Friends of the Earth

The worldwide organization that's called Friends of the Earth is one of the most effective environmental groups in existence today. However, although FOE publishes its own journal—the monthly tabloid titled NotMan Apart— far too few MOTHERreaders regularly get a chance to see that publication . . . and that's why we've arranged to bring you this bimonthly column, which is prepared by the staff of FOE/NMA.

The Reagan administration is continuing to work overtime to revive the ailing nuclear industry. For several months after the attempt on the President's life back in April, the administration seemed able to get whatever programs and concessions it wanted from Congress. But by the time Mr. Reagan returned from his four-week August vacation, the tide showed signs of turning. Polls indicated that the Chief Officer's popularity was slipping, and some members of Congress gradually began to get the nerve to challenge a few of the President's environmental and energy projects.

THE NUCLEAR SUBSIDY

President Reagan firmly supports an expanded nuclear program, so it was no surprise that his nuclear power policy (issued in early October) was concerned mainly with the alleged "morass of regulations" that has slowed the licensing of nuclear power plants. It now takes from 10 to 14 years to get a reactor from planning stage to full-power licensing ... the President proposes to shorten that to from six to eight years, "as is typical in some countries". (The lead time for nuclear reactors in France and Japan is now about 12 to 14 years. The only country which might now be able to equal the President's goal is the Soviet Union, where—until the accident at Three Mile Island made the potential for destruction evident—reactors were built without containment domes.)

To help prop up the financially ailing industry, the administration has agreed to pay "in excess of $100,000,000" toward the costs of cleaning up Three Mile Island, which are expected to exceed $1,000,000,000. An electric utility fund will bear some of the cost, as will the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The owner of the plant, General Public Utilities, will shell out $245,000,000, and insurance will pick up the rest of the tab. Of course, one way or the other, it's the consumers and taxpayers who will actually have to raise the money.

Meanwhile, despite President Reagan's efforts to push aside the economic and regulatory barriers to nuclear development, serious technical problems with pressurized water reactors (two-thirds of the reactors in the U.S. are of this type) are making the news. It seems that radiation and water chemistry have combined to cause corrosion problems at some plants. At best, the difficulties are leading to costly (in some instances, well over $100,000,000) repairs . . . at worst, coolant draining from a reactor through corroded pipes could produce a serious accident.

Reports released in October also show that reactor vessels become brittle after prolonged exposure to radiation. During unforeseen emergency situations, which would require rapid cooling of the reactor, the possibility of an older vessel's rupturing is much greater than was formerly thought. One official from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that such an accident would create a "50/50 chance of an uncontrolled nuclear meltdown".

THE "NEW" EPA

The new administration also promises to handle chemical regulation a bit differently than has been the case in recent years. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, if strong evidence indicates that a chemical may cause cancer in humans and that significant numbers of people are exposed to it, the EPA must limit public exposure to the compound. Accordingly, EPA staff recommended, last spring, that formaldehyde (a widely used agent in manufacturing and consumer products) and DEHP (a plasticizer used in toys and infants' waterproof pants) be regulated. However, after months of delay and private hearings between EPA officials and industry representatives, the agency appeared to be moving away from regulation of these chemicals.

Lester Brown infiltrated the last of those meetings, and he reported on the proceedings to his boss, Representative Toby Moffett, a Democrat from Connecticut. Moffett blasted the EPA for excluding all but industry officials from the decisionmaking process and held hearings to look further into the situation. The episode generated a fair amount of publicity and proved to be rather embarrassing to the administration.

During mid-October EPA Director Anne Gorsuch appeared at congressional hearings and skillfully dodged questions about the agency's 1983 budget . . . claiming that discussion was premature. Yet EPA memoranda indicate that the agency may lose as much as 60% of its purchasing power by 1983. Worse yet, such massive cuts would come at a time when the agency's workload is expected to double because of recently enacted legislation concerning toxic chemicals.

In fact, concern over those budget cuts has led both the Senate and the House to hold hearings examining Ms. Gorsuch's plans for the EPA, and Representative James Florio of New Jersey has called for Ms. Gorsuch to resign. [EDITOR'S NOTE: As this story goes to press, the unofficial results of the New Jersey gubernatorial race between Mr. Florio and Thomas Kean indicate that Kean has won the office. According to the New Jersey Public Relations Gubernatorial Office, out of 2.3 million votes cast, there is only a 1,600-vote difference between the two candidates. Barring any court action, the recount of the votes should be finished, and an official announcement made of the winner, by December 1, 1981.] It's likely that members of Congress will be keeping a close watch over any future EPA action, but the effectiveness of their scrutiny will depend largely on whether the legislators feel that their constituents want a strong Environmental Protection Agency.

WATT IN THE WORLD

On October 19 the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society dumped petitions bearing 1,100,000 signatures on the Capitol steps . . . calling for the removal of Interior Secretary James Watt. At an on-the-spot press conference, leaders of the various groups stressed that they would make sure the environmental policies of the Reagan administration would be major issues in the 1982 elections.

This threat could prove to be more than mere saber rattling, since several polls have shown that the public does support strong environmental protection . . . even at the expense of economic growth. A recent Harris poll, for example, found that 72% of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan, and 76% of the people who consider themselves political conservatives, oppose any relaxation of the Clean Air Act (now up for renewal in Congress).

Despite the broad opposition to many specific environmental policies maintained by the present administration, however, a large percentage of the population, still believe that President Reagan will make sound environmental decisions. Consequently, the task at hand is still a large one. We must show the public that the scandalously bad policies of Anne Gorsuch, James Watt, and others in the current administration can—until we see evidence that proves otherwise—only be interpreted as those of Ronald Reagan himself.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Letters to legislators can be a tremendous help. Consequently, Friends of the Earth maintains fists of people who want up-to-date information on specific issues . . . and who will, when needed, write letters concerning pesticides, nuclear power, the Clean Air Act, coastal development, and mining policy. If you would like your name put on such a list or if you have any questions about this column, write to FOE, Dept TMEN, 124 Spear Street, San Francisco, California 94105. To become a member of FOE—and receive the excellent publication Not Man Apart—remit $25 ($12 for students and retired people), or $15 for a subscription only, to FOE at the same address.