Daily Kos

What? No Diary on NY Times Front Pg Obama Story?

Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:03:23 PM PDT

There is now. Hard to believe no one here saw this and thought it worthy of discussion.

Apparently, according to a front page story in Sunday's New York Times, Mr. Change, Mr. "I'll fight the special interests", on one of the few pieces of legislation he's introduced, buckled to industry pressure despite his constituents going crazy because radioactive runoff was turning up in groundwater.  

"Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.

In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations.
The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.
In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill.

Did you Obamatrons think no one was going to notice this?

Tags: Barack Obama, Exelon, Nuclear (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 103 comments

  •  Yes (6+ / 0-)

    This has been diaried.

    McCain: Without Issues, Without Vision, Without Integrity. --- or Obama: With Truth, With Kindness, With Endurance.

    by CupofTea on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM PDT

  •  the NYTimes piece is MUST READ (9+ / 0-)

    We Need a New Enlightenment.

    by Palladio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:05:45 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like you need to reread this, Blue (38+ / 0-)

    Sounds like Obama pushed as hard as he could and the Senate Republican resisted.

    Is that something to be ashamed of?  Remind me of what happened to HRC's health care plan?

    I know, not of this stops you from trying to take a cheap shot.

  •  way to shoot yourself in the foot... (7+ / 0-)

    LMAO at this diarist...

  •  cheap shot or not (4+ / 0-)

    i think looking at how he works across the aisle is important. as well as looking at his funding and how he operated when he was a state senator. better to do it now than when he's in the GE  ;)

  •  I wish diaries could be troll rated for tone (20+ / 0-)

    You really come off as a rube.

    I still haven't picked between HC and BO, but I hate stuff like this coming from anyone.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:11:04 PM PDT

  •  Yes disappointing (10+ / 0-)

    but not a deal breaker. Certainly the bill should have been stronger but how strong can it be in a Republican majority? Perhaps he should not have tried to pass any legislation at all? Then he would have been accused of being a coward. Hold on before you say HRC deserves the same sympathy, if her time as a first lady is part of her 35 years of experience, then she and Bill had two untrammeled years (93-95) where the WH and the HoR were held by the same party.

    "How can I go off and join FRELIMO, when I've got 9 more payments on the fridge?" Mrs. Conclusion Monty Python

    by Sansouci on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:11:46 PM PDT

    •  what republican majority are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      bear83

      it is in Senate now. There is not Republican majority just an unwillingness to make a bill with some teeth.

      •  The article says... (9+ / 0-)

        ...environment committee chairman at the time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation...

        "Chairman" means that we did not control the chamber at the time.

        The Times can be forgiven for not making this clear. The Times is, after all, the Hometown Paper for HRC.

        •  read the last line (0+ / 0-)

          the rewritten bill which exonerates the industry from reporting to any authorities either at the state or at the federal level (which makes the bill a complete sham) was reintroduced in October 2007, since November the democrats are in power. He would have served himself and us better by just shelving the original bill than trying to legislate this sham. Or conversely reintroduce the bill in its original form. That my friend is not courage. That is capitulation.

          •  Even the weakend bill... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            MarkC, Little

            ...is still a good bill for two reasons:

            1. Voluntary reporting.  If a plant declines to report, that goes on record.  Activists can then point to the plant and say "They refused to report!"

            This may be be a more effective way to get change than by saying "they reported .04 ppm/month of Idontknowium was discharged".

            1. It directs the NRC to handle the requirments....in 11 months we will control the NRC.

            Lastly, to get another bill, it would have to go through the Committe again.   Ironically, of the 4 Dems on the Nuclear Subcommittee, one is Holy Joe Lieberman and the other is my own Senator, Hillary R. Clinton.

            Hmmmm.

      •  most of the article deals with the bill's (0+ / 0-)

        dilution as he tried to shepherd it through a republican committee. (imhofe, chairman) then it was allowed to die in the republican controlled senate. ('06)
        said at the end of the article, he resubmitted it last year.
        the implication is he watered the bill down to serve his corporate masters at excelon. i don't think a case is made for obama having much to do with its death in the senate.
        i think the other claims made are that he misrepresented the strengh of the legislation & possibly whether it had been passed into law.
        page one story in the times deserves a response. i'm sure there will be one.

        Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

        by rasbobbo on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:40:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  he obviously... (0+ / 0-)

    has a lot of hate in his heart.

