Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Can Obama really deliver on his promises?

By

There is an interesting story in the New York Times today about a piece of legislation that Obama has referred to in campaign speeches as “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”  Apparently it did not pass, and it took on a form that was entirely different than what his constituents were hoping for.  This is the first story I have read about anything that Obama has done legislatively and it does not bode well.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I have to to run over to the fact check and review another side of this story.

    <

    p>In the mean time, let’s not forget what “Rovian” means.
    Hmmmmmmmmm…..

    <

    p>Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California

    For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.

    Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn’t get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

      • The Times article has content that should be considered, but in the “silliest yet season” and especially on blogs; these things become blown out of proportion.

        <

        p>Having read TOS’s “stuff”, I new objective reality would soon be left in the dust.

        <

        p>So, I let’er rip. I was close to posting this anyways, but the FP pushed my hand.

        <

        p>Gotta “get up and organize”, later….

        <

        p>

        <

        p>Then I’ll launder my Karma.

        <

        p>P.S. Spare me the holier then thou blather, folks. We all have “compromised”….

        • You say:

          P.S. Spare me the holier then thou blather, folks. We all have “compromised”….

          <

          p>But wouldn’t you agree that sometimes compromise is good in order to bring people together to solve a problem?  On the other hand, there is compromising ones position so much that the problem isn’t solved at all.  Which do you prefer?  

      • I just gave a fellow a lecture about taking care with the downrating, but maybe the rules are changing and it’s becoming a sport.

    • I find the focus of your post curious.  You seem more concerned about Edwards supporters not liking Hillary than answering the question raised about Obama by the NYT.  Must be the new strategy.  Here is the problem with your post: let’s suppose the poll was a push poll in the traditional sense of the word, didn’t Obama have just as much, if not more, to gain from convincing Edwards supporters or leaners that Edwards was unelectable in general election?  He also has more to gain by convincing Edwards supporters that those terrible Clintons were at it again and now they are attacking your guy.  

      <

      p>I think it is curious that the blog post is dated Feb. 3rd and states that the former news director got the call the other night.  Edwards dropped out January 30th  Doesn’t it seem odd to do such a call after Edwards has dropped out of the race?  I also would be curious about who received the so-called push poll phone calls.  Was it a lot of media people?  

      <

      p>Here is a possible scenerio for you.  The Obama campaign needs Edwards supporters to turn to Obama once Edwards drops out.  What to do?  They decide to do a bunch of calls that appear to be push polls to media types in the hopes that one of the receivers of the calls will run with it and claim that he or she got a push poll call that was pro-Clinton and very bad about Edwards.  Then of course, not only does the Obama campaign get the Edwards people to come over to their candidate, they get another chance to say how bad Hillary Clinton is. Et Voila!  It worked.  And they are still spinning it here on BMG.

      <

      p>Of course Barack Obama campaign would never stoop so low, but you really have to wonder….  

  2. It’s “all voluntary” by the industry.  Hmmmm, what other big business that he thinks should be handled on a voluntary basis?  (hint: starts with health and ends with care)

    • i will never forget the American solution to a dead Lake Erie.  The death was caused by phosphates in detergents, which overly-fertilized the lake and ultimately resulted in dissolved oxygen concentrations so low that not only fish suffocated, many aquatic insects vital to the ecosystem did too.

      <

      p>Lake Erie is bordered by Canada on the north shore, and US on the south.  Canada promptly began regulating the detergent industry.  Their P discharges into the lake decresed substantially.  But the US?  Oh, no.  We don’t want to burden poor industry!  Our industries were put on the honor system.  Can you guess the outcome?  Fetid water on the American side.

      <

      p>There is a reason Bush has gutted the EPA.  There is a reason certain politicians wish to use the “honor” system.  The answer to both is industrialist enrichment at the cost of public and environmental heath.

      <

      p>If Obama is banking on honor systems in industry, he is decidedly not putting any priority on health and environment.

      • I’ve fished that “dead” lake erie as recently as 2007 for Steelhead Trout. Neither the Lake, nor the trout were dead.  It’s actually extremely clear, principally, I understand, from the Zebra Mussel that have invaded the lake, I’m sure you’ll say because of something or other that President Bush did.

        <

        p>

        Lake Erie infamously became very polluted in the 1960s and 1970s. Urban legend has described it as a dead lake, but both sport and commercial fishing have continued without interruption to the present day. Pollution in the lake did not get much attention until the great Cuyahoga River Fire in June of 1969. Pollution from Cleveland and other Ohio cities had so contaminated this tributary of Lake Erie with petrochemicals that it actually caught on fire. The fire embarrassed state officials and prompted the U.S. Congress to pass the Clean Water Act of 1972.

        Wiki

        <

        p>

        • of course it’s cleaner now.  as you even point out, due principally to the CWA and ensuing regs.  but prior to that, when we were on the industrial “honor” system, it was a sewer.

          <

          p>if you want to read a real source on how well the american industrial “honor” system worked (or didn’t), start with Wm McGucken’s “Lake Erie Rehabilitated”.  or, stick to wiki.  your choice. đŸ˜‰

          • Don’t skirt your post. You said:

            <

            p>

            i will never forget the American solution to a dead Lake Erie.

            <

            p>I said, it’s an urban myth that Erie was or is dead. Laugh away. Ignorance, bliss. All that.

            • that lake erie was dead?  and mind you, i never said it IS dead, i said it WAS dead.  but if you can’t respect documented facts, then there’s no point going further with discussion.

              • The lake was probably killed by Yeti, or maybe by Loch Ness Monster–damn alien monsters coming to the US to take the good jobs!  I can’t believe I’ve successfully fished a dead lake for nearly 35 years!

