Financing for this sector is down slightly compared to 2022. 

↓ Gas-fired power: Banks committed $108 billion in financing to 252 companies expanding gas-fired power in 2023. The top 3 financiers in this sector are Mizuho, ICBC, and MUFG. Financing for this sector is down compared to 2022.

↓ Expansion: The 60 banks profiled in this report funneled $347 billion in 2023 into 873 companies expanding fossil fuels including Enbridge, Vitol, TC Energy, and Venture Global. In 2022, $385 billion went towards expansion. Financing for these expansion companies is down compared to 2022.

↓ Tar sands oil: The top 36 tar sands companies received $4.4 billion in financing in 2023, a $4 billion drop from the previous year. Canadian banks provided 49% of those funds. Top funders are CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Mizuho. 

↓ Fracked oil and gas: Finance for 236 fracking companies totaled $59 billion dollars in 2023. US Banks dominate this sector, with the top funders being JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. 

↓ Ultra Deepwater oil and gas: Japanese banks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC Group top the list of worst financiers of 66 companies involved in ultra deepwater oil and gas for 2023. Financing totaled $3.7 billion in 2023, down from 2022. 

↓ Arctic oil and gas: Financing for 45 companies involved in Arctic oil and gas dropped from $3.3 billion to $2.4 billion. The worst banks financiers of this sector in 2023 are UniCredit, Citigroup, Intesa Sanpaolo,  Barclays, and Credit Agricole. 

↓ Amazon oil and gas: In this report, Bank Of America leads financing for 24 companies extracting in the Amazon biome at $162 million, $33 million more than the next bank in the ranking, JP Morgan Chase. Financing totaled $632 million in 2023, dropping from $802 million in the year prior. 

Sector reporting in BOCC 24 is aligned with the Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL) and the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), researched by Urgewald. All companies listed by the GOGEL or GCEL that show bank financing in each sector are reported. All companies identified on the GOGEL or GCEL as expansion companies are reported in the expansion league table. Amazon biome companies were identified by Stand.earth Research Group. Metallurgical coal companies were identified through a collaboration between BankTrack and Reclaim Finance.

Full data sets – including fossil fuel finance data, policy scores, and stories from the frontlines – are available for download at bankingonclimatechaos.org.

BOCC quotes from authoring organizations, frontline communities, and politicians:</ April Merleaux , Research and Policy Manager at Rainforest Action Network: (co-author)

“Wall Streets’ top concern is its profit. Our top concerns are the climate and human rights. Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels. Our new methodology uncovers previously unreported details on banks’ support for fossil fuels and gives campaigners new tools to hold them accountable. And bank financing for fossil fuels is not declining nearly fast enough. In 2023, we saw nearly $350 billion financed to companies expanding fossil fuels, which is dangerous and inconsistent with real climate commitments. In a year with record climate impacts, I am shocked to see financing for any category of fossil fuels increase. And yet in 2023 this report shows a big increase in financing to companies developing methane gas terminals and related infrastructure. Banks should be listening to those on the frontlines and stepping away from these projects.”

Gerry Arances, Executive Director at Center for Energy, Ecology & Development (CEED): (co-author)

"Over the last few months, communities across Southeast Asia suffered dangerously high temperatures. Every cruel dollar that still goes to fossil fuels is a death sentence to our climate-vulnerable peoples. SEA does not need the massive gas expansion threatening to bind it to a fossil future and climate chaos. We have more than enough potential for renewables to fully break away from coal and all other fossil fuels in a transition that would also help us build more resilience. Any money still going to fossil fuels is an obstacle to that transition, and it’s historically polluting nations that are largely driving fossil finance. The Japanese government, for instance, is the biggest financier of the fossil gas industry in SEA through its wholly-owned Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). This has to stop now."

Diogo Silva, Campaign Lead Banks and Climate, BankTrack: (co-author)

“I dream of a time when we don’t have to produce this report any more, as we would finally be protecting the planet for the next generation. It would mean fossil banks are no more, the fossil fuel era is gone and the just transition to a clean energy economy would now be finally completed. But no: at the same time that fossil pollution is spreading death through record heat, months of rain pouring down in hours, and other once extreme weather events… fossil banks keep banking on climate chaos. As this report is worth nothing if it doesn’t turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world. Later might just be too late. Fossil banks, no thanks!”