  •  I Give Obama the Doubt, We'll See (0+ / 0-)

  •  this is not bipartisanship (12+ / 0-)

    this is capitulation. The end result of this worthless document is that the nuclear industry is not answerable to anyone neither at the state nor at the federal level. I always worried about Obama's will to fight on hard issues and hold his ground, this is what worries me. He capitulated on credit cards, his health care plan is a sham (worse his attakcs on the plans of others kills all dreams of UHC) and now this all in the name of bipartisanship. I read a Greenwald article a few days ago and he showed that time and time again when the 'bipartisan' Democrats broke party ranks it was a victory for the Republicans because they always vote in a bloc. I am yet to see a Republican break party rank to vote on a Democratic issue.

  •  Hey, BD: (4+ / 0-)

    You're obviously not shy about posting comments, so why not post a tip jar?  I have no rating for you either way, but if you want to post a hit piece, have the courage to own it.

    blind idealism is pure folly when you are standing on a precipice ~edrie

    by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:18:20 PM PDT

  •  This is a rather passive-aggressivley (5+ / 0-)

    worded diary.

    Thanks for pointing to the article though.

  •  Can someone explain to me (0+ / 0-)

    the role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Public Safety. Is the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying group, lobbying only the Senator or do they lobby scientists and administrators at the NRC?

    People living around all of Exelon’s sites –in fact, all nuclear reactor sites – must demand to have their drinking water independently and fully tested. The experience of the Exelon cover-up – and the complicity of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – means that neither the industry nor the regulator can be trusted to protect human health from corporate greed.

    http://www.nirs.org/...

    Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

    by ohcanada on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:19:31 PM PDT

    •  The nuclear power lobby (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ohcanada

      represents nuclear power generation utilities with invbested capital amounting into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  naturally they lobby at all levels, not just federal elected officials but state elected oficials, scientists, administrators, regulators at both state and federal levels, they will lobby anyone empowered to have a substantive impact on "their" industry.  Moreover, to the degree possible, they seek to fill as many as possible of those regulatory and administrative posts with people from the industry, in the now-traditional manner of fox guarding the henhouse regulation in the Corporate States of America.

      It's also the history of the NRC and its predecessor the AEC to simulataneously be the regulator and the promoter of nuclear power in the US.  The conflicts of interest are built into the system from the ground up.

      A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow

      by ActivistGuy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ohcanada

        nuclear power generation utilities with invested capital amounting into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

        should be

        nuclear power generation utilities with invbested capital amounting into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

        A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow

        by ActivistGuy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

          Canada's Prime Minister has just fired Canada's head of nuclear safety. It really does look bad when one sees how the public interest and safety takes a back seat in both countries.

          Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

          by ohcanada on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:46:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, I think that (9+ / 0-)

    if folks at Dkos don't discuss it and ridicule anyone who does, no one will notice that silly NYT front page thing . . .

    Why can't folks here at least acknowledge Obama's not perfect, and even if he were perfect, ignoring these stories HERE doesn't mean the rest of the nation isn't looking at it.

    This is important - we need the WH back!  If Obama is our nominee, then we must proceed (a) with eyes open and (b) completely ready to counter all of this stuff and anything else the gop digs up or makes up or pulls out of their asses.

    "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

    by delphine on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:20:06 PM PDT

    •  Big difference between discussing (4+ / 0-)

      And only mentioning the sections of an article that favor a particular viewpoint. Not to mention calling any Obama supporter an Obamatron.

      Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.

      by Hannibal on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:25:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, if Obama supporters (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        PamelaD

        Didn't call themselves, events, etc. ridiculously silly names...

        Obamarama's, "Barack the Vote" (that one particularly makes me cringe), and whatever else they think is cute - I can't remember them all.

        It probably doesn't help when people use the damn name "Billary" either.

        A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

        by Terre on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:53:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  no there was something like 6 posts (6+ / 0-)

      when NYT did a piece about Bill indirectly helping someone getting a mining deal in Khazakhstan. Khazakhstan for fuck's sake!!
      Yet this is in our own backyard. Our senators are not holding the nuclear industry responsible for their acts. The bill in its present form makes these industries immune form all inspections and largely unaccountable to anyone and yet there is no outrage...none! So if Chernobyl happens here its like oops sorry my bad!!

    •  He's not perfect (4+ / 0-)

      I seem to recall him mentioning that recently. Nor is HRC. If you want to wait for a perfect candidate, you will never vote. There is a saying that seems to fit:

      Don't look for a calf under the bull.

      Whoever the nominee, there is going to be plenty of negative info with which we will have to deal. But we all have to be intellectually honest about it. This diary, imo, fails to do that. Only a few days ago, the NYT had an article on Bill Clinton's dealings that raised many questions about ethical lapses, failure to disclose, etc. I was surprised that the repubs didn't jump on it. Their silence was astounding. But I think it is because they are just waiting to use it when it will be effective. I am sure you will see the same with this.

      Not a Cent to those who won't fight torture.

      by not a cent on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:30:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Terre

      being informed is the best weapon.

      Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

      by ohcanada on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:33:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Check out my diary today (0+ / 0-)

      I think you'll appreciate it.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      McCain just flushed his own campaign by his appearance at the FBF on Aug 16th, 2008.

      by shpilk on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:35:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  here's what'll be interesting. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, Marcus Tullius

    We've all been wondering if the press will turn on Obama at some point.  If they use this article tomorrow, then that might be a sign of it.  Depending on the cast they give it and so on.

    •  They are in the tank for him (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      PamelaD

      just look at all the stories about Hillary and Bill and what they do or say that they spin as negative but act as if Barack and Michelle are saints.

      When it comes to speaking about the economy Hillary has been doing so all year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCRWiIp46Wc

      by EricRSINY on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary's campaign has tried pretty hard to make (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Ericwmr

      them turn on Obama for Rezko, not using nukes on Pakistan or promising to use diplomacy, listening to Planned Parenthood and voting present on some Illinois Senate bills, etc, yet he keeps gaining more support.

      Can they slime him more?

      The diaries on this board and the race-baiting comments from the Clinton campaign prove they can. But can they get away with it?

      From the reaction of the public- they won't get away with it.

      "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

      by blueintheface on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Bill Clinton's $131 million influence peddling (5+ / 0-)

    story didn't get traction. I don't think this will.

  •  Obama had the guts... (10+ / 0-)

    ...to take on a big contributor.  He introduced a bill that went head-to-head against the Nuclear Power company that had funded his campaign.

    But he was just a junior Senator, so the Rethugs watered down the bill and eventually killed it.

    But Jeezus Christ!  How many Senators would introduce legislation that went directly against their biggest contributors and big employers in their state? I know one: Barack Obama.

    The legislation failed.  Junior Senators facing a Republican veto often fail.  But Obama showed real guts here...and no matter how Hillary's Hometown Paper tries to spin it, showed the kind of courage Democrats need, the kind we wish the other 49 Dem Senators had.  

    This Tuesday, voters will have the chance to add power to courage.

    Obama had the integrity to fight for this bill, even though it went against the interests of a big contribuitor.  This alone is a reason to support Obama. How many Senators would take on their biggest donor head-to-head?

    The more I learn about Obama, the more I want to see him in the White House.

    I encourage everyone to read the actual Times story and judge for themselves.

    •  Your comments on this (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Little

      are a nice counterpoint to this diary -- if you have time, you might want to add some research and diary your different take on the story.

      "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

      by MarkC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:33:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Already dairied .. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    blueintheface, PamelaD

    and while the subject you bring up is valid, your tone, um shall we say, as my kids would say .. blows goats ..

    It's not news. This story has been around for a while; what's troubling is that most Obama supporters  here seem to either not know about it, or simply don't care.

    That part bothers me, a lot. These issues are important to grasp: Obama, just like Clinton is part of the military/industrial/government complex. They work from inside the system, and are tainted by it.

    All politicians are, some more so than others. The failure to admit that Obama has these hooks into him, that somehow he has risen above these mundane things like corporate power and money is a huge mistake, a gross miscalculation for Kossacks.

    I'm not saying don't support Barack Obama.

    He has good ideas, he's not a bad choice. But enough of this ridiculous 'Saint Barack' and rock star stuff I see splattered all over this place, it makes me ill.

    If you want to get a read on what I think about Obama [and Clinton as well] a little more, read my diary today.

    "Most liberal Senators": For the Global War on Terror

    McCain just flushed his own campaign by his appearance at the FBF on Aug 16th, 2008.

    by shpilk on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:33:33 PM PDT

  •  argument for public financing of candidates (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shpilk, mentaldebris

    I am glad that Obama initiated the legislation and tried to do something about this issue. I can't imagine how hard it must be to get anything good done with unreasonable people like the Sen from Ok  But I don't like that Obama gets so much money from that industry. It doesn't look good. I just don't know how one fights effectively against people who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. He's not the only one who takes $ from industies -- this is not an attack on Obama himself.

    We had many smart, interesting, and accomplished candidates running for the Democratic nomination and it makes me so sad that all but two had to drop out, in large part because they couldn't compete financially. It shouldn't be that way.