  3. Need to spend time contacting fellow vets. So, it is cut and paste for the Mass consumption.

    <

    p>

    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 ne
    ver 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]

    • Great ideas—if we lived in a utopia. In reality, ideas and proposals that will not get by any legislature, and unfundable. So the bottom line is that we have a governor and a potential president who sit in the corner office and in the Oval Office and think great thoughts—and that’s is far as it goes or will ever go. Lovely.

  5. Claiming passage of a NM domestic partnership bill before the fact.  At an HRC function, no less!  What a huge embarrassment when it failed.  

    <

    p>But I do give Richardson huge credit for re-initiating the bill this session.  He is serious about wanting to pass meaningful legislation asap.  Has Obama gotten back into the Senate to clean up his own embarrassing mess?

  6. As a comparison, I suppose.

    <

    p>OK, that was a bit of a cheap shot, but it’s SUPER BOWL SUNDAY For God’s sakes. There are more important things on the table right now than the Presidential race. đŸ˜‰  

  7. I also read the story  (most of which was also published in today’s Globe) and was going to write a diary explaining why I can’t vote for Obama after being very much on the fence.

    <

    p>I’m not a single-issue voter but admit I have been involved in energy and environmental issues both professionally and as an activist for most of my adult life.

    <

    p>Still, was prepared to overlook the Senator’s close ties to the nuclear industry–Exelon, formerly Commonwealth Edison, is after all a force to be reckoned with in Illinois, and it’s not as though Clinton has been hostile to nuclear power. So let me try to explain what it is about this story that crystallized things for me.

    <

    p>The Times reports that Obama caved in a big way on a response to a “low-level” leak of radiation at an Exelon nuke near Chicago. Low-level leaks are pretty routine, unfortunately, but not all radioactive emissions are not equal. If you read the whole story you learn

    <

    p>

    The episode that prompted Mr. Obama’s legislation began on Dec. 1, 2005, when Exelon issued a news release saying it had discovered tritium, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear power, in monitoring wells at its Braidwood plant, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. A few days later, tritium was detected in a drinking water well at a home near the plant, although the levels did not exceed federal safety standards.

    <

    p>Tritium is nasty stuff. It is a beta emitter and readily assimilated by living organism. It spreads quickly and easily–it can even propagate upstream.

    <

    p>One legacy of the Bush presidency has been to turn a blind eye to tritium releases from nuclear power plants.

    <

    p>I can’t overlook this–Obama picked the wrong nuclear issue on which to accommodate the industry. He should have lost, and stuck with the issue, and been a voice for reform, rather than caving. (And if he had, I’d have been with him from the start.)

    <

    p>One other thing. At this point any candidate who suggests that new nuclear power plants are part of a solution to global warming is not being serious about the issue. Even if new nukes were a good idea, we don’t have time to build them. We need to make a dent in greenhouse emissions in the next ten years, and even the uber-subsidized wettest dreams of the industry would only provide for 30 GW of capacity in the next 20 years or so.

    <

    p>That’s too little too late, and anyone who even gives lip service to it as a “solution” is furthering the 2050 meme, that we don’t have a problem until then.

    <

    p>I know that Obama and Clinton are pretty much on the same page on environment and energy, and I could see how President Obama could transcend this beginning and be much better than this episode suggests on tighter nuclear regulation, cutting subsidies for the industry, and global warming. I will hope for that if he is the nominee.

    <

    p>The problem is there’s no way to know. Clinton is probably as friendly with the industry, but Obama has taken so much of their money and in this tritium matter made at best a serious error in judgment.

    <

    p>Based on other comments up thread I guess some of the Obamitarians do not think this is a “real” issue, and that anyone who pushes it is just shilling for Clinton in a cynical way. Well, my vote was in play until yesterday.

    • France, China, Japan all seem to be using nuclear without catastrophic problems.

      <

      p>Why didn’t USA jump on the band wagon? Please don’t tell me that no one “knew” thirty years ago that fossil fuels would trash the atmosphere. Travel down the Mississippi today and count the coal fired generating plants.

      <

      p>Why didn’t we enhance design concepts and build smaller and more efficient nuclear generation plants?

      <

      p>Why weren’t progressive out beating the drum for solar heating and energy production twenty years ago?

      <

      p>What was more important?

      • The lefty aversion to nukes has proven, I think, to have been counterproductive.  If the effort that has been devoted to preventing nukes from being built was instead devoted to improving the technology to make them safer, we might be considerably closer to “energy independence” than we are.  Ah well.

        • I regret to report that the lefty aversion to nukes was a heck of a lot less significant that the aversion of the financial markets. The fiscal meltdown of the 80s is what pulled the plug on the industry.

          <

          p>Not that I and others didn’t cheer, but the point–unless you buy the Reaganoid “government regulation killed the nukes” meme–is that there is a direct connection between the costs and risks of the technology and its price tag and profitability.

          <

          p>The problem with “safer” nukes, from that perspective, is that safety is expensive. Today, in fact, regulatory laxity is a significant operating subsidy of the existing (aging) nuclear fleet. Which is really not a Good Thing.

          <

          p>I also suggest that “energy independence” is probably not worth the candle and will tend to frustrate the important goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.

          <

          p>Finally, Al Gore and John Edwards both understand that nukes will not be helpful in meeting the current crisis. They are right.

      • 30 years ago was the peak of the nuclear boom. The market was so glutted with subsidized electricity that energy efficiency and renewables were utterly stymied. We only started to do the right stuff when the glut began to try up in the mid-90s.

        <

        p>No wonder that the progressives who were out “beating the drum for solar heating and energy production 20 years ago” were also against nukes–and no wonder we still are today.

        <

        p>This is the short version, inadequate but better (I hope) than no response at all.

Archives