Tom BK Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network: (co-author)

“Financiers and investors of fossil fuels continue to light the flame of the climate crisis. Paired with generations of colonialism, the fossil fuel industry and banking institutions’ investment in false solutions create unlivable conditions for all living relatives and humanity on Mother Earth. As Indigenous Peoples, we remain on the frontlines of the climate catastrophe, and the fossil fuel industry targets our lands and territories as sacrifice zones to continue their extraction. Capitalism and its extraction-based economy will only perpetuate more harm and destruction against our Mother Earth and it must come to an end.”

David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager at Oil Change International: (co-author)

The science shows that over half of fossil fuels in existing fields and mines must stay underground to limit global warming to 1.5ºC, and our Big Oil Reality Checkanalysis finds that none of the major oil and gas companies we analyze plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C. By injecting a staggering $708 billion into fossil fuel financing in 2023 alone, the world's largest banks fund the climate chaos fossil fuel companies wreck on communities worldwide. From fracking to offshore drilling, banks are accelerating our planet’s destruction. It's time for governments to take urgent action to hold financial institutions accountable for their role in the climate crisis.” 

Lucie Pinson, Director and Founder at Reclaim Finance (co-author) “European banks like to claim to be showing leadership when it comes to action on climate change, but they are continuing to channel money into fossil fuel expansion, despite the clear warnings from climate science. They appear to be particularly blind to the risks associated with the expansion of LNG, continuing to finance new LNG facilities in the US, Africa and Papua New Guinea, as well as import terminals in Europe. This will lock us into fossil gas for decades to come, adding to greenhouse gas emissions, especially potent emissions of methane. For these banks, recently adopted EU transition planning requirements must mean establishing a strategy to phase out support for fossil fuels, with an immediate halt to financial services provided to their development and the companies responsible for it.” 

Adele Shraiman, Senior Strategist for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign: (co-author)

Major banks have squandered yet another year to take decisive and ambitious action on climate. As the crisis worsens, big U.S. banks have stalled on making meaningful progress toward their own net-zero commitments by failing to set sufficient near-term emissions reduction targets and lay out credible plans for restricting financing for polluting companies. The clean energy transition is happening in spite of Wall Street laggards, but the question now is whether they will respond to the growing pressure from investors, customers, regulators, and frontline communities to do what the science and justice demands."

Katrin Ganswindt, Head of Finance Research at Urgewald: (co-author)

“While we urgently need to exit coal, only 5 percent of global coal companies have announced exit dates for their core business. And while the oil and gas wells in operation are more than enough to fuel us until 2050, 96 percent of oil and gas producers continue to open up new fossil fuel assets. Banks that finance this fossil ignorance are complicit in wrecking our climate. Frontrunners like Credit Mutuel or Banque Postale with strong exclusion policies lead the way to a climate sensitive finance industry."

. Maxwell Atuhura, GreenFaith Uganda organizer & Tasha Research Institute Africa (TASHA) member 

“As local communities and organizations hosting oil projects in Uganda that are supported by irresponsible banks like ICBC who acts as a financial advisor, we have already had dark moments. Our lives and livelihoods have been threatened and we have been arrested for speaking out on Human and Environmental rights violations caused by the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. We want an end to these impacts and to harassment. The solution is for banks and (re)insurers to refuse support for the EACOP and to favour a just transition toward clean energy instead.”

Olivia Bisa, President of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Chapra Nation

“Citi talks about respecting the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities as set down by the UN, but it has clients like Petroperú which refused to recognize the right to say no of seven Indigenous nations in the Peruvian Amazon. Petroperú’s disregard for Indigenous rights should mean something to the banks that lend them money; but in reality their mutual business continues. If they are serious about Indigenous rights, Citi must hold its clients accountable to ensure that their due diligence adheres to international standards of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.”

Peter Bosip, Executive Director, Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights, Inc

“Papua LNG will be bad for the climate, biodiversity, and human rights. French banks have ruled it out, others must too. Papua New Guinea is one of the most biodiverse nations on the planet, with great possibilities for renewables. We want clean energy and climate justice - not fossil gas that will trash nature and chain our economy to a dying industry.”

Orlando Carriqueo, Werquen (Messenger) of the Mapuche Tehuelche Parliment of Rio Negro

“Fracking in Vaca Muerta leads to water pollution, the loss of animals, and fruit plants wither. The public hearings have been closed to dissenting voices, and we haven’t been able to participate. It’s the same colonialist process as five hundred years ago. In the midst of an overwhelming process of unbridled capitalism, which plunders territories and produces climate change, we are calling for an awakening to think about other models of development, more compatible with the earth.”