  •  Fact Check (6+ / 0-)

    Fact Check on New York Times Story
    February 02, 2008

    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S REVISED BILL DID NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF LEAKS

    NYT: "In Place Of Straightforward Reporting Requirements Was New Language Giving The Nuclear Commission Two Years To Come Up With Its Own Regulations. "In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission 'shall consider'--not require--immediate public notification." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

    National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

    REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS

    Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

    Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]

    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT THE REVISED BILL COULD ALLOW THE NRC TO DECIDE THAT EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ALREADY SUFFICIENT

    NYT Implied That The Revised Bill Left Open Possibility That Revised Bill Allowed NRC To Adopt Task Force Finding That Reporting Requirements Were Already Sufficient. "[The revised bill also directed the NRC to take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks. By then, the task force had already concluded that 'existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: THE REVISED BILL, LIKE ITS ORIGINAL VERSION, MANDATED NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

    RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT EXELON AND NUCLEAR ENERGY WERE SATISFIED WITH TH BILL AND NO LONGER OPPOSED IT

    NYT: Exelon And NEI Were Satisfied With The Revised Bill And No Longer Opposed It. "In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: BOTH EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE DID NOT SUPPORT THE REVISED BILL AND SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY

    CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

    NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

    NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]

    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S STAFF BELIEVED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY EFFORTS WERE SUFFICIENT AND QUOTED A NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVOCATE AS SAYING THEY WERE UNTRUSTWORTHY

    NYT Quoted Nuclear Safety Advocate As Saying That Industry's Voluntary Guidelines Were Not Trustworthy. "Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama's efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that 'it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.' 'But of course because it is all voluntary,' Mr. Lochbaum said, 'who's to say where things will be a few years from now?'" [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT OBAMA SPECIFICALLY CRITICIZED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES AND VOWED TO PRESS AHEAD WITH THE BILL AFTER THOSE GUIDELINES WERE ANNOUNCED.

    Obama Called The Nuclear Industry's Self-Regulation Proposal Inadequate And "Vowed...To Press Ahead With A Bill To Mandate" Notification Of Unplanned Releases. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed Tuesday to press ahead with a bill to mandate reporting of unplanned radioactive releases, such as recent tritium leaks in Will County, saying a self-regulation initiative by the nuclear power industry is inadequate. 'While it's encouraging that the nuclear industry recognizes it has a special responsibility to keep communities informed of tritium leaks, the voluntary guidelines recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute would still allow tritium leaks to occur without the public ever finding out about it,' he said. 'The nuclear industry already has a voluntary policy, and it hasn't worked,' he said. Obama's comments came in a prepared statement after the NEI presented a 'groundwater protection initiative' to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. It aims to improve the handling of inadvertent releases of radioactive material into groundwater at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants...David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project, called the initiative 'a step in the right direction.' He said he was waiting to see more details to refine his impression. But he agreed that Obama's legislation would add teeth to the reporting requirement. 'What's to keep today's good initiative from going by the wayside?' he said. The Nuclear Release Notice Act is backed in the Senate by Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). It would require notification of federal, state and county officials when radioactive releases exceed federal limits or when two occur within a two-year span from the same source, process or equipment. And it would "impose real penalties on plants" that fail to make notification, Obama said." [Chicago Tribune, 3/10/06]

    Obama Said Exelon's Adjusted Notification Policy Was "Not Enough When It Comes To Nuclear Waste." "The releases came from a power generating station run by Exelon Nuclear. Exelon says that no public heath risk exists. But the company has changed its notification policy. The philosophy now, said company spokesman Craig Nesbit, 'is to go beyond legal and regulatory requirements.' But Obama said philosophy is not enough when it comes to nuclear waste. 'Notifying state and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law,' he said." [CQ, 3/3/06]

    RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT OBAMA INTRODUCED THE BILL, AND HILLARY CLINTON SIGNED ON "LATER"

    NYT: Hillary Clinton Signed Onto The Bill "Later." "To flag systematic problems, it would also have required reporting of repeated accidental leaks that fell below those limits. Illinois' senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, a fellow Democrat, was a co-sponsor, and three other senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, later signed on. But Mr. Obama remained its primary champion." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT SHE SIGNED ON AFTER THE REVISIONS WERE MADE

    Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006]

  •  Obama and Durbin sponsored another bill (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarkC, highacidity, badlands, Drdemocrat

    to correct the insufficiencies in the first one.

    New bill sponsored in October 2007.

    Read the improved bill here

  •  This was diaried repeatedly (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Little

    Obama did fine for the most part. Remember, it was a majority evil Republican Congress when the terms of this bill were drafted. The only mistake he made was to reintroduce the nonoriginal one when we took majority.

  •  I'll wait for SusanHu's diary on this (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Little

    I'm sure it'll be fair and balanced.

    The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

    by N in Seattle on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure 100% reporting makes sense (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bryfry, shigeru

    from a public health perspective. There are established safety limits for tritium and other radionuclides in water, etc, and samples are taken frequently from areas near reactor sites. Negligible releases of radionuclides don't cause me to lose sleep at night (how much radioactive potassium does a banana contain?) The current requirements were developed using reasonable risk models.

  •  It's post partisanship (0+ / 0-)

    or cooperation depends on how you look at it.