Tori Cress, Keepers of the Water; Anishinaabe (Ojibway and Pottawattami) from G’Chimnissing, an island community on the shores of Georgian Bay in Williams Treaty Territory

“This report shows that Canada’s Big Five banks — RBC, CIBC, BMO, TD and Scotia — hold half of all global banks’ tar sands investment, proving what we’ve known all along: tar sands is a bad investment financially, for our health, and for our entire planet. We are dying from the pollution caused by Canada’s banks tar sands financing, including their expansion of this destruction. Indigenous people in our homelands have been the sacrifice zone, and we say: no more. We decide our future.”<

Neil Encinas, Leader for the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampís Nation

“The more than 85 communities that make up the integral territory of the Wampís National oppose the entry of oil operations into their territories. In our territory we suffered the irresponsibility of Petroperú in the past, which caused the largest oil spill in all of Latin America. Now we face a new threat. Petroperú needs to activate oil wells in our territory to pay the debts it has acquired from commercial banks such as JP Morgan Chase.

Senar Irar, President of the Peruvian Federation of Achuar Nation:

ldquo;We have traveled (to the United States) from far away to explain to the banks that have invested in Petroperú that this company is trying to open new oil wells in our territories in order to pay them back. The desperation to pay back the money lended by the banks for the construction of their refinery is causing conflicts and even death threats among us who reject the activity.”

Juan Mancias, Tribal Chair, Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas

“The fossil fuel industry is trying to hold onto control of the status quo. We know another way is possible. It’s critical to link international communities, to grow our independence off fossil fuels. 500 years later, the powers that be are still trying to colonize our communities by extracting and exporting resources from our lands, along with their accomplices - the banks and insurance companies.”

Chief Na’Moks, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief

“After facing silencing and censorship at RBC’s April shareholder meeting, this report shows that Canada’s banks are still financing billions of dollars in fossil fuels, perpetuating violence against Indigenous peoples, Mother Earth, and all of us. It’s not just RBC: we are strengthening our sovereignty by connecting dirty banks’ roles in fossil fuel project that endanger communities across Turtle Island and around the world. Canada’s banks costs for financing fossil fuels will only continue to rise without taking bold action to respect Indigenous sovereignty and our rights.”

Roishetta Ozane, Founder/Director of Vessel Project

“As major banks and insurance companies continue to finance and insure projects such as LNG and Petrochemical Industries that pose a threat to communities, it is imperative that we educate our communities and fight back.” Ozane is a Sulphur, Louisiana resident and mom of 6, and is also the Finance Coordinator for the Texas Campaign for the Environment. Join us in the fight at https://www.vesselprojectoflouisiana.org/

Khairiyah Rahmanyah of Chana Local Reservation Network:

“Fossil fuels harm our environment and go against our principles of sustainable development. Our life depends on nature, so we work together towards a future that protects it. In Chana, Thailand, we believe in a future shaped by our community’s values and way of life, charting a path towards a more sustainable future.”

US Congressman Ro Khanna:

“The science is clear: to tackle today's climate crisis we must hold Big Oil accountable for its role in the climate crisis. Unfortunately, this report shows that banks are continuing to finance projects that will increase emissions, despite their public climate commitments. Wall Street shouldn't be financing the climate crisis while too many Americans are facing financial harm because of climate change. We must move towards a clean energy future and hold big banks accountable for their pledges." 

US Senator Ed Markey:

“This year’s report is clear - banks are gambling our future on risky investments that fuel the climate crisis. In 2023 alone, banks invested more than $700 billion in fossil fuels despite having net-zero commitments. Let’s keep these big banks accountable, not just counting on fossil fuels. Instead, we should invest in our future and pass my Fossil Free Finance Act now.”

US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib:

“This report exposes the reality that big banks continue to finance the fossil fuel projects that are harming our residents, poisoning our communities, and destroying our planet. The major U.S. banks’ climate commitments are nothing more than cheap PR cover as JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other Wall Street banks continue to fuel the climate crisis. These banks will not act in the public interest unless we force them to. Congress must pass the Fossil Free Finance Act to require banks to stop financing dirty fossil fuel projects and prevent climate-related financial risks.”